Handbook of Multicultural School Psychology: An Interdisciplinary Perspective [2 ed.] 9780415844055, 9780415844062, 9780203754948

Citation preview

Handbook of Multicultural School Psychology

“Ideal for pre-service and in-service training on multicultural school psychology, this comprehensive and interdisciplinary book exposes readers to theory and research from various approaches. The new section on systemic issues, such as RTI for CLD and ELL students, is especially timely.” Chieh Li, Associate Professor and Director of Clinical Training, School Psychology Program, Department of Applied Psychology, Northeastern University, USA The second edition of the Handbook of Multicultural School Psychology continues the mission of its predecessor, offering a comprehensive, interdisciplinary view of the field of multicultural school psychology and addressing the needs of children and families from diverse cultural backgrounds. The revised organizational structure includes the following: History and Professional Issues; Consultation and Collaboration; Interventions Focused on Academic and Mental Health Issues; Databased Decision Making; Systems-based Issues; Training and Research; and Future Perspectives. Nineteen of the volume’s twenty-three chapters are completely new to this edition, while the rest have been effectively revised and updated. Comprehensive—In seven sections, this book covers theoretical, research, and practical concerns in a wide range of areas that include multicultural and bilingual issues, second language acquisition, acculturation, parent collaboration, research, and systemic issues. Chapter Structure—Chapter authors follow a uniform structure that includes theoretical and research issues and implications for practice. Recent practice and training guidelines including Blueprint for Training and Practice III (2006), NASP Model for Comprehensive and Integrated School Psychological Services (2010), and APA Multicultural Guidelines (2003) are covered.

Interdisciplinary Perspective—Contributing authors come from a wide range of related fields that include school psychology, special education, general education, early childhood education, educational psychology, clinical psychology, counseling, and mental health, thus exposing readers to theory and research from various approaches. Changes—New to this edition is a section focusing on systemic issues such as overrepresentation of culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students in special education, prejudice, response to intervention (RtI) for CLD students and English Language Learners (ELL), and end-of-chapter discussion questions. This book is ideal for graduate courses and seminars on multicultural school psychology. It is also a useful reference for researchers and practicing school psychologists and the libraries that serve them. Emilia C. Lopez is Professor in the School Psychology Program at Queens College, City University of New York, USA. Sara G. Nahari was Adjunct Faculty in the School Psychology Program at Queens College, City University of New York, USA. Sherrie L. Proctor is Associate Professor in the School Psychology Program at Queens College, City University of New York, USA.

Consultation, Supervision, and Professional Learning in School Psychology Series Editor: Daniel S. Newman Supervision in School Psychology:The Developmental, Ecological, Problem-solving Model By Dennis J. Simon and Mark E. Swerdlik

Consultation and Intervention in School Psychology Series Editor: Sylvia Rosenfield Handbook of Multicultural School Psychology: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, Second Edition Edited by Emilia C. Lopez, Sara G. Nahari, and Sherrie L. Proctor The International Handbook of Consultation in Educational Settings Edited by Chryse Hatzichristou and Sylvia Rosenfield Consultation Across Cultural Contexts: Consultee-Centered Case Studies Edited by Antoinette Halsell Miranda Handbook of Research in School Consultation, Second Edition Edited by William P. Erchul and Susan M. Sheridan An Introduction to Consultee-Centered Consultation in the Schools By Jonathan H. Sandoval Crisis Counseling, Intervention and Prevention in the Schools,Third Edition Edited by Jonathan H. Sandoval Becoming a School Consultant: Lessons Learned Edited by Sylvia Rosenfield Consultee-Centered Consultation: Improving the Quality of Professional Services in Schools and Community Organizations Edited by Nadine M. Lambert, Ingrid Hylander, and Jonathan H. Sandoval

Handbook of Multicultural School Psychology An Interdisciplinary Perspective Second Edition Edited by Emilia C. Lopez, Sara G. Nahari, and Sherrie L. Proctor

Second edition published 2017 by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 and by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2017 Taylor & Francis The right of Emilia C. Lopez, Sara G. Nahari, and Sherrie L. Proctor to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. First edition published by Routledge 2007 Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data A catalog record for this book has been requested ISBN : 978-0-415-84405-5 (hbk) ISBN : 978-0-415-84406-2 (pbk) ISBN : 978-0-203-75494-8 (ebk) Typeset in Bembo by Keystroke, Neville Lodge, Tettenhall, Wolverhampton

To Daniela and Alec, mis hijos, with a heart full of love and pride as I watch you grow. To my familia near and far, especially my Mamá Haydee and tía Angela, for their love and grit. And, to Giselle B. Esquivel for sharing her vision of bilingual school psychology and for her mentorship, collegiality, friendship, and generous heart. Emilia C. Lopez To all my friends and mentors who supported my quest to make available appropriate educational and psychological services for culturally and linguistically diverse students throughout the years. In particular, to my mentor, friend, and the soul of this project, Dr. Giselle B. Esquivel, who spearheaded the first edition of the Handbook. I would also like to thank my co-editors Drs. Lopez and Proctor for all they have done to see this edition completed. Last but not least, to my beloved husband, children, and grandchildren. Sara G. Nahari To my love, Robert, and my children, Bria and Brendan, and all of the other Black and Brown children in America because your lives matter. Sherrie L. Proctor

Contents

Foreword by Jonathan Sandoval Preface to the Second Edition Acknowledgments About the Editors List of Contributors

xiii xvii xix xxi xxiii

PART I History and Professional Issues

1

  1 The Evolution of Multiculturalism: An Interdisciplinary Perspective Markeda L. Newell and Shannon Chavez-Korell

3

  2 Professional and Ethical Issues from a Multicultural Perspective Emily C. Graybill and Kris Varjas

18

PART II  Consultation and Collaboration

33

  3 Supporting Teachers of English Learners via Instructional Consultation Emilia C. Lopez and Patricia Velasco

35

  4 Consulting with Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Parents Sara G. Nahari, Danielle G. Martines, and Peishi Wang

56

  5 Multicultural Process and Communication Issues in ConsulteeCentered Consultation Colette L. Ingraham

77

x   Contents

PART III Interventions Focused on Academic and Mental Health Issues   6 Building Reading Skills for English Learners within a Response to Intervention Framework Doris Luft Baker, Catherine Richards-Tutor, Russell Gersten, Scott K. Baker, and Jean Louise M. Smith

95 97

  7 Educating Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Children and Youth with Low Incidence Disabilities Craig A. Michaels, Sara G. Nahari, and Carolyn Hughes

118

  8 Culturally Responsive Mathematics Interventions for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students Sun A. Kim

135

  9 Counseling Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Questioning (LGBTQQ) Youth of Color Anneliese A. Singh

157

10 Cultural Adaptation of a School-based Depression Prevention Program for Adolescents in Puerto Rico Emily Sáez-Santiago, Natalia Rodríguez-Hernández, Angélica Núñez-Méndez, and Guillermo Bernal

PART IV  Data-based Decision Making 11 Assessment of English Language Learners Graciela Elizalde-Utnick and Patricio A. Romero 12 Social, Emotional, and Behavioral Assessment with Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Populations Tara C. Raines and Howard Crumpton

PART V  Systems-based Issues 13 Systemic Approaches to Reduce Prejudice in Schools Sheri R. Levy, Jiyun Elizabeth Shin, Ashley Lytle, and Lisa Rosenthal 14 Systemic Issues in the Implementation of Response to Interventions in Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Schools Janette K. Klingner, Lucinda Soltero-González, John J. Hoover, Amy Eppolito, Clara E. Smith, Edilberto Cano-Rodríguez, and Kathryn Harue Okuma White

172

191 193

218

235 237

258

Contents   xi

15 Addressing Disproportionately High Rates of Disciplinary Removal for Students of Color: The Need for Systemic Interventions M. Karega Rausch and Russell J. Skiba

276

16 Cultural Reciprocity in Home–School Consultation and Collaboration within International Contexts Maya Kalyanpur

291

17 Systemic Approaches to Addressing Disproportionality of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students in Special Education Amanda L. Sullivan, Alfredo J. Artiles, and David Hernandez-Saca

306

PART VI  Training and Research 18 Preparing School Professionals to Deliver Services Using a Social Justice Framework David Shriberg, Elizabeth M.Vera, and Casey McPherson

323 325

19 Qualitative Research with Multicultural Populations in Educational Settings341 Sherrie L. Proctor 20 Conducting Multicultural School Psychology Research Using Quantitative Methods Amado M. Padilla

363

21 Critical Issues in Training School Psychologists to Work with Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students Margaret R. Rogers and Elisabeth C. O’Bryon

379

PART VII  Future Perspectives

397

22 Culturally Responsive Collective Impact Teams: An Interdisciplinary Vision for the Future Janine M. Jones

399

23 Looking Back and Ahead: Envisioning Research, Training, and Practice in School Psychology Alberto M. Bursztyn and Carol Korn-Bursztyn

420

Subject Index433 Author Index448

Foreword

Jonathan Sandoval Professor Emeritus, University of California, Davis

It is fitting to have before us a new edition of this vital Handbook. Less than ten years have passed since the publication of the first edition, but in that time many changes have occurred in society and in the practice of school psychology. Multiculturalism is indeed a challenging topic. Culture and ethnicity have a complex relationship. A person’s identity more than ethnicity determines cultural values and practices. Complicating matters, individuals typically identify with more than one cultural group. For example, a male African American who is gay and deaf will be influenced by a variety of cultural norms and may not match simple stereotypes based on a single demographic group. Identity and time also have an impact on the degree of acculturation to a new culture. Society is continually evolving, and currently part of that evolution can be ascribed to social media and technology. The rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals are increasingly being acknowledged and protected. Advances in the accommodation of individuals with disabilities are often based on new technologies. The effects of income inequality and poverty are now part of the national concern. Gender issues can no longer be ignored. Media are exposing the existence of violence, whether in the schools by peers, or in the community by police or armed domestic terrorists. Ethnic diversity is increasing across the country with an expanding LatinoAmerican and Asian-American populations. All these trends have implications for multicultural service provision. School psychology is also evolving as a science and a profession. The function of a Handbook such as this is to summarize the research in areas that define the specialty, and to point out the needs for further research and new parameters for best practice. This edition is organized into seven parts: History and Professional Issues; Consultation and Collaboration; Interventions Focused on Academic

xiv   Foreword

and Mental Health Issues; Data-based Decision Making; Systems-based Issues; Training and Research; and Future Perspectives. Content in each section reflects recent trends in school psychology. In each part, the authors have addressed important trends in school psychology With respect to Part I,‘History and Professional Issues,’ in my fifty years in school psychology and recently as an accreditation site visitor for the American Psychological Association (APA), I have been privileged to witness the evolution of the specialty. It is clear there has been an ever-increasing awareness of the importance of multicultural competence. This growing imperative is reflected in numerous ethical and policy statements of professional organizations such as the National Association of School Psychologists and APA. As discussed in Part II, I have seen the different models of consultation and collaboration service delivery embrace the importance of ecological considerations, including the many cultures present in a community. Problem-solving, consulteecentered and organizational consultation all emphasize the importance of cultural context in school and at home for considering solutions to complex problems. Not only are multiple cultural issues relevant to working with clients but they are also factors to consider when understanding consultees and the systems in which consultation takes place. With regard to Part III, ‘Interventions Focused on Academic and Mental Health Issues,’ evidence-based intervention has become the standard. Researchers have developed targeted interventions to address linguistic and motivational issues related to culture. In general, developers of interventions have moved to a consideration of hierarchies of skills needed for academic and social-emotional development, noting particularly the academic linguistic needs of English learners In the past, much of the focus of Part IV on data-based decision making was on formal assessment. This focus continues but with much improved assessment methods and theories, particularly in regard to English learners. For example many more formal assessment devices exist for Spanish-speaking individuals (Schlueter, Carlson, Geisinger, & Murphy, 2013). More and more appropriate psychological measures, both standardized and criterion referenced, have been developed to assess children taking culture into account. The emphasis on prevention has increasingly dominated the specialty resulting in an enhanced awareness of systems-based issues, which are discussed in Part V, particularly the need for intervention with key adults and policy makers. School psychology has embraced the notion that helping children involves working with the adults who have a significant impact on their lives: teachers, parents, school administrators, and policy makers. Each of these individuals is influenced by their culturally based understandings and expectations and working with them effectively as consultants or system change agents requires a host of multicultural competencies.

Foreword   xv

Having visited many school psychology programs, it is clear to me that accreditation agencies are increasingly concerned about training and research outcomes, the topic of Part VI, leading to multicultural competence. Preparing school psychologists to deliver culturally competent assessment, counseling, consulting and research should be a high priority for universities. Increasingly I see training programs infusing information, such as that contained in this Handbook, as part of every course they teach, but there is much more work to be done. Researchers also need multicultural competence. They increasingly use mixed methods in their studies and are concerned about the need for transportability studies and program evaluation. The goal of evidence-based practice is often hampered by the fact that research findings have not been replicated for diverse populations and that protocols developed for one group will likely have to be adapted to local conditions and cultural values. Future perspectives, discussed in Part VII, will surely help school psychology evolve to be more responsive to cultural differences. I look forward to being a member of a profession that promotes the intellectual, social and emotional development of all of our children in culturally appropriate ways. Each section of this Handbook contains up-to-date information that will inform the further evolution of a school psychology. I commend all of the authors in this Handbook for their work in advancing multiculturalism in school psychology.

Reference Schlueter, J. E., Carlson, J. F., Geisinger, K. F., & Murphy, L. M. (Eds.). (2013) Pruebas Publicadas en Español, An Index of Spanish Tests in Print. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Preface to the Second Edition

The second edition of the Handbook of Multicultural School Psychology: An Interdisciplinary Perspective represents the editors’ continued commitment to addressing the needs of children and families from diverse cultural backgrounds. The authors who have contributed to this handbook are scholars who are experts in their respective fields. They have committed their careers to understanding and addressing issues unique to children and adolescents from diverse backgrounds and we benefit from sharing their expertise. Since the first edition of this handbook, the field of multicultural school psychology has made steady and important strides, and this handbook adds an additional marker and advances our knowledge base. Given the rich and complex nature of multiculturalism, it is fitting that this handbook adopts an interdisciplinary perspective that centers theory and practice from within psychology and other related fields. The interdisciplinary perspective directs us to acknowledge what is needed to develop a deeper and more nuanced understanding of the needs of multicultural children and families; an understanding that acknowledges not only challenges, but also the resilience and beauty of multicultural populations.We hope this handbook offers educators—school psychologists, school counselors, school social workers, teachers, administrators, and other school support staff—increased understanding and strategies for effectively working with diverse children and families in our schools. It is also our hope that the knowledge imparted in these chapters contributes to the practice of multicultural school psychology in ways that benefit culturally and linguistically diverse students and their families.

Organization of Chapters Using an interdisciplinary perspective, the twenty-three chapters of this handbook address critical issues that impact children and families from multicultural

xviii   Preface to the Second Edition

backgrounds. The chapters are organized to reflect current practice and training guidelines in the field of school psychology as denoted in the National Association of School Psychologists’ (NASP) Blueprint for Training and Practice III (2006), NASP Model for Comprehensive and Integrated School Psychological Services (2010), and the American Psychological Association Multicultural Guidelines (2003). The chapters also reflect a scientist-practitioner stance, providing theory and research, which lead to recommendations for training, practice, and future research. The book is divided into seven parts reflecting key culturally responsive issues and roles for school psychologists. Part I, “History and Professional Issues,” provides a review of the evolution of multicultural school psychology and ethical issues relevant to work with multicultural populations in schools. Part II, “Consultation and Collaboration,” examines multicultural issues in instructional consultation, consultee-centered consultation, and consulting and collaborating with culturally and linguistically diverse parents. Part III offers teachers, school counselors, school social workers, and school psychologists instructional and mental health interventions appropriate for multicultural student populations. The chapters in Part III address reading and math interventions for culturally and linguistically diverse students; educating children of diverse backgrounds with low incidence disabilities; counseling techniques for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning youth of color; and adapting a school-wide depression prevention program in Puerto Rico. Part IV, “Data-based Decision Making,” provides guidance with the assessment of English language learners and conducting social, emotional, and behavioral assessments with culturally and linguistically diverse populations. Part V covers systems-based issues. This section includes chapters that address salient systemic issues that often negatively impact children from multicultural backgrounds such as prejudice in schools, disproportionate disciplinary sanctions, and disproportionality in special education. Additional chapters cover systemic issues related to response to intervention implementation in culturally and linguistically diverse schools and how to facilitate cultural reciprocity in home-school relationships within international contexts. Part VI, “Training and Research,” highlights social justice training, as well as critical issues the field should consider regarding training future school psychologists to work with culturally and linguistically diverse school-aged populations. Chapters 19 and 20 on research focus on using a multicultural framework to conduct quantitative and qualitative research with multicultural populations, particularly in school settings. In the final Part VII, “Future Perspectives,” Chapter 22 offers a visionary model for providing interdisciplinary, culturally responsive multi-tiered service delivery to diverse student populations. The last chapter of the handbook takes us on a journey into school psychology’s past related to multiculturalism and then propels us to envision a future in which school psychology truly embraces multiculturalism in its research, training, and practice.

Acknowledgments

We take the time to thank and acknowledge all those who offered their support via content, time, and encouragement throughout all stages of this Handbook. We are thankful for Dr. Jonathan Sandoval’s Foreword in this second edition. We appreciate Dr. Leonard Baca for his support and encouragement. Our authors shared their knowledge and expertise in their respective fields and we acknowledge their valuable contributions to this collective vision of multicultural school psychology. Dr. Sarah Birch was a much needed support in the early stages of this Handbook and her organizational skills were a wonderful gift. Our student assistants, Elena Loscacio and Adriana Canepa, spent many hours helping us with big and small tasks; they deserve special thanks for their contributions to this edition. Drs. Marian Fish and Craig Michaels, our colleagues, have cheered us on and offered their sustained support. We thank our colleagues from many disciplines in branches of psychology and education that have come before us and paved the way for multicultural research, teaching, and practice. We thank our past, present, and future graduate students for sharing their perspectives about multicultural practice and enhancing our vision because we also learn from them. A special note of gratitude to Dr. Giselle B. Esquivel. It was Giselle’s leadership and vision that led to the first edition of this Handbook. She is a visionary in school psychology, helping to create one of the first bilingual school psychology programs in our nation. We thank our family and friends for their invaluable love and patience as we labored through this task. Our thanks and appreciation to the following scholars who reviewed our chapters: Leonard Baca, Lindy Crawford, Toneka Duren Green, Kathy Escamilla, Giselle B. Esquivel, Sharnaz Garcia, Enedina Garcia Vazquez, Danica G. Hays, DeMarquis Hayes, Chieh Li, Paul McCabe, Amity Noltemeyer, Elisabeth C. O’Bryon, Edward M. Olivos, Melissa M. Pearrow, Linda M. Raffaele Mendez, Shri Rao, Jonathan H. Sandoval, Lisa A. Suzuki, Stephen D. Truscott, Jesse M. Vazquez, Peter Weston, and Stacy A. S. Williams.

About the Editors

Emilia C. Lopez was born in Cuba and immigrated to the United States at the age of 12. Her own experiences in school as an English language learner motivated her to seek out a career working with culturally and linguistically diverse students and families. She obtained a specialization in bilingual school psychology in 1984 and a doctoral degree in 1989 from Fordham University. While completing her doctoral studies she worked as a bilingual school psychologist in preschool, elementary, and high school settings. She is the chair of the Department of Educational and Community Programs and a Professor in the Graduate Program in School Psychology. She created the bilingual and multicultural specializations in the school psychology program at Queens College, City University of New York, and has been the recipient of multiple training grants focused on multicultural and bilingual school psychology training. She was the editor of the Journal of Educational and Psychology Consultation. Her scholarly interests are in the areas of multicultural competencies in school psychology, multicultural consultation, and working with interpreters in school settings. Sara G. Nahari emigrated from Colombia with the hope of achieving a higher degree than the psychologist certificate she had obtained at the National University of Colombia.The hardships she faced as an English language learner and how those experiences affected her ability to compete and perform as she did in her native country prompted her to seek a degree as a bilingual school psychologist. She was also motivated to help the many non-English students in the public schools in New York City. She graduated from Fordham University with a bilingual certificate and completed a doctoral degree in 1995. As a practitioner she worked as a bilingual guidance counselor, bilingual psychologist, and a trainer for the Department of Education of the City of New York and she was an Adjunct Associate Professor at

xxii   About the Editors

the Graduate Program in School Psychology at Queens College, City University of New York. She was co-editor of the first edition of the Handbook of School Psychology: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. She has published on topics related to the parental involvement of multicultural parents and the assessment of English language learners, which continue to be her scholarly interests. Sherrie L. Proctor was born and raised in St. Augustine, Florida in a community of activists who vigorously fought to obtain civil rights for African–Americans in the United States. Her grounding in this community taught her early on the importance of racial justice and spurred her interests in issues related to educational equity, particularly for students of color. She graduated from Spelman College in 1996 and obtained a specialist degree in school psychology from University of South Florida in 2000 and a doctoral degree from Georgia State University in 2009. She has worked as a certified school psychologist in the School District of Philadelphia and Atlanta Public Schools. She is an Associate Professor in the Graduate Program in School Psychology at Queens College, City University of New York. She is an associate editor of the Journal of School Psychology. Her scholarly interests are in the recruitment, retention, and attrition of school psychology graduate students of color and the use of qualitative methods to study multicultural issues.

List of Contributors

Alfredo J. Artiles, PhD is the Ryan C. Harris Professor of Special Education and Dean of Graduate Education at Arizona State University. His scholarship focuses on educational inequities related to the intersections of disability with other sociocultural differences. Doris Luft Baker, PhD is an Assistant Professor at Southern Methodist University and the Chair of the Master’s program in Bilingual Education. Her areas of research are in developing effective interventions for English learners in both Spanish and English, professional development for bilingual teachers, and assessment. Scott K. Baker, PhD is a Research Professor at the Center on Research and Evaluation (CORE) at Southern Methodist University (SMU). He is interested in the impact of interventions on child outcomes and the mechanisms that underlie effective interventions. Guillermo Bernal, PhD is a Professor of Psychology at the University of Puerto Rico in the Rio Piedras Campus, and Director of the Institute for Psychological Research. His areas of research are in development and testing of mental health services responsive to ethno-cultural groups, efficacy of evidence-based treatments for adolescent depression, and cultural adaptation of treatments and interventions. Alberto M. Bursztyn, PhD is a Professor of School Psychology at Brooklyn College, City University of New York where he chairs the Department of School Psychology, Counseling and Leadership. He is also Professor of Urban Education at the Graduate Center of City University of New York. Current research interests include immigrant children and families, multicultural assessment, and diverse students with disabilities.

xxiv   List of Contributors

Edilberto Cano-Rodríguez is the Director of the English Language Development Department at Adams County School District 14 in Colorado, and adjunct faculty in bilingual and ESL education at the University of Colorado Boulder. His research interest is the study of emergent bilingual students’ biliteracy trajectories. Shannon Chavez-Korell, PhD is an Associate Professor in Counseling Psychology at the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee. Her areas of research include racial and ethnic identity, cultural adaptations of mental health interventions, and resilience. Howard Crumpton, PhD is a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Behavior Management Clinic at the Kennedy Krieger Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. His areas of research are in the development and evaluation of evidencebased practices for treating behavior problems in children and adolescents from underprivileged and multicultural backgrounds. Graciela Elizalde-Utnick, PhD coordinates the bilingual specializations in the Graduate Programs in School Psychology and School Counseling, in the Department of School Psychology, Counseling, and Leadership at Brooklyn College, City University of New York. She has over 20 years of experience as a practicing bilingual school psychologist. Her scholarly interests include preschool English language learners, immigrant families, selective mutism, differentiated instruction, multicultural counseling competencies, and team-based learning. Amy Eppolito, PhD is an English Language Development Specialist at Westminster Public Schools and an Instructor for the University of Colorado at Denver. She specializes in helping educators to create equitable opportunities for culturally and linguistically diverse students. Russell Gersten, PhD is the Executive Director of Instructional Research Group and Professor Emeritus in the College of Education at the University of Oregon. His areas of research include instructional strategies for teaching English learners, mathematics instruction, and ongoing professional development. Emily C. Graybill, PhD, is a Clinical Assistant Professor in the School of Public Health at Georgia State University. Dr. Graybill researches the implementation of individualized positive behavior supports for students with severe and challenging behaviors. David Hernandez-Saca, PhD is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Special Education at the University of Northern Iowa. His two areas of research are the emotional impact of learning disability labeling on conceptions of self, and the role of emotion and affect in teacher learning about social justice issues.

List of Contributors   xxv

John J. Hoover, PhD was Associate Research Professor in the School of Education at the University of Colorado Boulder. He specializes in research at the intersection of diversity and disability with specific emphasis on special education referral, assessment, and Multi-Tiered System Support (MTSS). He is Principal Investigator on three grant-funded research and training projects that focus on MTSS for English learners, and educator preparation in culturally and linguistically diverse and special education. Carolyn Hughes, PhD was a Visiting Professor in the Educational and Community Programs Department at Queens College, City University of New York. Her areas of research are mentoring programs for youth from high-poverty backgrounds and students with disabilities. Colette L. Ingraham, PhD, NCSP is a Professor in the School Psychology Program at San Diego State University. Her areas of research are multicultural and cross-cultural consultation, and multi-tiered systems of support in diverse schools to promote learning and development for all students, education equity, social justice, and to develop professional leaders. Janine M. Jones, PhD, NCSP, LP is an Associate Professor and Director of the School Psychology Program at the University of Washington. Her areas of research include culturally responsive mental health interventions and resilience in African American children and adolescents. Maya Kalyanpur, PhD is Professor and Chair of the Department of Learning and Teaching at the University of San Diego. She specializes in the intersection of culture and special education, with particular emphasis on international inclusive education and families of children with disabilities from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Sun A. Kim, PhD is an Associate Professor in Graduate Programs in Special Education in the Department of Educational and Community Programs at Queens College, City University of New York. Her research interests include mathematics assessments and interventions for students with diverse learning needs, including students with math disability and English language learners. Janette K. Klingner, PhD, in memoriam. Dr. Klingner was a Professor of Bilingual Special Education at the University of Colorado Boulder. She published extensively in books and journals in the areas of strategic reading, culturally responsive teaching, and the disproportionate representation of English learners in special education. She was an esteemed colleague, and a beloved professor and mentor to countless students.

xxvi   List of Contributors

Carol Korn-Bursztyn, PsyD is a Professor of School Psychology and Urban Education at Brooklyn College, City University of New York and Graduate Center, City University of New York. Her areas of research are child psychology, play therapy, the arts and education, diversity and immigration. Sheri R. Levy, PhD is an Associate Professor of Psychology at Stony Brook University. Dr. Levy studies factors that cause and maintain prejudice, stigmatization, and negative intergroup relations that can be harnessed to reduce bias, marginalization, and discrimination. Her research focuses on bias based on age, ethnicity, gender, nationality, race, sexual orientation, and social class. Emilia C. Lopez, PhD is Chair of the Department of Educational and Community Programs and Professor in the Graduate Program in School Psychology, Queens College, City University of New York. Her scholarly interests are in multicultural competencies in school psychology, multicultural consultation, and working with school interpreters. Ashley Lytle, PhD is an Assistant Professor of Psychology at Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken, NJ. Her research explores how prejudice, discrimination, and stereotyping impact social, academic, and health outcomes among marginalized groups. Danielle G. Martines, PhD is an Associate Professor in the School Psychology and Clinical Psychology Programs at Montclair State University, New Jersey. Her scholarship focuses on the assessment of culturally and linguistically diverse populations, school-based consultation, multicultural organizational consultation, and emotional intelligence. Casey McPherson, PhD is an Assistant Professor in School Psychology at California State University, Monterey Bay. Her research interests include home– school–community collaboration and engaging in community-level MTSS practices to support the needs of children. Craig A. Michaels, PhD is the Dean of the Division of Education at Queens College, City University of New York, and a Professor of Special Education in the College’s Department of Educational and Community Programs. He has a strong commitment to equity and diversity in urban public education, which informs and shapes his research on the social, political, educational, and economic ramifications of disabilities on individuals, families, communities, and society. Sara G. Nahari, PhD is a former bilingual school psychologist and Associate Adjunct Professor of School Psychology at Queens College, City University of

List of Contributors   xxvii

New York. Dr. Nahari was a co-editor of the first edition of the Handbook of Multicultural School Psychology: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Her career has been devoted to multicultural and bilingual issues, and her scholarly interests are multicultural assessment and parent involvement. Markeda L. Newell, PhD is an Associate Professor in School Psychology at Loyola University Chicago. Her research focuses on multicultural competency development, consultation competency development, and poverty-related stress. Angélica Núñez-Méndez, MA is a Speech-Language-Pathologist Clinical Fellow at Perry Township Schools. She provides individual and group treatment for children with voice, speech, and language disorders. Her areas of interest include children’s language development across diverse social contexts, second language acquisition, and primary language impairment. Elisabeth C. O’Bryon, PhD is the Director of Research and Evaluation at GreatSchools, a national nonprofit that helps millions of parents obtain a great education for their children. Her research has focused on how to promote the educational success of students identified as English language learners, as well as ways to support home-school partnerships with culturally and linguistically diverse families. Amado M. Padilla, PhD is a Professor of Developmental and Psychological Sciences in the Graduate School of Education at Stanford University. His areas of research are in resiliency among children and youth, acculturative stress, and research methods with Latinos. Sherrie L. Proctor, PhD is an Associate Professor in the School Psychology Program at Queens College, City University of New York. Her primary research interests are in the recruitment, retention, and attrition of graduate students of color in school psychology. Tara C. Raines, PhD, NCSP is an Assistant Professor of School Psychology at the University of Denver. Her areas of research are interventions to reduce juvenile justice recidivism, assessing for behavioral and emotional risk, culturally appropriate assessment for behavioral and emotional disorders, and promoting cultural competence among psychology professionals. M. Karega Rausch, PhD is a Research Associate with Indiana University’s Center for Evaluation and Education Policy. Dr. Rausch’s research interests center on the creation of more equitable schools and school systems, particularly for historically marginalized students.

xxviii   List of Contributors

Catherine Richards-Tutor, PhD is a Professor in the Special Education Program at California State University, Long Beach. Her areas of research are in reading and math intervention and assessment for English learners. Natalia Rodríguez-Hernández, PhD is a school and clinical psychologist in private practice. Her areas of interest are in prevention and treatment of depression and anxiety disorders, and art therapies. Margaret R. Rogers, PhD is a Professor in the Psychology Department at the University of Rhode Island where she is associated with the APA-accredited, NASP-approved School Psychology Program. Her research program focuses on equity, advocacy, and multicultural issues in training and practice. Patricio A. Romero, PsyD holds a position as a practicing bilingual school psychologist in an urban high school in Long Island. His scholarly interests include academic interventions for English language learners, acculturation, working with interpreters, bilingual cognitive assessment, and targeting specific levels of aggression and victimization among adolescents. Lisa Rosenthal, PhD is an Assistant Professor of Psychology at Pace University. Her research focuses on stigma, intergroup relations, and social justice, including seeking to understand how experiences with prejudice, discrimination, stereotyping, marginalization, and inequality contribute to gender, racial/ethnic, and other academic and health disparities. Emily Sáez-Santiago, PhD is an Assistant Research Scientist and Clinical Psychologist at the Institute for Psychological Research at the University of Puerto Rico, Río Piedras Campus. Her areas of research are on adolescents’ depression, diabetes type 1 and obesity, as well as culturally-centered psychosocial preventive and treatment interventions focused on those populations. Jonathan Sandoval, PhD is a Professor Emeritus at the University of California, Davis. He has published a number of works covering multicultural issues in assessment, consultee-centered consultation, and crisis intervention and prevention. Jiyun Elizabeth Shin is a doctoral candidate in Social and Health Psychology at Stony Brook University. Her research interests include intergroup relations, discrimination, and stereotypes, as well as individual beliefs that contribute to students’ academic engagement, particularly students from underrepresented groups.

List of Contributors   xxix

David Shriberg, PhD is a Professor of Education at Loyola University Chicago. His research interests relate to consultation and the application of social justice principles to school psychology practice. Anneliese A. Singh, PhD is an Associate Dean of Diversity and Equity in the College of Education at the University of Georgia. Her scholarly interests are in the areas of transgender identity development, and providing safe schools for youth of color who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, and questioning. Russell J. Skiba, PhD is a Professor in Counseling and Educational Psychology at Indiana University and the Director of the Equity Project, a consortium of research projects offering evidence-based information in special education and school discipline. He has published extensively in the areas of school violence, zero tolerance, and equity in education. Clara E. Smith is a doctoral candidate in the Educational Equity and Cultural Diversity program at the University of Colorado Boulder. Her area of interest is in removing barriers for bilingual students to be served appropriately in gifted education programs. Jean Louise M. Smith, PhD is a Research Assistant Professor at the University of Oregon’s Center on Teaching and Learning and a practicing Early Childhood School Psychologist. Her areas of research are implementing and evaluating multitiered systems of support for children at risk for learning difficulty. Lucinda Soltero-González, PhD is a Research Associate at the BUENO Center for Multicultural Education, University of Colorado Boulder. Her scholarship has focused on the biliteracy development of young Spanishspeaking children and biliteracy practices in U.S. schools. She is a Co-Principal Investigator on a U.S. Department of Education project focused on a culturally and linguistically responsive Response to Intervention model for English language learners. Amanda L. Sullivan, PhD is an Associate Professor of School Psychology at the University of Minnesota. Her areas of interest include education and health disparities affecting culturally and linguistically diverse students, particularly those with special needs. Kris Varjas,  PsyD is a Professor in the College of Education and Human Development at Georgia State University. She specializes in school- and community-based research investigating bullying, cyberbullying, school safety, and school climate.

xxx   List of Contributors

Patricia Velasco, EdD is an Associate Professor in the Elementary and Early Childhood Education Department and coordinator of the Bilingual Education Program at Queens College, City University of New York. Her areas of research are bilingualism and biliteracy development. Elizabeth M. Vera, PhD is a Professor in the School of Education at Loyola University Chicago. Her areas of scholarship are prevention, social justice, and wellbeing in urban youth. Peishi Wang, PhD, BCBA-D is an Associate Professor in the Special Education Program in the Department of Educational and Community Programs at Queens College, City University of New York. Her areas of research are families of young children with developmental disabilities including those from culturally- and linguistically-diverse backgrounds, language acquisition in young children with special needs, evidence-based social skills interventions for children with autism, and early childhood special education teacher preparation. Kathryn Harue Okuma White, in memoriam. She was a doctoral student in Educational Equity and Cultural Diversity at the University of Colorado Boulder. Her research interests focused on culturally responsive curriculum and instruction and issues in science education for English learners. She was cherished by her fellow students and professors for her gentle, compassionate, and insightful personality.

Part I

History and Professional Issues

1

The Evolution of Multiculturalism An Interdisciplinary Perspective Markeda L. Newell and Shannon Chavez-Korell

Psychological processes influence culture. Culture influences psychological processes. Individual thoughts and acts influence cultural norms and practices as they evolve over time, and these cultural paradigms influence the future thoughts and actions of individuals, which then influence the persistence and change of culture over time (Lehman, Chiu, & Schaller, 2004, p. 703) Proponents of multiculturalism in school psychology are often asked why there is a need for a multicultural approach to school psychological service delivery. A multicultural approach is critically necessary considering that culture has long been used in psychology to explain human behavior. Culture, within the context of the United States (U.S.), was a concept used to describe unique characteristics or behaviors of racial/ethnic minorities or groups that were deemed exotic (Pedersen, 1991). Moreover, these cultural characteristics and behaviors were often deemed as negative or problematic, and members of these groups needed remediation or help to address their cultural deficits (Sue & Sue, 2013). Therefore, it is important to understand that there is longstanding history of using culture to explain human behavior; however, culture has historically been narrowly conceptualized and applied in a negative, deficit-based manner.Thus, the multicultural movement over the past 20 years has been focused on changing the conceptualization of culture by 3

4   Newell and Chavez-Korell

demonstrating that everyone has culture (not just racial/ethnic minorities or the exotic), explaining how culture is a strengths-based rather than deficit-based construction, and empirically showing the link between culture and psychological functioning in a manner that allows psychologists to use culture to improve the quality of service delivery. Anthropologists, sociologists, and psychologists alike have grappled with defining culture. As a result, there are numerous definitions of culture that often create more confusion than clarity. Nevertheless, current conceptualizations of culture are similar in that culture is recognized as a core element of what it means to be human, and, therefore, everyone has culture. Marsella and Yamada (2000) provided one of the most comprehensive definitions of culture in psychology that illustrates this point: [Culture is] shared learned meanings and behaviors that are transmitted from within a social activity context for purposes of promoting individual/ social adjustment, growth, and development. Culture has both external (i.e., artifacts, roles, activity contexts, institutions) and internal (i.e., values, beliefs, attitudes, activity contexts, patterns of consciousness, personality styles, epistemology) representations. The shared meanings and behaviors are subject to continuous change and modification in response to changing internal and external circumstances. (Marsella &Yamada, 2000, p. 12) Given this conceptualization of culture, it is evident that a person’s multiple intersecting identities (e.g., race, ethnicity, religion, ability status, social class, gender, sexual identity), contexts, as well as his/her experiences (e.g., family, personal, professional) over time inform his/her values, beliefs, perspectives, worldview, thoughts, and behavior. Thus, a person’s cultural context, in part, shapes his/her behavior; therefore, human behavior can vary just as much as cultures vary (Marsella & Yamada, 2000). Ignoring the influence of cultural context may create an inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading understanding of behavior, especially for individuals of minority identities and backgrounds. Herein lies the link between culture and psychological functioning; that is, to understand human behavior psychologists must also understand a person’s cultural context (Lehman et al., 2004). The current movement in psychology to reconstruct the link between culture and psychological functioning is a significant undertaking because decades of theory and research propagate the notion that cultural differences are deficits (Guthrie, 2004). It will take robust efforts to advance new theories and research to demonstrate the value of cultural differences in understanding psychological functioning. It will take even more significant effort to translate that theory and research into training and practice. Therefore, the purpose of this chapter is to provide a historical overview of how three dominant cultural theories have evolved

The Evolution of Multiculturalism   5

in psychology; explain how the field of school psychology evolved in the context of these theories; explain the implications of this evolution of multicultural research, training, and practice in school psychology; and make recommendations for preparing school psychologists to become more multiculturally competent through training.

Theoretical and Research Basis As stated earlier, culture has long been a part of psychological discourse, but its use has not always served clients well, especially minority clients. To explain, racial, ethnic, linguistic, economic, and religious minorities have been viewed as deficient as far back as the 1600s (see Guthrie, 2004). Since that time, several researchers have identified and explained three cultural theories that have been used to explain the identities and behaviors of minorities in the fields of psychology and education, especially racial/ethnic minorities (see Guthrie, 2004; Valencia, 1997 for more in-depth reviews). The three theories are: (1) theory of genetic inferiority, (2) theory of cultural deprivation, and (3) theory of cultural differences/diversity. These theories have formed the foundation upon which service delivery to minority clients is built; therefore, it is essential for all psychologists to understand these theories, the evolution of these theories, and most importantly, how these theories have informed research, training, and practice.

Theory of Genetic Inferiority According to the theory of genetic inferiority, minority groups experienced academic, psychological, social, and economic challenges because they were genetically inferior to Whites (Parham, Ajamu, & White, 2011). This view of minorities had widespread negative implications for how educational and psychological services were provided to minorities in the U.S.The most significant impact on psychological services was that genetic deficiencies were believed to be the cause of mental health difficulties among minorities (i.e., within-person deficit model) (Parham et al., 2011); and therefore, psychological services were largely based on a medical model of care. In regards to education, many children of minority backgrounds were not receiving public education until the enactment of compulsory attendance laws from 1890–1920s (Fagan, 2000). However, once they began attending public schools, many of these students were experiencing academic difficulties. Instead of trying to identify ways in which schools were not adequately serving this influx of students who had not been to school before, educators had a focus on identifying the students with academic difficulties and

6   Newell and Chavez-Korell

removing them from the educational setting either through special classes or alternative programs (Johnson, 1962). The focus on identifying and removing students gave rise to what would later become the profession of school psychology (Newell et al., 2010). To explain, the mental testing movement, which was the use of standardized measures such as IQ tests to assess ability, was emerging during the expansion of compulsory attendance. Leaders of the mental testing movement (e.g., Terman, Goddard) not only embraced the genetic inferiority theory, but they also viewed abilities as being genetically determined and therefore fixed (Gould, 1996). The confluence of the mental testing movement and an increasingly diverse student body with a wider range of academic, behavioral, and mental health needs created the ideal context for educators to efficiently assess students’ abilities and make decisions about whether they could benefit from education. It was soon evident that most of the children placed in these special classes were racial, ethnic, linguistic, and economic minorities (Catterall, 1972; Fagan, 1992). At the time, there was not major concern about the proportion of minorities in these special classes because their academic difficulties were consistent with the prevailing theory that minorities, especially racial/ethnic minorities, were genetically inferior to Whites. Thus, the genetic inferiority theory provided a strong basis for the mental testing movement, which was integral to the emergence and growth of the field of school psychology. Although the theory of genetic inferiority remains part of the psychological discourse on minorities, this theory evolved to reflect a less fixed view of minority deficiencies. Sue, Arredondo, and McDavis (1992) described how scholars articulated a new approach to explaining the behavior of minorities that essentially “blamed culture instead of blaming genes” (p. 479). Herein lies an important shift in the psychological discourse on minorities, which is, cultural differences are a problem.This view of minorities became known as the theory of cultural deprivation, and it can be traced back as far as the 1950s and 1960s with events such as the Brown v. Board of Education (1954) decision, the Coleman Report (1966), the Moynihan Report (U.S., 1965), and compensatory educational programs such as Head Start (see Newell, 2007 for a review). All of these events reflect the view that minority families, communities, and schools were in some way deprived and needed to be fixed.

Theory of Cultural Deprivation According to Parham et al. (2011), cultural deprivation “presumed that because of the inadequate exposure to Euro-American values, norms, customs, and lifestyles, people of color were culturally deprived and required cultural enrichment” (p. 19); thus, any deviation from the Euro-American norm was seen as deficient, maladaptive,

The Evolution of Multiculturalism   7

or pathological (Garcia-Coll, Akerman, & Cicchetti, 2000; Parham et al., 2011). With this conceptualization of the relationship between culture and psychological functioning, cultural differences were considered the cause of psychological problems. Therefore, the culture of minorities required remediation in order to address any educational, social, or psychological difficulties they were experiencing. As the cultural deprivation theory gained prominence, the field of school psychology was becoming a recognized profession. The Thayer Conference was held in 1954 to establish the training standards and credentials for school psychologists (Fagan, 2005). However, neither diversity nor culture was mentioned at this conference, even though the Brown v. Board of Education (1954) decision was handed down shortly before the Thayer Conference was held. As Fagan (2005) explained, “the participants did not perceive these issues as key influences to the standards that needed to be developed for the future” (p. 244). Although school psychologists were serving minorities and likely encountering cultural differences in service delivery, there was no formal analysis or acknowledgement of how they should be addressing cultural diversity in their service delivery. This was especially concerning given the decision to integrate schools. Therefore, the foundation of service to culturally diverse populations was built on theories of genetic inferiority and cultural deprivation, as there was no attempt at the time to challenge the educational and psychological practices that were developed based on these theories. As a result, the profession of school psychology continued to be dominated by within-child deficit approaches to assessing children and placing them in special education, especially minority students who were considered culturally diverse (Heller, Holtzman, & Messick, 1982; Reschly & Ysseldyke, 2002;Valencia, 1997). While cultural deprivation theory was believed to be an improvement over the genetic inferiority hypothesis, the cultural deprivation theory was also problematic. As Sue et al. (1992) explained, the cultural deficit hypothesis implies that there is a “right culture” which is inaccurate because there is no one right culture. Researchers and practitioners were focused on changing the student’s culture by remediating or compensating for cultural deficits, and/or excluding culturally diverse students through placement in special education or removal from school. Growing contention as to whether behaviors could only be assessed as appropriate or inappropriate within a specific cultural context stimulated researchers to challenge the cultural deprivation theory in favor of a culturally different/diverse theory of behavior.

Theory of Cultural Difference The cultural difference theory emerged around the late 1980s and early 1990s.This theory states that differences in cultural norms, behaviors, and values are simply another way of being and they represent positive, healthy aspects of an individual’s

8   Newell and Chavez-Korell

functioning (Garcia-Coll et al., 2000).The cultural difference theory recognizes the legitimacy of alternative lifestyles and the value of differences (Sue & Sue, 2013). Under this theory, cultural differences should be identified and used to develop or modify existing practices that are more appropriate for different cultural groups. Using this theory, culture was conceptualized as a strength and protective factor against psychological harm, and it was purported that ignoring or denigrating cultural differences could cause harm (Marsella & Yamada, 2000). The cultural diversity perspective did influence school psychological service delivery and galvanized new ethical codes, training standards, as well as new lines of research on culturally-relevant interventions, non-biased assessment, and multicultural consultation (see Newell et al., 2010 for a review). Specifically, the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) as well as the American Psychological Association (APA) have developed standards and guidelines for multicultural training and practice. Increasingly, researchers are beginning to address the influence of culture in designing and evaluating interventions, developing assessment tools, and providing culturally responsive consultation services (Esquivel, Warren, & Littman-Orlitzky, 2007; Newell et al., 2010). All of these efforts to identify cultural differences and integrate them into school psychological service delivery continue today; however, there remains a significant gap between what is espoused in the ethical code and in training standards, and what is observed in research and practice. Hence, while the field of school psychology has evolved in recognizing and even creating standards for multicultural school psychological service delivery, much of this work has not translated into actual school psychology practice.

Implications for Practice The need for psychologists to develop competence to work with culturally diverse individuals has been a focus for several decades (Fouad & Arredondo, 2007). In 1992, Sue and colleagues called upon the profession of counseling psychology to adopt multicultural counseling competencies. These competencies were designed to identify the training required by counseling psychologists to become more multiculturally competent in the provision of psychological services. They explained that psychologists need cultural knowledge, awareness of attitudes, beliefs, and multicultural skills to serve clients.This conceptualization of multicultural competence has transcended counseling psychology and became a core element of training for all psychologists in August 2002, when the APA’s Council of Representatives officially approved as policy the Guidelines on Multicultural Education, Training, Research, Practice, and Organizational Change for Psychologists (see APA, 2003; Fouad et al., 2009). While the identification of the elements of multicultural competence has

The Evolution of Multiculturalism   9

been significant, school psychologists continue to struggle with how to become more multiculturally competent and translate this competence into practice (see Newell et al., 2010). It is unknown exactly the extent to which school psychologists, or any psychologists, are engaging in multicultural practice. However, what we do know is that school psychologists, in particular, continue to spend most of their time engaged in assessment using traditional, standardized measures and the least amount of their time engaged in intervention and consultation (Castillo, Curtis, Chappel, & Cunningham, 2011), which are practices that advance school psychologists from sorters to problem-solvers. There is a dearth of culturally-relevant interventions, culturally-modified interventions, and culturally-appropriate assessments that psychologists can use in practice (Newell et al., 2010). Thus, many psychologists rely on tools and procedures that were originally developed based on outdated cultural theories (e.g., genetic inferiority and cultural deprivation). In addition to practice continually reflecting those of a within-child deficit model (i.e., genetic inferiority and cultural deprivation), the educational and psychological outcomes for minorities continue to be poor compared to Whites. For example, minority students continue to be disproportionately represented in special education (OSEP, 2011) and there remains a significant racial and economic achievement gap (Snyder & Dillow, 2013). Furthermore, racial/ethnic minority clients prematurely terminate therapy significantly more often than White clients (Owen, Imel, Adelson, & Rodolfa, 2012). Taken together, these data indicate that much of practice continues to reflect theories of genetic inferiority and cultural deprivation while little has been done to advance practice based on the theory of cultural difference. This gap between theory, policy, and practice has created a complicated, unclear understanding of multicultural school psychological service delivery. School psychologists are required by law and professional practice to provide culturallyappropriate services; however, there is limited research and training that can prepare school psychologists to meet these legal and professional obligations. Given these tensions, the following recommendations are offered to help school psychologists provide culturally appropriate services. First, school psychologists should engage in ongoing professional development by taking courses, attending conferences, and consuming research literature to learn more about cultural diversity as well as practices such as culturally-relevant (or modified) interventions, non-biased assessment, and multicultural consultation. Second, school psychologists should use their skills as a scientist-practitioner to consume research, design and/or modify new practices, implement those practices, and evaluate those practices. It would be a significant step forward if school psychologists would then publish this work in journals for others to learn from and use. Third and finally, school psychologists should collect more data on populations they serve in order to understand their

10   Newell and Chavez-Korell

cultural similarities and differences (e.g., acculturation, racial identity, ethnic identity, experiences with discrimination, influences of poverty on behavior, language proficiency). There are several well-validated measures that can be used to understand these topics for school-based populations such as Cross Racial Identity Scale (Vandiver, Cross,Worrell, & Fhagen-Smith, 2002), Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure (Phinney, 1992); Multicultural Events Schedule for Adolescents (Gonzales, Tein, Sandler, & Friedman, 2001), Economic Hardship Questionnaire (Lempers, Clark-Lempers, & Simons, 1989). Readers can also visit the Antioch University New England Multicultural Center for Research and Practice for a review of several multicultural assessment measures (www.antiochne.edu/multicultural center/). By understanding their student populations in this way, school psychologists can be more proactive, critical thinkers who can prevent problems by providing staff training, redesigning school policies and procedures, or implementing universal prevention programs that support the cultural well-being of students and staff. Of course, it is always easier to provide recommendations than to implement them. However, there will likely be significant barriers to implementing these recommendations (e.g., lack of cultural competence training). However the biggest barrier to implementing these recommendations may be fear of engaging cultural diversity and failing or making a mistake. It is more than likely that school psychologists who engage in these practices will make errors, but by making these errors practices can change and be improved. It is guaranteed that without trying to improve the quality of services to culturally diverse populations that these children and families will not benefit as much from school psychological service delivery.

Implications for Research and Training The limited amount of attention to cultural diversity in school psychology has created a chasm between the needs of the populations that school psychologists serve and the preparation they receive in order to provide those services. That is, school psychologists are oftentimes unprepared to identify cultural differences; understand the influence of culture on academic, behavioral, and psychological functioning; and modify or develop practices to meet the needs of a multicultural student population. This situation is not surprising given that the training and practice of school psychology was developed in absence of understanding cultural diversity (Fagan, 2000). Hence, the foundations of school psychological service delivery, in many ways, must be reconceptualized to identify and understand needs of all children and families. This reconceptualization will require significant transformations in how we prepare school psychologists to meet the needs of a multicultural population such that we are not continuing to engage in practices that

The Evolution of Multiculturalism   11

perpetuate theories of genetic inferiority and cultural deprivation, but instead, reflect the value of cultural diversity. While there are several guidelines, standards, and recommendations for multicultural training (see APA, 2003; NASP, 2010), none of these publications set forth one clear approach for integrating multicultural content into training curricula that all programs can adhere to (Lopez & Rogers, 2007). Moreover, each of these documents has some unique guidelines for multicultural training that at times deviate from one another. Therefore, the range of multicultural requirements that training programs have to consider makes it difficult to get a handle on what a multicultural training curriculum should look like for school psychology. In reviewing the APA (2003) and NASP (2010) training requirements and recommendations, to develop multicultural competence among school psychologists there are four content areas that need to be taught. The four content areas include: (1) knowledge of different groups, (2) knowledge of and reflection on self, (3) knowledge of the impact of oppression, marginalization, and discrimination, and (4) knowledge of how to advocate. To teach this content, the following combination of three multicultural approaches is recommended: (1) cultural relativism/ positive psychology, (2) critical multicultural pedagogy, and (3) social justice. These three approaches are essential to multicultural training because relativism creates a non-judgmental context for acquiring knowledge about different groups as well as reflecting on our own belief systems (Pedersen, 1999). Developing this non-judgmental orientation among psychologists is important because psychology comes from a history of perceiving minorities as deficient and problematic (Parham et al., 2011). The critical multicultural approach facilitates the ability to recognize and question practices that are inherently unfair to specific groups (Nieto, 1999). Again, this type of training ensures that we are not reifying the cultural deprivation and genetic inferiority theories. Finally, the social justice approach to multicultural training creates a way to expand multicultural competence beyond the individual within the school to addressing the impact of larger social factors on the mental health and well-being of clients (Shriberg et al., 2008). A social justice framework moves psychologists beyond not judging to actually advocating for minority clients in a manner that ensures institutions are not marginalizing and oppressing these populations based on outdated theories and views. These three perspectives on multicultural training, taken together, create a comprehensive framework for developing the required knowledge and skills reflected in the NASP and APA guidelines for multicultural training based upon the theory of cultural diversity. While some of these recommendations for preparing school psychologists seem straightforward, there are systemic, structural barriers to integrating this content into the curriculum. First, not all school psychologists may agree with this approach to multiculturalism, and therefore would be less likely to provide this training.

12   Newell and Chavez-Korell

Second, many trainers have not had the preparation to teach this content; therefore, a significant amount of professional development may be needed for trainers before this content could be taught. Third, the inclusion of more content into the curriculum can pose challenges for the length of training programs, and there may be resistance to extending the length of training. Finally, not all training programs are located in areas where they can provide practical or applied experiences with individuals from a wide range of cultural contexts. Therefore, programs may be able to discuss the theories and principles, but students may not have the opportunity to actually practice the implementation of those principles or skills. For this reason, school psychologists need to better understand how technology can advance training, especially multicultural training. Training simulations have been used in various professions such as aviation and medicine; however, these technologies have not been used as frequently in school psychology. Computerized simulations can be used to create contexts for assessment, intervention, and consultation practices with a range of clients from diverse backgrounds. The value of using simulations is that behavior can be directly observed and real clients are protected from potentially harmful mistakes that students and practitioners may make. Newell (2012, 2010) as well as Newell, Newell, and Looser (2013) have used computer simulations to evaluate the consulting as well as multicultural skills of school psychologists. The results of this research revealed patterns of strengths and weaknesses in how school psychologists consult as well as how they address racial diversity in the consultation process. Herein lies the value of simulations for training, particularly to address cultural diversity competence. One of the primary reasons that there has been limited translation of multicultural theory and principles into school psychology training and practice is the lack of attention to culture and diversity in school psychology research. As Morales and Norcross (2010) explained, “multiculturalism without strong research risks becoming an empty political value, and evidence-based practice without cultural sensitivity risks irrelevancy” (p. 823).Thus, multicultural research is needed in order to advance multicultural school psychological service delivery. Several researchers have reviewed the extent to which diversity topics are the focus of research in school psychology. Wiese Rogers (1992) conducted one of the earliest reviews of diversity research in school psychology. She reviewed articles published in three major school psychology journals (School Psychology Review, Journal of School Psychology, and Psychology in the Schools) from 1975 to 1990. Wiese Rogers found that only 8.9% of the articles published during this time had a diversity focus. In 2002, Miranda and Gutter updated and extended Wiese Rogers’ review by examining articles published from 1990 to 1999 in the same journals, but they added School Psychology Quarterly. Using the same definition of diversity-focused research, they found a 2% increase in the number of diversityfocus articles. Most recently, Brown, Shriberg, and Wang (2007) adopted the

The Evolution of Multiculturalism   13

same approach as Wiese Rogers and Miranda and Gutter to review published research from 2000 to 2003. They added the Journal of Applied School Psychology. They found 6% increase in diversity-focused research compared to Miranda and Gutter and an 8% increase over Wiese Rogers.While most of the research included African-Americans, intervention as opposed to assessment was the most commonly reflected content area. Brown, Shriberg, and Wang (2007) conducted the most recent review and only found a slightly higher increase in diversity-related research, and concluded that there remained a significant need in all domains. Although this research indicates an increase in diversity-focused research, the history of multiculturalism in school psychology gives rise to some serious concerns about the existing multicultural research base in school psychology. First, much of the early research was conducted when genetic inferiority or cultural deprivation was the prevailing view of cultural diversity (especially before the 1990s). So, much of the existing research base was built on the notion that cultural differences are deficits, which renders much of this research irrelevant for current training and practice. Second, researchers have oftentimes conflated demographic variables (e.g., race, ethnicity, and so on) with culture, thereby confusing demographic differences in behavior with cultural differences in behavior (Helms, Jernigan, & Mascher, 2005). To explain, using these sociodemographic labels as proxies for culture propagated the notion that individuals with the same skin color, language, religion, and economic status have the same values, perspectives, beliefs, and worldviews. However, groups organized based on sociodemographic labels are not monolithic because individuals within these groups have varied beliefs, perspectives, values, and worldviews (Helms et al., 2005).Therefore, research that has used sociodemographic labels as proxies for culture is oftentimes misleading and not as useful in understanding cultural differences. Third, researchers may assume that existing psychological constructs and measures are appropriate for all groups; however, Byrne et al. (2009) explained that more research on structural and measurement equivalence is needed to ensure that constructs and the instruments used for assessment are appropriate across cultural groups because many of the constructs and measures were developed using theories or samples that may not reflect the cultural group being studied. These designs are critical from a multicultural perspective because they can be used to understand the experience and perspectives of the population being studied to inform the modification of existing practices, if necessary (Hitchcock & Nastasi, 2011). Finally, the amount of multicultural research remains very low (below 20%) and narrowly focused (e.g., African Americans and assessment). Without more diversity-focused research across a wider range of groups and a wider range of topics (e.g., intervention and consultation), there will continue to be significant limitations in understanding what, as well as how, to implement a multicultural approach to school psychological service delivery. In order for multicultural research, training, and practice to continue evolving in psychology, and

14   Newell and Chavez-Korell

school psychology, in particular, there must be increased attention to how we can reconceptualize all domains of service delivery in a manner that respects the diversity of the populations we serve.

Resources Discussion Questions 1. What are your initial reactions to learning that in the history of psychology, psychologists perpetuated clinical racism and cultural oppression? 2. School psychology has been very slow to address cultural diversity in research, policy, training, and practice.Why has there been such a slow change in school psychology while other psychological specialties have made more significant advancements in this area? How can school psychology improve the pace and extent to which cultural diversity is addressed? 3. School psychologists are responsible for providing culturally appropriate services, but there is no consistent multicultural training to prepare them for this practice. Several recommendations were put forward to help school psychologists meet this professional obligation. What additional suggestions or recommendations do you have for improving multicultural training and practice given this context?

Professional Organizations Antioch University New England Multicultural Center for Research and Practice Vanderbilt University Stress and Coping Lab

Additional Readings American Psychological Association. (2003). Guidelines on multicultural education, training, research, practice, and organizational change for psychologists. American Psychologist, 58, 377–402. These are the official multicultural research and training guidelines for the APA. This document includes guidelines on how to engage in research, training, and practice with minority populations. Fouad, N. A. & Arredondo, P. (2007). Becoming culturally oriented: Practical advice for psychologists and educators. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

The Evolution of Multiculturalism   15

The purpose of this book is to provide evidence-based guidance on how to engage in culturally competent practice.

References American Psychological Association. (2003). Guidelines on multicultural education, training, research, practice, and organizational change for psychologists. American Psychologist, 58, 377–402. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.58.5.377. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, KA, 347 U.S. 483 (1954, 1955). Brown, S. L., Shriberg, D., & Wang, A. (2007). Diversity on the rise? A review of school psychology journals from 2000–2003. Psychology in the Schools, 44, 639–650. doi:10.1002/ pits.20253. Byrne, B. M., Oakland, T., Leong, F. T. L.,Vijver, F. J. R. van de, Hambleton, R. K., Cheung, F. M., & Bartram, D. (2009). A critical analysis of crosscultural research and testing practices: Implications for improved education and training in psychology. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 3, 94–105. doi:10.1037/a0014516. Castillo, J. M., Curtis, M. J., Chappel, A., & Cunningham, J. (2011, February). School psychology 2010: Results of the national membership study. Special session conducted at the National Association of School Psychologists Annual Convention, San Francisco, CA. Catterall, C. D. (1972). Special education in transition—implications for school psychology. Journal of School Psychology, 10(2), 91–98. Coleman, J. S., United States & National Center for Education Statistics. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education; [for sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Govt. Print Office]. Esquivel, G. B.,Warren,T. M., & Littman-Orlitzky, S. L. (2007). A historical overview of the development of multicultural school psychology. In G. B. Esquivel, E. C. Lopez, & S. G. Nahari (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural psychology (pp. 3–28). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Fagan, T. K. (1992). Compulsory schooling, child study, clinical psychology, and special education: Origins of school psychology. American Psychologist, 47, 236–243. Fagan, T. K. (2000). Practicing school psychology: A turn-of-the-century perspective. American Psychologist, 55, 754–757. doi:10.1037/f0003-066X.55.7,754. Fagan, T. K. (2005). The 50th anniversary of the Thayer conference: Historical perspectives and accomplishments. School Psychology Quarterly, 20(3), 224–251. Fouad, N. A., & Arredondo, P. (2007). Becoming culturally oriented: Practical advice for psychologists and educators. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Fouad, N. A., Grus, C. L., Hatcher, R. L., Kaslow, N. J., Hutchings, P. S., Madson, M. B., . . . Crossman, R. E. (2009). Competency benchmarks: A model for understanding and measuring competence in professional psychology across training levels. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 3(Suppl.), S5–S26. doi:10.1037/a0015832. Garcia-Coll, C., Akerman, A., & Cicchetti, D. (2000). Cultural influence on developmental process and outcomes: Implications for study of development and psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 12, 333–356. Gonzales, N. A., Tein, J., Sandler, I. N., & Friedman, R. J. (2001). On the limits of coping: Interaction between stress and coping for inner-city adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 16(4), 372–395. doi:10.1177/0743558401164005.

16   Newell and Chavez-Korell

Gould, S. J. (1996). The mismeasure of man. New York, NY: Norton. Guthrie, R.V. (2004). Even the rat was white: A historical view of psychology. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Heller, K. A., Holtzman,W. H., & Messick, S. (Eds.). (1982). Placing children in special education: A strategy for equity. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Helms, J. E., Jernigan, M., & Mascher, J. (2005).The meaning of race in psychology and how to change it:A methodological perspective. American Psychologist, 60, 27–36. doi:10.1037/ 0003-066X.60.1.27. Hitchcock, J., & Nastasi, B. K. (2011). Mixed methods for construct validation. In P. Vogt & M. Williams (Eds.), Handbook of methodological innovation (pp. 249–268). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Johnson, G. O. (1962). Special education for the mentally handicapped:A paradox. Exceptional Children, 29, 62–69. Lehman, D. R., Chiu, C.-Y., & Schaller, M. (2004). Psychology and culture. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 689–714. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141927. Lempers, J. D., Clark-Lempers, D., & Simons, R. L. (1989). Economic hardship, parenting, and distress in adolescence. Child Development, 60(1), 25–39. doi:10.2307/1131068. Lopez, E. C., & Rogers, M. R. (2007). Multicultural competencies and training in school psychology: Issues, approaches, and future directions. In G. B. Esquivel, E. C. Lopez, and S. Nahari (Eds.), Handbook of Multicultural Psychology (pp. 47–67). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Marsella, A. J., & Yamada, A M. (2000). Culture and mental health: An introduction and overview of foundations, concepts and issues. In I. Cuéllar & F. Paniagua (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural mental health (pp. 3–24). London, UK: Academic Press. Miranda, A. H., & Gutter, P. B. (2002). Diversity research literature in school psychology: 1990–1999. Psychology in the Schools, 39, 597–604. doi:10.1002/pits.10051. Morales, E., & Norcross, J. (2010). Evidence-based practices with ethnic minorities: Strange bedfellows no more. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 66, 821–829. doi:10.1002/ jclp.20712. National Association of School Psychologists (NASP). (2010). Model for comprehensive and integrated school psychological services. Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists. Newell, M. L. (2007). Problem-solving consultation: An examination of discursive activity within a simulated multiracial context (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, April 1, 2016. Newell, M. L. (2010). Exploring the use of computer simulation to evaluate the implementation of problem-solving consultation. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 20(3), 228–255. doi:10.1080/10474412.2010.500511. Newell, M. L. (2012). Transforming knowledge to skill: Evaluating the consultation competence of novice school-based consultants. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 64, 8–28. doi:10.1037/a0027741. Newell, M. L., Nastasi, B. K., Hatzichristou, C., Jones, J. M., Schanding, G. T., & Yetter, G. (2010). Evidence on multicultural training in school psychology: Recommendations for future directions. School Psychology Quarterly, 25, 249–278. doi:10.1037/a0021542. Newell, M. L., Newell, T. S., & Looser, J. A. (2013). Examining how novice consultants address cultural factors during consultation: Illustration of a computer-simulated case study method. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 65, 74–86. doi:10.1037/ a0032598.

The Evolution of Multiculturalism   17

Nieto, S. (1999). Multiculturalism, social justice, and critical teaching. In I. Shor & C. Pari (Eds.), Education is politics: Critical thinking across differences, K-12: A tribute to the life and work of Paolo Freire (pp. 1–32). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Heinmann. Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSEP). (2011). 30th annual (2008) report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Washington, DC: Office of Special Education Programs. Owen, J., Imel, Z., Adelson, J., & Rodolfa, E. (2012). ‘No-show’: Therapist racial/ethnic disparities in client unilateral termination. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59, 314–320. doi:10.1037/a0027091. Parham, T. A., Ajamu, A., & White, J. L. (2011). The psychology of Blacks: Centering our perspectives in the African consciousness (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Pedersen, P. (1991). Multiculturalism as a generic approach to counseling. Journal of Counseling and Development, 70, 6–12. Pedersen, P. (1999). Multiculturalism as a fourth force. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis. Phinney, J. S. (1992). The Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure: A new scale for use with diverse groups. Journal of Adolescent Research, 7, 156–176. Reschly, D. J., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (2002). Paradigm shift: The past is not the future. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology IV (4th ed.) (pp. 3–20). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists. Shriberg, D., Bonner, M., Sarr, B. J., Walker, A. M., Hyland, M., & Chester, C. (2008). Social justice through a school psychology lens: Definition and application. School Psychology Review, 37(4), 453–468. Snyder, T. D., and Dillow, S. A. (2013). Digest of Education Statistics 2012 (NCES 2014-015). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. Sue, D. W., Arredondo, P., & McDavis, R. J. (1992). Multicultural counseling competencies and standards: A call to the profession. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 20, 64–88. Sue, D. W., & Sue, D. (2013). Counseling the culturally diverse: Theory and practice (6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. United States. (1965). The Negro family: The case for national action. Washington: For sale by the Supt. of Docs., U.S. Govt. Print Office. Valencia, R. R. (Ed.). (1997). The evolution of deficit thinking in educational thought and practice. Abingdon Oxon, UK: Routledge Falmer. Vandiver, B. J., Cross,W. E.,Worrell, F. C., & Fhagen-Smith, P. E. (2002).Validating the Cross Racial Identity Scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49, 71–85. Wiese Rogers, R. M. (1992). Racial/ethnic minority research in school psychology. Psychology in the Schools, 29, 267–272.

2

Professional and Ethical Issues from a Multicultural Perspective Emily C. Graybill and Kris Varjas

It astounds me when people separate ethics and ethical principles from the whole concept of what multiculturalism stands for. . . .  [this suggests that] they may not understand what multiculturalism and cultural respect are. (Trimble, Trickett, Fisher, & Goodyear, 2012) Competent legal, ethical, and professional practice is the foundation of school psychology service delivery (National Association of School Psychologists [NASP], 2010a). Ethical codes serve the necessary purpose of protecting the clients of school psychologists and guiding school psychologists with regard to their professional conduct (NASP, 2010b). The ethical principles that school psychologists adhere to, the NASP Principles for Professional Ethics and the American Psychological Association [APA] Ethics Code (2010) are comprehensive and cover the range of practices engaged in by school psychologists. Table 2.1 provides a brief description of how each of the four NASP Principles broadly applies to multicultural psychology. It would do injustice to the ethical codes to attempt to relate each one to multicultural school psychology within this one chapter. Therefore, Principle I: Respecting the Dignity and Rights of All Persons, within the NASP Principles for Professional Ethics (2010b), has been identified as the primary focus of this chapter. Although all principles are of equal importance, Respecting the Dignity and Rights of All Persons relates strongly to the standards of practice that should be considered when working with culturally and linguistically diverse students and families. 18

Ethics from a Multicultural Perspective   19

NASP Principle

Relevance to multicultural issues

Principle I: Respecting the Dignity and Rights of All Persons

Parent participation is promoted Informed consent means fully informing parents/guardians Student assent is obtained Self-determination is respected School psychologists engage in fair and just practices School psychologists do not discriminate School psychologists work to correct unjust educational practices School psychologists ensure equal access to resources and opportunities School psychologists work within their area of competence School psychologists acquire knowledge and understanding of diverse populations School psychologists conduct assessments that are fair, valid, and are interpreted with consideration of cultural diversity School psychologists train interpreters who assist in the assessment School psychologists encourage parent participation when developing interventions School psychologists encourage student participation when developing interventions School psychologists ensure that parents have access to student records Standards do not directly relate to culturally responsive/ethical practice

Principle II: Professional Competence and Responsibility

Principle III: Honesty and Integrity in Professional Relationships Principle IV: Responsibility to Schools, Families, Communities, the Profession, and Society

School psychologists develop partnerships with community agencies to help establish a system of care School psychologists promote systems change to reduce systemslevel injustice School psychologists are knowledgeable about law School psychologists are knowledgeable about ethical problem-solving School psychologists initiate the problem-solving process when an ethical dilemma arises

TABLE 2.1  NASP Principles for Professional Ethics (2010) Relevant to Multicultural Issues Source: NASP Principles for Professional Ethics (2010b), Bethesda, MD: Author.

For a more in-depth understanding of NASP Principle I, it is important to examine the underlying theoretical foundation of the principle, as ultimately, the ethical codes are built upon theories of pedagogical and moral practice. Principle I of the NASP Principles for Professional Ethics (2010b) is best understood through examining the relationship between culturally responsive practice, social justice theory, and self-determination theory.This chapter explores culturally responsive practice as ethical practice and relates culturally responsive practice and the NASP Principle I to social justice theory and self-determination theory. That follows with a discussion of the consideration of culture and child rights in the ethical decision-making process. Finally, the NASP Principle I and the related theories is applied to a case study example.

20   Graybill and Varjas

Theoretical and Research Basis The word multicultural has been broadly defined as multiple worldviews or multiple ways of understanding and experiencing the world. Multicultural psychology has emphasized the study of communities of color that have historically been left out of general psychology scholarship and methods (Cauce, 2011). Both ways of thinking about the term “multicultural” (i.e., different worldviews; historically underserved populations) are equally important.The broader definition encourages the use of self-reflection, perspective taking, and an appreciation of similarities and differences (Lopez & Bursztyn, 2013) while limiting potential stereotyping of individual cultural groups.The more specific definition encourages consideration of populations that have historically been subject to unethical practice in education and/or psychology (McCarthy, Wiener, & Soodak, 2012; Sullivan & Artiles, 2011). School psychologists are encouraged to utilize both definitions in preparing for engaging in ethical practice. Ethical practice as it relates to multicultural psychology can be organized according to culturally responsive practice (proactive) (Ford & Kea, 2009) and multicultural ethical decision-making (reactive) (Knapp & VandeCreek, 2007).

Culturally Responsive Practice Culturally responsive practice involves recognizing that individuals with different perspectives and different experiences frame social and academic situations differently (Gallardo, Johnson, Parham, & Carter, 2009). Culturally responsive practice in schools translates into the consideration of different perspectives in lesson plans, school programs, tiered models of support, and interactions with parents (Ford & Kea, 2009). Additional culturally responsive practices include engaging in frequent self-reflection on one’s own culture, experiences, and perceptions; considering the perspectives of the children and families; and examining the similarities and differences between their own and others’ perspectives (Ford & Kea, 2009). A culturally responsive lesson plan may involve students engaging in cross-cultural literature discussion groups (Montgomery, 2001). Students could choose from several books with culturally and linguistically diverse characters and then engage in structured thought-sharing with their peers who selected different books (Montgomery, 2001). A culturally responsive practice by a school psychologist may include the standard practice of scheduling a phone or in-person meeting with a family upon student referral to explain the informed consent process, parent rights, assessment tools, and potential uses of the assessment data through a trained interpreter (NASP Standard I.1.3). Culturally responsive practice ensures that the education system is accessible and relevant to all students and families, particularly

Ethics from a Multicultural Perspective   21

those who have been historically marginalized (Ford & Kea, 2009). Culturally responsive practice is ethical practice and prevents many ethical dilemmas from arising. It is built upon social justice theory and self-determination theory, which are discussed next. Social Justice

Inherent in culturally responsive practice is ensuring that educational and psychological practices encourage equitable access for all students. Relatedly, the guiding theory for NASP Principle I.3 of Fairness and Justice aligns directly with social justice theory. Principle I.3 states that school psychologists . . . use their expertise to cultivate school climates that are safe and welcoming to all persons regardless of actual or perceived characteristics, including race, ethnicity, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, immigration status, socioeconomic status, primary language, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, disability, or any other distinguishing characteristics. (NASP, 2010b, p. 5) Although there is generally not a single agreed definition of social justice, a review of definitions suggests that social justice includes two components: eliminating systemic oppression and ensuring equal access to resources (North, 2006; Toporek, Gerstein, Fouad, Roysircar, & Israel, 2006). Oppression often entails an unjust expression of power by the dominant group toward others, which results in groups being denied access to resources and opportunities based solely on demographic characteristics rather than lack of accomplishment (Tharp, 2012). Social justice work in school psychology includes empowering individuals and families to stand up for their needs as well as advocating with them and on their behalf by challenging systems that maintain social inequities and injustices (Nastasi & Varjas, 2011). This is the premise of NASP Principle I. An overwhelming amount of data exist to support the notion that culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students (e.g., students of color, students with disabilities, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender [LGBT] students, students who live in poverty) do not perform as well in school as their peers who are members of the dominant culture (e.g., Graves & Newell, 2011; Kosciw, Greytak, Bartkiewicz, Boesen, & Palmer, 2012; Skiba et al., 2008). Possible reasons for these documented achievement gaps may relate to structural inequalities and lack of culturally responsive practices that exist within the education system (e.g., Skiba et al., 2008). For example, in Dailor’s (2011) survey of ethical concerns and decision-making among school psychologists, the top three ethics-related concerns include administrative pressure to engage in inequitable practices (e.g., pressure not to recommend

22   Graybill and Varjas

a particular service that might require additional school resources despite the school psychologist’s belief that it would be helpful to the child), unsound educational practices in schools (such as awareness that a teacher or other school personnel is engaging in detrimental or unsafe practices such as unusually harsh punishment of students, humiliating students in front of classmates), and assessment-related concerns (e.g., using a test with a child that is inappropriate due to cultural or language differences) (Dailor, 2011). There is a significant need to address injustice within education, yet social justice advocacy can seem like a vague concept and one that is difficult to apply. Our ethical code provides guidance for how to incorporate social justice advocacy and therefore cultural responsiveness into practice. The abbreviated standards of Principle I state (NASP, 2010b): n

n

n

n

Standard I.3.1 “School psychologists do not engage in or condone actions or policies that discriminate against persons . . .” Standard I.3.2  “School psychologists pursue awareness and knowledge of how diversity factors may influence child development, behavior, and school learning.” Standard I.3.3  “School psychologists work to correct school practices that are unjustly discriminatory or that deny students, parents, or others their legal rights.” Standard I.3.4  “School psychologists strive to ensure that all chidren have equal opportunity to participate in and benefit from school programs . . .”

By adhering to Standards I.3.1–I.3.4, school psychologists break down structural inequalities that prevent all students from accessing educational resources and opportunities, and engage in culturally responsive practices that prevent ethical dilemmas from arising. Self-determination

Implied in definitions of culturally responsive practice is the promotion of culturally appropriate self-determination. Deci and Ryan (1985), who established selfdetermination theory, noted that self-determination is defined as “the capacity to choose and to have those choices.” Scholars continue to expand the definition of self-determination but all definitions share the components of autonomy, empowerment, and the opportunity to use one’s abilities in the decision-making process (Ryan & Deci, 2000; Wehmeyer et al., 2003), each of which is highlighted within NASP Principle I, Respecting the Dignity and Rights of All Persons. Self-determination is individually and culturally relative (Smith & Routel, 2010). While discussions of self-determination in the Western context suggest

Ethics from a Multicultural Perspective   23

“self ” is the individual, in Eastern cultures the “self ” may include family or other groups of people (Clements, 2004). Self-determination first received attention in international discussions of decolonization and national independence. Because self-determination has historically been conceptualized as a collective framework, it is relevant to culturally responsive practice. Western psychology reframed selfdetermination to focus on the choices and decision-making of the individual (Ryan & Deci, 2000), but self-determination still broadly refers to choice and decision-making by the individual or the group. Too often, the voice of CLD children, families, and communities is undervalued in the educational setting. Self-determination empowers CLD populations so that their voices can be heard. Examples of ways to consider the culturally relevant interpretation of selfdetermination are described under the Informed Consent section below.

Multicultural Ethical Decision-Making Even when promoting social justice advocacy and culturally appropriate selfdetermination through culturally responsive practice, ethical dilemmas will arise. When these dilemmas arise, the culturally responsive school psychologist must consider the use of a structured ethical problem-solving model that explicitly examines the role of culture in the dilemma. A range of ethical problem-solving models have been developed (Knapp & VandeCreek, 2007; Luke, Goodrich, & Gilbride, 2013), yet few explicitly encourage the consideration of culture during the problem-solving process and few address the nuances that exist within the school setting. Luke, Goodrich, and Gilbride (2013) proposed the Intercultural Model of Ethical Decision Making (IMED), which includes all components of traditional ethical decision-making models (e.g., identify the problem, develop a plan, implement and evaluate the plan) but incorporates intentional consideration of cultural, religious, and worldview factors in every step of the decision-making process. Through this process, educators are encouraged to consider how their own culture, religion, and worldview factor into the decision-making process. Educators are encouraged to examine the biases and expectations they bring to an ethical dilemma and to be mindful that those biases may influence the decision-making process in a way that may be detrimental to the child or family. Their model adds two components that are unique to working in an educational system. One of the unique steps includes reviewing the school, district, and state-level policies as part of the decision-making process. Schools operate independently and many have their own rules and regulations related to problem-solving. Practitioners should adhere to these policies if they are representatives of the school community. Failing to consider school policies during the decision-making process may reduce the likelihood that a

24   Graybill and Varjas

psychologist will find the decision-making model applicable to their unique situation. The other unique step is to seek out consultation in an ethical dilemma. Often school personnel operate autonomously and there may be a lack of a supervision or consultative structure to access during ethical decision-making. If this is the case for the school personnel, it will be important to actively seek out someone knowledgeable and willing to engage in decision-making when ethical dilemmas arise. The intentional consideration of culture, the two unique steps, and the general problem-solving steps included in the IMED may help guide practitioners through ethical dilemmas.

Implications for Practice It is the responsibility of school psychologists to create an environment that supports cultural responsiveness, equitable access to resources and opportunities for all students, culturally appropriate self-determination among children and families, and practitioners who systematically consider culture in the ethical decision-making process (NASP, 2010b). In this nuanced role school psychologists must continue to engage in self-awareness and self-reflection and balance that with the needs of the client so that the school psychologists’ advocacy and charge to “speak up for the rights and welfare of students and families” does not impact the “right of persons to participate in decisions affecting their own welfare” (NASP, 2010b, p. 3). One area in which autonomous decision-making is critically important is in the informed consent process. Multicultural considerations in the informed consent and child assent process will be discussed next.

Informed Consent Inherent in NASP Principle I.1, which refers to Autonomy and Self-Determination (2010b), is the right to autonomously decide to consent and assent for psychological services. This process may be perceived differently depending on the families’ culture of origin. Given the importance of individual autonomy in Western cultures, individuals from Western cultures may expect informed consent to be an individual decision. However, individuals from Eastern cultures may resist the process of individual informed consent and prefer the entire family provide input during the consent process (Ho, 2006). Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 2004, the child’s legal guardian must be the person actually signing the informed consent form (IDEA 2004), but this does not prohibit the school team from welcoming other family members to participate in the informed consent process. For many parents, the decision to consent for a child to be evaluated by the school

Ethics from a Multicultural Perspective   25

system may be anxiety provoking. School psychologists are often viewed as the gate keepers to special education so parents who are hesitant about special education may be hesitant about working with the school psychologist (Reynolds, Miller, & Weiner, 2013). Therefore, the decision to consent to both evaluation and special education services should be fully informed and autonomous. Conversations with the parent about concerns that a school has about a child’s learning or behavior should begin long before the consent for evaluation is presented to the family. Too often these conversations do not happen with culturally and linguistically diverse families, which limits the families’ opportunity to engage in autonomous decision-making about their children’s education (Coady, CruzDavis, & Flores, 2008). Consider the example of a high school-aged student who had been receiving special education services under emotional/behavioral disorder for eight years and whose parents did not speak English. The student was reevaluated for continued eligibility in special education. As a result of the reevaluation, it was recommended to the parents that the student no longer receive special education services, as data did not support the need for continued services. Through the interpreter, the parents noted that they did not know their son had been in special education. Clearly, the parents had not been fully informed and as a result, the parents were denied an active role in that decision-making process. For educational decisions to be truly informed and autonomous, the family should be aware of the academic and/or behavioral data suggestive of a concern prior to a referral for the evaluation being made, and be involved in intervention planning and implementation (NASP Standard I.1.1). If a family speaks limited English or is in the process of learning English as a second language, then the school should seek interpreter services to provide academic and behavior updates to the parent (NASP Standard II.3.6). Research on informed consent issues with culturally and linguistically diverse families has suggested that having “children serve as interpreters to obtain parent permission is not permissible because it may result in misinformation or may undermine respectful parent-child relationships” (Fisher et al., 2002, p. 1030). Yet there is evidence that schools utilize children in this role (i.e., as language-brokers) despite these children feeling reluctant and/or unprepared to assume this responsibility (Lopez, 2008).

Assent While schools generally have a formal process for acquiring parental consent, the process for obtaining student assent for psychological services is typically the responsibility of the individual psychologist. Acquiring student assent is critical to

26   Graybill and Varjas

obtaining valid and reliable assessment results (NASP Standard I.1.3). The assent process is often what we think of as establishing rapport and should be conducted in a manner that is culturally and developmentally appropriate. Issues related to informed consent for evaluation and for services will be explored in the following case study. The NASP Ethical Principles will be applied to the case.

Case Study A family who recently emigrated from Nigeria brought their preschool-aged child to their neighborhood school for an evaluation after a neighbor told the family that the school system may be able to provide child care services. The school system screened the child and determined that his delayed skill level warranted a full evaluation. Through the evaluation, the clinicians identified several characteristics of autism including no use of verbal language and limited acknowledgement of other people. Through the parent interview, the clinicians asked the family if they had heard of autism to which they answered no, so the clinicians educated the family about autism. The family left and returned one month later for the special education eligibility meeting. The student was found eligible for special education services under the category of autism. The school presented the family with an individualized education program (IEP) and explained that the student could receive special education services through the school system. The family declined services, stating that they had taken the child to a Babalawo, a priest affiliated with the Yoruba religion in Southwestern Nigeria. It is believed that a Babalawo can help cure disease or illnesses (Omobola, 2014). The Babalawo had prescribed a regimen of herbs and fowl that would cure the boy’s “deformity.” The family was adamant that the child was not going to be publically identified as being “crazy,” which is a culturally common way to refer to having a disability, and that they were confident that their traditional medicine was going to cure the boy of his “craziness.” Components of NASP Principle I to Consider

The first component of NASP Principle I to consider is autonomy and selfdetermination (NASP Principle I.1). The school psychologist should ensure that the parent is fully informed about the assessment process and about intervention services. Through the consent process, the school psychologist could identify a cultural broker or a member of the Nigerian community who could answer questions the parents may have about the process.The presence of a cultural broker may increase the parent’s level of comfort asking questions about the process. The school psychologist should support culturally appropriate self-determination.

Ethics from a Multicultural Perspective   27

If the family feels uncomfortable making decisions without the support of their community during the assessment and intervention process, then the family should be encouraged to invite family, friends, and other community members to the meetings. The second component of Principle I to consider is fairness and justice (NASP Principle I.3). This principle states that school psychologists should identify and correct unjust practices in the school setting that deny parents or children their rights (Standard I.3.4). School psychologists should ensure that all children have access to resources, opportunities, and services in the education setting (Standard I.3.4). In the case study above, the school psychologist should respectfully explain the importance of individualized and early intervention services to the parent. This discussion should be respectful of the family’s wish to provide culturallyspecific interventions to the child; however, the school psychologist should explain the rationale behind providing the child with services that could increase his access to the general education curriculum and to the opportunities and resources within the school setting. Without the individualized instruction provided through special education services, the student may not have full access to all educational opportunities. Components of Other NASP Principles to Consider

Responsible assessment and intervention practices (Standard II.3.10) states that, “school psychologists encourage and promote parental participation in designing interventions for their children . . . this discussion takes into account the ethnic/ cultural values of the family and includes alternatives that may be available.” This is directly relevant to the case study described above. School psychologists, a cultural broker, or another person trusted by the family should engage the family in an in-depth conversation about the nature of special education services. Families should be informed that special education services are designed to support the child and to increase the child’s access to the general education curriculum and that services are not provided in lieu of culturally-specific interventions but can and often should co-occur. Families should be encouraged to observe special education classrooms and services prior to consenting for the services.Through the decisionmaking process, school psychologists should inform families about the process, value families’ cultural-specific intervention choices, and respect families’ final decision about special education services. In every ethical dilemma encountered by a school-based school psychologist, the NASP Principles should be read and applied when appropriate. Integrating the NASP Principles into practice requires training and practice. Integrating culture and ethical decision-making into training and research are examined next.

28   Graybill and Varjas

Implications for Research and Training This chapter highlights several important content areas (i.e., culturally responsive practice, social justice, self-determination theory, and consideration of culture during the ethical decision-making process) that should be integrated into school psychology training and research. Consistent with multicultural guidelines and advocacy competencies (APA, 2003; Bemak & Chung, 2005; Trusty & Brown, 2005), self-reflective practice regarding knowledge, skills and dispositions is essential to working effectively with CLD students (NASP, 2010a, 2010b) and should be woven into all school psychology courses, including courses on assessment, consultation, and intervention. Effective ethical practice can be accomplished in various ways including, but not limited to, engaging in critical reflection to identify one’s own biases and ensure that these biases do not negatively affect students and families (NASP, 2012a); consulting with key stakeholders to understand student and family needs (Nastasi, Moore & Varjas, 2004); understanding barriers (e.g., historical trauma, oppression) to full engagement of populations in education (NASP, 2012a, 2012b); and promoting systems change and equitable alternatives when ineffective, inequitable, and unethical policies and practices are identified (NASP, 2012a). One example of reflective practice may be as follows: when graduate students learn about verbal comprehension subtests in their cognitive assessment course, they can be encouraged to consider where they would have learned the information measured on the assessment and where the children they are assessing may have had the opportunity to learn the information assessed in those subtests. They should consider whether children would have learned that information in school, from family members, from experience, or from television. Then graduate students may be encouraged to reflect on the implications of the children’s exposure to learning opportunities on the interpretation of test scores and educational decision-making. Lack of access to learning opportunities should not be interpreted as lack of ability. In all courses, graduate students should be encouraged to engage in perspective-taking, self-reflection, and an appreciation of the differences with which all students and families may present. In addition to evaluating the effectiveness of university training programs, more research is needed on (a) multicultural ethical decision-making models, (b) the efficacy and effectiveness of interventions with CLD populations, and (c) the facilitators and barriers to culturally responsive practice and to the consideration of culture during the ethical decision-making process. First, ethical dilemmas will arise that require additional consideration of the influence of culture. More research is needed to examine the intercultural ethical decision-making model (Luke et al., 2013) and other similar decision-making models that incorporate both a strong consideration and examination of the influence of culture and differing perspectives on the ethical dilemma.

Ethics from a Multicultural Perspective   29

Second, all empirical studies, particularly intervention and measurement research, should disclose the cultural characteristics of their participant sample (Cauce, 2011). It is critical that researchers are aware of and honest about what interventions and assessments are appropriate for whom. If an intervention has been determined to be evidence-based by a select number of research studies, the generalizability of those findings should be addressed. If an assessment has been determined to be psychometrically sound when administered to White students without disabilities, test developers should note those findings. This is not to suggest that intervention and measurement research should not be conducted on homogenous samples, but researchers and test developers should be aware of and honest about the sample and should note the potentially limited generalizability of the results to populations that were not included in the study. Third, a line of inquiry is needed on the barriers and facilitators educators perceive related to engaging in culturally responsive practice. There is little time in the school day dedicated to self-reflective and perspective taking activities. The public education system is initiative heavy, with frequent changes in education policy, curricula, teacher evaluation systems, prevention and intervention models, etc. Training activities related to these initiatives may consume time educators would have to engage in self-reflective and perspective taking activities that may encourage more culturally responsive practice. Therefore, more scholarship related to integrating culturally responsiveness/self-reflection into day-to-day practice of educators is needed.

Summary Culturally responsive practice (i.e., ethical practice) and ethical decision-making should be informed by theories such as those discussed in this chapter (e.g., social justice, self-determination). Knowledge of the theoretical underpinnings of ethical practice provides guidance to school psychologists as they strive to be culturally responsive practitioners.The theoretical overview provided here is not meant to be exhaustive, but rather is meant to highlight the theoretical foundation of one NASP Principle that is particularly relevant to work with CLD students and families. Future attention should be given to the theoretical basis of those NASP Principles not discussed here in depth.

Resources Discussion Questions 1. Provide two examples of how a school psychologist could engage in culturally responsive ethical practices.

30   Graybill and Varjas

2. If an ethical dilemma arises, what are two questions you could ask during the ethical decision-making process to ensure that the impact of culture on the ethical dilemma is being considered? 3. If you encountered a parent who declined special education services for religious or cultural reasons, how would you respond to that parent to remain consistent with ethical practice, IDEA guidelines, and school policies?

Professional Organizations EdChange National Association of School Psychologists

References American Psychological Association. (2003). Guidelines on multicultural education, training, research, practice, and organizational change for psychologists. American Psychologist, 58, 377–402. American Psychological Association. (2010). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Washington, DC: Author. Bemak, F., & Chung, R. C.Y. (2005). Advocacy as a critical role for urban school counselors: Working toward equity and social justice. Professional School Counseling, 8, 196–202. Cauce, A. M. (2011). Is multicultural psychology a-scientific? Diverse methods for diversity research. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 17, 228–233. doi:10.1037/ a0023880. Clements, E. (2004). The limits of self-determination. Convergence, 37, 65–77. Coady, M. R., Cruz-Davis, J., & Flores, C. G. (2008). Personalmente: Home-school communication practices with (im)migrant families in North Florida. Bilingual Research Journal, 31, 251–270. Dailor, A. N. (2011). Ethically challenging situations reported by school psychologists: Implications for training. Psychology in the Schools, 48, 619–631. doi:10.1002/pits.20574. Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York City, NY: Plenum Press. Fisher, C. B., Hoagwood, K., Boyce, C., Duster, T., Frank, D. A., Grisso, T., . . . Zayas, L. H. (2002). Research ethics for mental health science involving ethnic minority children and youths. American Psychologist, 57(12), 1024–1040. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.57. 12.1024. Ford, D.Y., & Kea, C. D. (2009). Creating culturally responsive instruction: For students’ and teachers’ sakes. Focus on Exceptional Children, 41, 1–16. Gallardo, M. E., Johnson, J., Parham, T. A., & Carter, J. A. (2009). Ethics and multiculturalism: Advancing cultural and clinical responsiveness. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 20, 425–435. doi:10.1037/a0016871. Graves, S. L., & Newell, M. L. (2011). Current state of disproportionality in urban schools: An analysis of state-level data.Washington DC, US: American Psychological Association (APA).

Ethics from a Multicultural Perspective   31

Ho, A. (2006). Family and informed consent in multicultural setting. The American Journal of Bioethics, 6, 26–28. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004). Knapp, S., & VandeCreek, L. (2007). When values of different cultures conflict: Ethical decision making in a multicultural context. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38, 660–666. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.38.6.660. Kosciw, J. G., Greytak, E. A., Bartkiewicz, M. J., Boesen, M. J., & Palmer, N. A. (2012). The 2011 National School Climate Survey:The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth in our nation’s schools. New York City, NY: GLSEN. Lopez, E. (2008). Best practices in working with school interpreters. In A. Thomas and J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 1751–1769). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists. Lopez, E. C., & Bursztyn, A. M. (2013). Challenges and opportunities: Toward culturally responsive training in school psychology. Psychology in Schools, 50, 212–228. doi:10.1002/ pits.21674. Luke, M., Goodrich, K. M., & Gilbride, D. D. (2013). Intercultural model of ethical decision making: Addressing worldview dilemmas in school counseling. Counseling and Values, 58, 178–194. McCarthy, M. R., Wiener, R., & Soodak, L. C. (2012).Vestiges of segregation in the implementation of inclusion policies in public high schools. Educational Policy, 26, 309–338. doi:10.1177/0895904810386596. Montgomery, W. (2001). Creating culturally responsive, inclusive classrooms. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33, 4–9. Nastasi, B. K., Moore, R. B., & Varjas, K. M. (2004). School-based mental health services: Creating comprehensive and culturally specific programs. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. Nastasi, B. K., & Varjas, K. M. (2011). International development of school psychology. In M. A. Bray & T. J. Kehle (Eds.), Oxford handbook of school psychology (pp. 810–830). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. National Association of School Psychologists. (2010a). Model for comprehensive and integrated school psychological services. Bethesda, MD: Author. National Association of School Psychologists. (2010b). Principles for professional ethics. Bethesda, MD: Author. National Association of School Psychologists. (2012a). Racism, prejudice, and discrimination [Position Statement]. Bethesda, MD: Author. National Association of School Psychologists. (2012b). Effective service delivery for Indigenous children and youth [Position Statement]. Bethesda, MD: Author. North, C. E. (2006). More than words? Delving into the substantive meaning(s) of “social justice” in education. Review of Educational Research, 76, 507–535. Omobola, O. C. (2014). Influence of Yoruba culture in Christian religious worship. International Journal of Social Sciences & Education, 4, 584–595. Reynolds, W. M., Miller, G. E., & Weiner, I. B. (2013). Handbook of psychology (2nd ed.), Volume 7, Educational Psychology. Toronto, Canada: Wiley Publishers. Ryan, R., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78. Skiba, R. J., Simmons, A. B., Ritter, S., Gibb, A. C., Rausch, M. K., Cuadrado, J., & Chung, C. G. (2008). Achieving equity in special education: History, status, and current challenges, 74, 264–288.

32   Graybill and Varjas

Smith, P., & Routel, C. (2010).Transition failure:The cultural bias of self-determination and the journey to adulthood for people with disabilities. Disability Studies Quarterly, 30(1), . Sullivan, A. L., & Artiles, A. J. (2011). Racial inequity in special education: Applying inequity theory to disproportionality. Urban Education, 46, 1526–1552. doi:10.1177/00420859 11416014. Tharp, D. S. (2012). A language for social justice. Change, 44, 21–23. Toporek, R. L., Gerstein, L. H., Fouad, N. A., Roysircar, G., & Israel, T. (2006). Handbook for social justice in counseling psychology: Leadership, vision, and action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Trimble, J.,Trickett, E., Fisher, C. B., & Goodyear, L. (2012). A conversation on multicultural competence in evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 33, 112–123. Trusty, J., & Brown, D. (2005). Advocacy competencies for professional school counselors. Professional School Counseling, 8, 259–265. Wehmeyer, M. L. (2003). Self-determination: A review of the construct. In M. L.Wehmeyer, B. H. Abery, D. E. Mithaug, & R. J. Stancliffe (Eds.), Theory in self-determination: Foundations for educational practice (pp. 5–24). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher, Ltd.

Part II

Consultation and Collaboration

3

Supporting Teachers of English Learners via Instructional Consultation Emilia C. Lopez and Patricia Velasco

English learners (ELs) are in the process of acquiring English as a second language. As such, their English language skills in the areas of speaking, listening, reading and writing are progressing towards higher proficiency.The language and cultural backgrounds of ELs are diverse in the United States (U.S.). In U.S. public school settings from kindergarten to twelfth grade, the Office of English Language Acquisition (2015) reported that, betweern 2011 and 2012, over 4.4 million students or 9% of the student population were ELs; the data indicate that those students were from over 400 language backgrounds with the majority speaking Spanish, Chinese,Vietnamese, Arabic and Hmong. ELs’ levels of language proficiency range from little to no ability to communicate in English, to mixed proficiency (e.g., better able to communicate orally than in writing), to more advanced levels of English proficiency.

Instructing English Learners Given New Standards Recent reform efforts have placed great demands on all teachers, including teachers of ELs, to meet federal and state curriculum standards in order to improve student outcomes. The most recent reform efforts in the American educational system are the Common Core State Standards (CCSS, 2010b) created by the National 35

36   Lopez and Velasco

Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers. The CCSS determine academic expectations for students in Kindergarten through 12th grade classrooms in English language arts (ELA; 2010b), math (2010d), and science (Next Generation Science Standards Lead States, 2013). The ELA History and Social Studies standards (2010c) focus on students in middle school and high school.The main goal of the CCSS is to emphasize the development of critical-analytical skills across all content areas. For instance, the ELA standards require that students engage in complex texts, write to inform and argue, learn how to work collaboratively, and understand and evaluate different points of view. The mathematics CCSS require students to explain, conjecture, justify, and critique solutions to problems (Moschkovich, 2012). The NGSS expect students to ask questions and construct explanations based on scientific evidence (Bunch, Kibler, & Pimentel, 2012; Quinn, Lee, & Valdés, 2012), and the Social Studies and History ELA standards ask that middle and high school students analyze points of view embedded in primary and secondary historical sources (Reisman, 2012). The instructional goals of CCSS (2010a, 2010b) are compounded with accountability measures via pervasive forms of testing that were integrated into the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2001; Sunderman, 2008). The NCLB was recently replaced by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA, 2016). Testing is not expected to diminish in the ESSA era, but more flexible options, such as a combination of classroom paper and pencil tests and state exams, are expected to benefit ELs. Teachers have expressed frustration associated with the lack of alignment between the state tests and teachers’ understanding of the CCSS demands (Gewertz, 2016). Never have the demands on teachers and students been so great and the support needed by teachers so imperative. The pressure has doubled for teachers because they must teach English language skills as ELs learn content through English, which is the language they have not mastered (CCSS, 2010a; Velasco, 2015; Velasco & Johnson, 2015). Investigations in the area of effective instructional practices for ELs show that school professionals are not receiving adequate guidance related to implementing effective instructional practices with these students (Gersten & Baker, 2000). In a recent review of the literature, Pettit (2011) found that teachers in general education settings reported needing support to modify and adapt instruction to meet the instructional needs of ELs. The purposes of this chapter are to explore the benefits of Instructional Consultation (IC) as a service delivery model designed to support teachers of ELs with school psychologists in the role of consultants. However, the theoretical and practical issues discussed also have relevance to consultants from diverse professional backgrounds. The first part of this chapter discusses the theoretical and research basis for multicultural consultation; the last section focuses on the practical, research, and training implications of providing IC to consultees working with ELs.

Supporting Teachers of ELs via IC   37

Theoretical and Research Basis Consultation is an indirect process that facilitates problem solving between consultants and consultees as they collaborate to address clients’ difficulties (Brown, Pryzwansky, & Schulte, 2011). Rosenfield (1987) conceptualized the IC model for school psychologists as consultants and teachers as consultees. The essential elements of IC are: (a) decisions are made by relying on instructional and behavioral data; (b) problem solving is achieved through stages (i.e., gather information about the problem, problem analysis, intervention planning and implementation); (c) the focus of the process is on academic issues; (d) communication is an essential part of the process; and (e) collaboration is important to accomplish consultation goals (Rosenfield, 1987). In a comprehensive review of the literature, Rosenfield, Gravois, and Silva (2014) discussed the available research supporting the core components of the IC model. The research shows that consultees gained knowledge and skills related to instructional strategies as a result of receiving support via IC. For example, consultees increased their problem solving skills by improving their ability to more clearly define and prioritize their instructional concerns. The collaborative nature of the IC process also helped consultees to focus their concerns less on students as the source of the problem and more on examining and changing their instructional strategies. Silva and Rosenfield (2004) investigated the use of instructional consultation teams (ICTs) to address the instructional needs of ELs; the teams included school psychologists as part of the consultation process. The results indicated that the ICTs decreased the number of ELs referred for and placed in special education programs.The results are certainly promising given concerns about the disproportionality of culturally and linguistically diverse students in special education (Klingner & Artiles, 2003). The IC model incorporates consultee-centered consultation (CCC) approaches, emphasizing the role of the consultant as helping and supporting the consultees to examine the consultation referral concerns from a variety of perspectives (Knotek & Hylander, 2014). Using the CCC approach, the consultant joins the consultees in problem solving through the stages of consultation, and focuses on helping teacher consultees to jointly conceptualize and reconceptualize the instructional questions, which may change as consultees gain more clarity and perspective about their instructional concerns (Rosenfield, Gravois, & Silva, 2014).

Conceptualizing IC within a Multicultural Framework An examination of the available literature indicates that there are multicultural principles applicable to consultation that are supported by research and point to

38   Lopez and Velasco

the value of engaging in consultation using culturally responsive practices. The research shows that a multicultural framework leads to more positive outcomes in consultation. Five core multicultural principles and the consultation corresponding research are discussed below. Consultants are Sensitive to Cultural Differences

The multicultural literature addresses the need for instructional consultants to (a) be aware of how cultural differences impact behaviors, attitudes, and perceptions of consultants, consultees, and clients; (b) respect and value cultural differences and alternative points of view; and (c) develop an awareness of their own attitudes, beliefs, biases, and perceptions, as well as how their cultural contexts (e.g., ethnicity, race) influence their interactions with consultees (Ingraham, 2000). Ingraham (2003) conducted qualitative research using cross-cultural consultation case studies and found that, if novice school psychology consultants ignored cultural factors or were unsuccessful in approaching them with experienced consultees, the consultation process was not effective. Meyers (2002) described a consultation project that focused on contracting with several schools to implement reform efforts around instructional strategies for African American students. Meyers attributed unsuccessful consultation outcomes partly to conflicted cultural reference points as consultants and consultees were unable to successfully address and resolve differences in expectations and beliefs about how to instruct African American students. Consultants and Consultees Acquire Knowledge about their Clients’ Cultural Backgrounds

The multicultural framework calls for instructional consultants to acquire knowledge about cultural differences and their clients’ cultural backgrounds (Ingraham, 2000). Cultural differences vary across a number of variables that include family structure and composition; child-rearing practices; perceptions about education, disabilities, and mental health; perceptions about seeking help and interventions; and patterns of communication (Lynch, 2011). In a survey investigation conducted by Ramirez and Alghorani (2003) school psychologists recognized cultural differences between Hispanic and non-Hispanic students and considered those differences as important elements in consultation. Tarver Behring, Cabello, Kushida and Murguia (2000) documented modifications to school-based consultation approaches by interviewing consultants about their practices with consultees, and culturally diverse parents and students. All the consultants reported using various modifications, and culturally diverse consultants reported using more modifications when consulting with culturally diverse consultees and students than consultants who were not from culturally

Supporting Teachers of ELs via IC   39

diverse backgrounds. The modifications targeting teacher consultees included helping teachers to develop (a) an awareness of students’ cultural differences in class, (b) an openness to discussing culture with students, and (c) culturally sensitive skills with students. Another modification entailed allowing more time for relationship building between consultees and students. Consultants are Mindful of Cultural Differences in Communication

Communication is an important aspect of engaging in consultation as it is the medium by which consultants and consultees ground their relationship and explore the consultee’s concerns as well as potential solutions. Ingraham’s (2003) research shows that consultants who are mindful of matching their communication styles to consultees’ styles are more successful in fostering positive relationships with consultees. She also found that self disclosure was useful when consultants shared their own experiences in regard to learning about cultural differences; self-disclosure served as a tool to support consultees who needed encouragement to engage in their own exploration of cultural issues (e.g., a consultant shares his or her experience of learning a second language as an immigrant and this helps the consultee to understand how ELs experience learning English as a second langauge). Lopez (2000) found that clarity of communication was important when interpreters were used in schools to conduct IC with parents who were proficient in languages other than English. The quality of the translations directly influenced the consultation process as it often facilitated or served as a barrier in the consultation process (i.e., poor translation led to miscommunications and unclear problem identification). Cultural Differences Influence Interpersonal Relationships between Consultants and Consultees

Multicultural approaches call for instructional consultants to approach the consultation relationship and rapport building with cultural sensitivity. Using qualitative methods, Ingraham (2003) analyzed the factors that led to unsuccessful consultation cases. She found that power influences were present in cases where novice school psychology consultants worked with experienced teacher consultees who may not have viewed the consultants as having sufficient expertise. Ingraham reported that the consultants who were successful in approaching cultural issues with their consultees used strategies such as one-downmanship, expressions of empathy for the clients, reframing cultural perspectives, bridging across differences, creating emotional safety, and co-constructing the problem with the consultees. Ingraham hypothesized that these interpersonal strategies were instrumental in the establishment of positive working relationships that led to conceptual changes in how the consultees viewed the students’ difficulties.

40   Lopez and Velasco

Consultants Acknowledge how Systemic Issues Impact the Cultural Context in Consultation

Meyers (2002) also shed insight into multiple systemic issues that played a part in the consultants’ attempts to implement a specific pedagogical approach for African American students. In that investigation, systemic factors such as a lack of commitment by consultees to participate in the project and dissatisfaction with procedures, policies, and allocation of resources resulted in unsuccessful reform efforts.The qualitative investigation conducted by Goldstein and Harris (2000) also reported systemic barriers as the bilingual education and special education staff had difficulties in collaborating and integrating their services to support the learning needs of ELs with learning difficulties. The principles and research discussed in this section supports that integrating a multicultural framework is effective in the process of engaging in consultation. These principles and the corresponding research have multiple implications for school psychologists engaging in IC support with teachers of ELs. The next section of this chapter addresses the implications of using IC as a support system for teachers of ELs.

Implications for Practice School psychologists are in a unique position to support teachers of ELs because of their expertise in problem identification and intervention delivery. As instructional consultants, school psychologists can collaborate with consultees to explore language and cultural differences that impact the learning process (Lopez, 2006). Issues related to language development include the students’ progress in acquiring skills in the native language and in English within bilingual education programs. The impact of second language development of ELs can also be examined in the context of their academic performance with questions such as: How does vocabulary knowledge in English impact ELs’ reading comprehension, and comprehension of content in math and science? How can academic tasks be adapted for students in different stages of second language development? Consultees’ and clients’ perceptions of the instructional process is another potential area of exploration (e.g., what are the ELs’ attitudes towards the instructional tasks? How difficult does the consultee perceive the instructional adaptations needed by ELs?). Teachers of ELs may need help in understanding second language development and acculturation issues that impact students’ academic progress (e.g., how does second language development impact writing skills and how can writing tasks be adapted for ELs in different stages of second language development? How does acculturation impact students’ understanding of story books that refer to behaviors and values that the students may not be familiar with and what strategies can consultees use to help

Supporting Teachers of ELs via IC   41

students to gain that knowledge?). Of particular importance is supporting consultees to plan and implement effective instructional strategies and adaptations of existing strategies. Culturally responsive classroom management strategies to create more supportive learning environments may also be needed (e.g., considering alternative ways to reinforce students from cultures who feel uncomfortable with public displays of feedback by relying more on one-on-one oral or written feedback). These are only a sample of issues that can be addressed by consultants using culturally responsive practices. Practicing IC within a multicultural framework requires consultants to address multicultural issues throughout the consultation process. The discussion that follows elaborates on the benefits of practicing IC while infusing a multicultural framework throughout every stage of the process. Given the unique instructional needs of ELs, key instructional intervention issues that consultants and consultees can explore to address curriculum challenges and standards are also addressed.

Practicing IC within a Multicultural Framework Consultants such as school psychologists engage consultees in problem-solving through IC stages that comprise establishing a contract or an informal agreement about the students and instructional issues that will be addressed, building rapport and establishing a collaborative working relationship, collecting background information for the purposes of problem clarification and identification, using the information collected to analyze the sources of the problem from an ecological perspective, planning and implementing interventions, evaluating consultation processes and outcomes, and terminating or concluding the case when appropriate (Brown et al., 2011). The stages are described below. Contracting or Reaching an Agreement for Consultation

As the initial stage in the consultation process, contracting represents the initial agreement between consultants and consultees as to the students and instructional issues of concern (Rosenfield, 1987). At this stage, teachers may or may not have a clear understanding of ELs’ instructional needs nor a clear vision of how instruction can be altered to benefit ELs. The consultant’s role is to listen, support the consultee, and help to establish a direction for consultation with culturally sensitive communication skills and regard for consultees as teachers of ELs. Establishing Relationships with Consultees in IC

An essential component of IC that is part of initiating and sustaining the consultation process involves establishing positive relationships with consultees (Lopez & Rogers,

42   Lopez and Velasco

2001; Rogers & Lopez, 2002). Building and establishing positive relationships should be an ongoing goal in the IC process. Ingraham (2000) highlighted the importance of culturally sensitive approaches in developing and maintaining rapport with consultees. Consultants must work towards valuing consultees’ instructional expertise while also exploring consultees’ perceptions of ELs and their instructional needs. Consultees need to feel that there is safety in discussing their frustrations as well as successes when instructing ELs. Power authority dimensions also need attention when collaborating with consultees (Ingraham, 2003). Power issues may emerge when consultees who have little knowledge and skills about teaching ELs work with consultants who have expertise in those areas; however, the reverse situation can also apply when the teacher consultee has more expertise with ELs than the consultant. A lack of knowledge or skills on the part of the consultant or the consultee about instructional issues relevant to ELs may lead to feelings of inadequacy or concerns of being viewed as culturally insensitive or biased. School psychologists in the role of instructional consultants must be willing to process those power differentials and feelings of inadequacy. For example, consultants can seek out peer supervision to explore their own feelings of inadequacy; they can also seek support from peer school psychologists who have expertise in working with ELs. Consultees with little or no knowledge about ELs can feel supported when consultants highlight the consultees’ motivation to help ELs to succeed. Engaging in Problem Identification and Analyses in IC

Problem identification is the stage during which consultants collaborate with consultees in the process of clarifying their instructional concerns and questions. Cultural differences may result in consultants, consultees, and clients having different perceptions about ELs’ difficulties. ELs, for example, may feel that the teachers and consultants are not understanding how a lack of academic language in English may impact comprehension of instructional tasks; the student may thus feel defensive and disengaged if viewed as lacking motivation or having a disability. Consultees perceiving ELs as language deficient may be reluctant to restructure instruction in ways that are more challenging. In general, how “the problem” is viewed in consultation is certainly pivotal as it drives the problem-solving stages towards interventions that may result as ineffective because “the problem” was not clearly identified. Consultants can help consultees explore how “the problem” is being viewed in IC by using a variety of problem identification strategies to examine the instructional triangle, which includes the student, the curriculum, and the instructional tasks (Rosenfield et al., 2014). Using problem identification strategies that are sensitive to cultural and language differences are pivotal in IC. Among the recommended

Supporting Teachers of ELs via IC   43

strategies are interviews with questions such as: How are ELs functioning in the classroom? What are the instructional strengths and weaknesses of ELs? What concepts and skills are being taught? How are those concepts and skills being taught to ELs? Is the curriculum appropriate for ELs? What are the characteristics of the instructional tasks? Are the instructional tasks appropriate for ELs? Observations are also useful tools to examine the instructional ecology in regard to ELs. Haager, Gersten, Baker and Graves (2003) developed the English Language Learners’ Classroom Observation Instrument based on effective instruction research for ELs.The instrument focuses on observing (a) explicit instruction, (e.g., skills are modeled, prompts are provided), (b) instruction geared towards low-performing students (e.g., high level of response accuracy, monitor student performance, provide review and practice), (c) sheltered English techniques (e.g., use of visuals, students encouraged to provide elaborate responses), (d) interactive teaching (e.g., maintaining academic engagement), (e) vocabulary development (e.g., teaching difficult vocabulary, previewing and reviewing vocabulary), and (f) instruction of phonemic awareness and decoding. Assessment based on the students’ curriculum are appropriate to explore ELs’ skills and to examine if the teaching materials are at the students’ instructional level and have cultural content that is familiar (Lopez, 2006). For example, informal academic assessment tools such as reading inventories and test–teach–test methods can be used to examine ELs’ academic strengths and weaknesses. Analyzing errors in language samples and work samples (e.g., writing tasks) will yield information to determine if the errors made by the student are a function of language transference (i.e., a common phenomenon in second language acquisition whereby the learner transfers syntactic and semantic rules from the first language to the second language). If a mismatch is suspected between the students’ level of academic functioning in English and the content of the curriculum and corresponding tasks, consultants and consultees should consider how language proficiency in English is impacting the students’ functioning. In collaboration, the consultant and consultee can explore (a) the students’ level of language proficiency in the areas of listening, speaking, reading and writing through language proficiency assessment; (b) the match between the students’ level of language proficiency and the instructional tasks by using assessment tools such as reading inventories based on the classroom curriculum, and (c) the adaptations needed to provide ELs with content and tasks that match their instructional skills. Consultants can engage consultees in problem analyses by examining background information such as ELs’ (a) past educational experiences (e.g., whether they attended school in native country, grades completed in native country), (b) past history with educational programs (e.g., bilingual education, English as a Second Language [ESL]), and (c) cultural differences in regard to behaviors and behavioral expectations. Given that many ELs have cultural differences and low levels of

44   Lopez and Velasco

language proficiency, they often have difficulties succeeding in tasks where they need specific background information that they are not familiar with as a result of cultural differences and/or a lack of exposure to concepts. Also, ELs who, for example, come from cultures in which the expected classroom behaviors are to listen, memorize, and accept the knowledge imparted by the teacher as the authority figure may be challenged in classrooms with expectations that call for readily volunteering to participate, evaluating content rather than memorizing, and challenging the teacher as the resource of information in lively debates. Classroom behaviors examined in the context of cultural differences and expectations provide consultants and consultees with a better understanding of ELs’ performance. As information and data are gathered and consultants engage consultees in the process of problem analyses, a primary goal of IC is to support consultees to examine alternative ways of conceptualizing ELs’ difficulties with instructional tasks. With the support of instructional consultants, consultees who may initially view their ELs as unable to learn may start to view these students as capable learners. Consultees who may have felt frustrated or inadequate in their ability to meet the instructional needs of ELs may be better able to express their frustrations and start to feel a sense of self-efficacy as they incorporate new strategies into their instructional repertoires. Planning and Implementing Interventions in IC

Goldstein and Harris (2000) identified major differences in the ways that parents and teachers of Spanish-speaking students viewed students’ instructional difficulties and needs related to bilingual education. These divergent perceptions impacted intervention planning and intervention as it was difficult to gain intervention acceptability from parents and school staff. In the context of intervention implementation, Meyers (2002) found that pedagogical dissonance or dissonance in how consultants and consultees viewed curriculum models for African American students (i.e., consultants emphasized direct instruction and the schools they consulted with emphasized whole language approaches) led to consultees accepting or rejecting specific instructional approaches and interventions. Meyers concluded that consultants must approach the planning and implementation of interventions with flexibility in responding to consultees’ belief systems about instruction and curriculum. As in other stages of IC, planning and implementing interventions must be accomplished in collaboration with the consultees. Instructional decisions should be guided by what we know about effective instruction for ELs. However, in this era of curricula standards, decisions in schools are also often made in the context of new instructional demands such as those espoused by the CCSS (2010b, 2010c, 2010d). Given these challenges and the unique characteristics of ELs as students

Supporting Teachers of ELs via IC   45

who are in the process of learning a new language, interventions focused on language are highlighted next. In order to guide consultants, such as school psychologists, to work with consultees on planning and implementing instructional interventions for ELs, the discussion is framed in terms of questions that can be explored collaboratively. These questions are intended to elicit dialogue between consultants and consultees regarding the planning and implementation of instructional interventions for ELs. The three questions posed emphasize the conceptualization of language development, the types of support ELs need to understand new material, and how the curriculum can be designed so that ELs can learn language while learning through language. The discussion relevant to each question also integrates challenges and expectations as per the CCSS and ESSA. How do consultants and consultees plan and implement interventions using current conceptualizations of language development?

Language development can be approached from a variety of standpoints during instruction planning and implementation (Heritage, Walqui, & Linquanti, 2015). Perhaps the most common notion is that second, or new language development, follows a predictable path in which students master gradually more complex forms of language and vocabulary. To illustrate, different syntactic forms are arbitrarily assigned a progressive path, whereby for example, present tense (I walk) is perceived to be easier to learn than the past tense (I walked), and this is considered easier than learning the future tense (I will walk). If consultants and consultees were to emphasize a framework that calls for teaching ELs appropriate forms of language using a progressive path, correction and fluency may be chosen as goals that may lead to drills and memorization as intervention strategies. However, the Application of the Common Core State Standards for English Language Learners emphasizes that “It is possible to meet the standards in reading, writing, speaking and listening without displaying native like control of conventions and vocabulary” (National Governors Association, 2010a, p. 1). In essence, the CCSS (2010a) embed the notion that the way that children use language to express their thinking is more important than accuracy and fluency. However, emphasizing language for self-expression does not mean that ELs’ errors are not to be corrected. Teachers can find opportunities to do both at different times. For example, in a whole class conversation in which students are discussing the ethical and political reasons that led to the American Civil War, the teacher can focus on the reasoning process students are using to support or argue points; language accuracy can be addressed during one-on-one conversations or other tasks designed for that purpose. Discussions between consultants and consultees during IC intervention planning and implementation can embed notions of how to address language form and fluency, as well as how to design a curriculum that

46   Lopez and Velasco

emphasizes higher order thinking and problem solving to maintain high expectations for ELs. How can consultants and consultees design interventions to support ELs in understanding new material?

Teachers face the challenge of teaching content area knowledge as well as integrating new vocabulary and language forms into the curriculum. Teaching content is emphasized by the CCSS (2010a, 2010b, 2010c). Consultants must be aware that teaching content is a particular challenge for teachers of ELs. Since ELs’ reading and writing skills may be below grade level, consultees can find the implementation of the curriculum to be above and beyond what their students know. School psychologists in the role of consultants can reassure teacher consultees that there are no simple answers to these challenges. However, one aspect that should not be forgotten is that students do not come to school as empty vessels. In fact, students enter classrooms with background knowledge that is the product of their own experiences in and out of school (Pearson, 2013). In essence, what students know, or do not know, will impact what and how they learn. The more a student knows about a topic, the easier it is to keep growing and expanding that specific area. The less a student knows about a topic, the more necessary it is to take the time to support understanding of basic facts. A seminal work in this area was carried out in 1979 by Steffensen, Joag-Deve, and Anderson (1979). In their study, American and Asian Indian participants read letters about an American wedding and an Indian wedding. Subsequently, all participants were asked to recall details from both passages. When subjects read the passage about the wedding based on their own culture, or “the native passage,” the participants read the passage more rapidly, recalled a larger amount of information, and produced more culturally appropriate elaborations of the content. When the participants read the “foreign passage” about the other culture’s wedding, they read the passage more slowly, recalled much less information, and produced culturally-based distortions. The results indicated that cultural context influences comprehension.This phenomenon occurs regardless of individual abilities and there is no question, based on research, that background knowledge is a key element in understanding how all students learn (Marzano, 2004; Pearson, 2013). A main concern for teachers is how to teach when ELs lack the background knowledge necessary to meet curricular demands (Velasco, 2015). The consultants’ role is to assist the consultee in identifying strategies that help ELs to acquire the background knowledge they lack. These students will benefit from being given the opportunity to read additional books in their home language, and to engage in instructional discussion that can enhance their understanding of the new content. Teachers can use analogies as a strategy to compare and bridge two concepts. As an

Supporting Teachers of ELs via IC   47

example, students engaged in analyzing the social and political reasons that led to the American Civil War can also be invited to discuss political upheavals and/or revolutions that they have witnessed or heard about from their family members. These comparisons engage students in ethical and philosophical discussions that will prompt them to analyze their own perspectives and learn from others. The reality that consultants must help consultees to accept is that developing background knowledge about a topic will take extra time and effort for ELs. An immigrant student with little knowledge of English and entering a fourth grade class may not be familiar with the American colonial times leading to independence. Building baseline knowledge of this topic might take a week or two before the teacher is ready to focus on the key point of the unit (e.g., the three stages of the Revolutionary War). Consultants can be instrumental in reassuring consultees that providing this background knowledge will benefit ELs. Consultants can also support consultees in their efforts to communicate with administrators about the need to implement significant instructional adaptations to meet the learning needs of ELs. Systemic support is pivotal, as administration must provide resources in the form of time given to teachers to develop instructional materials and teacher training to help consultees develop their skills to instruct ELs. Consultants can also encourage consultees to provide explicit contexts as a means to support ELs in understanding new material. Learning science via experiments provides such contexts because it is a powerful setting that integrates new language forms and new ways of understanding that are supported by contextual clues (i.e., conducting the experiment). Instruction that embeds hands-on experiences also provides contextual support to learn new concepts. Another strategy that faciliates learning new material is peer collaboration. Writing a summary about a science experiment in conjunction with other students is a useful strategy (Heritage,Walqui & Linquanti, 2015). Initial drafts can be created in the home language and be progressively transformed into the final draft in English as translation tasks have been shown to be effective in helping students to understand new content and language (Goodwin & Jiménez, 2016). How can consultants and consultees implement interventions that support ELs in learning language as they learn through language?

Vocabulary is an area that teachers of language learners view as important and consultants can reinforce those perceptions because of the key role that vocabulary instruction plays for ELs (Marzano, 2004). Vocabulary instruction needs to focus on developing ELs’ basic language skills to communicate in social situations as well as language that is required in academic settings. In the context of academic vocabulary, consultants and consultees must carefully plan how to teach word meanings in content areas. Terms such as “reading like a historian” or “reading like

48   Lopez and Velasco

a mathematician” reflect the influence that disciplinary or content reading is having as the NGSS and the ELA standards for history and social studies are implemented (2010c, 2010d). In content areas such as chemistry and math, the specific meaning, as opposed to the general meaning, of a word needs to mastered—face in geometry, for example, is not the same as the general meaning of that word. When reading a chemistry text, the word solution also presents different layers of meanings, but learners must deconstruct the meaning based on knowledge of chemistry. Researchers agree that providing opportunities for ELs to analyze language improves language development as well as reading comprehension, and this is a strategy that consultants can recommend to teachers of ELs (Wong Fillmore & Fillmore, 2013). Language learners as young as kindergarteners benefit from having opportunities every week to analyze paragraphs. Wong Fillmore and Fillmore (2013) refer to them as “juicy paragraphs” (p. 2). The focus should be on analyzing vocabulary, key aspects for understanding the text, and syntax within the paragraph (Marzano, 2004). Students can analyze how pronouns substitute nouns (e.g., “The soldiers marched when the captain said they could”—where “they” is substituting for “the soldiers”), or how conjunctions alter the form of a sentence (e.g., “The soldiers marched because the captain gave the order”; “The captain gave the order, so the soldiers marched”). These tasks allow students to understand how language works and gain a deeper understanding of what a paragraph means. Analyzing language is a beneficial practice for all school grades but it is particularly relevant within disciplinary content areas at the middle and high school levels as vocabulary and syntax become more technical, and concepts increase in complexity. The intervention strategies suggested above are only a sample of potential interventions that can be considered for ELs. A major strength of the IC model is its emphasis on the role of consultants in supporting consultees as they explore a variety of potential instructional strategies and make decisions about the use of those strategies. Thus, as consultants and consultees jointly plan and implement interventions, issues of treatment acceptability and treatment integrity must be carefully considered. Interventions such as the ones discussed in the previous section require consultees to adapt or modify instruction in complex and demanding ways (Lopez, 2006). The role of the consultant in the intervention stage is to support the consultee in planning for how to integrate strategies into the curriculum in ways that are manageable. Teacher consultees implementing strategies that are new to them or that involve extensive accommodations may need considerable support from the consultant in locating resources and information. Explicit and clear intervention scripts should be available to consultees as a reference during intervention implementation. Consultees challenged when implementing new strategies or adapting existing strategies will need support from consultants in the form of encouragement and a sounding board for their frustrations. Collaborations with bilingual

Supporting Teachers of ELs via IC   49

education and ESL staff, as well as bilingual special education staff when needed, are additional sources of support to arrange co-teaching experiences and peer collaborative efforts focused on curriculum planning and the development of appropriate instructional tasks. Consulting with groups of teachers who are all struggling with instructional issues relevant to ELs can also provide a medium by which instructional consultants encourage consultees to share resources and compare instructional strategies. Evaluating Process and Outcomes in IC

The evaluation stage of IC can also be approached with a multicultural perspective. Process evaluation efforts focused on multicultural issues serve the function of examining how cultural issues have been considered in the context of communication, rapport building, and collaboration. Consultants must engage in the process of self-evaluation and can seek out consultees’ feedback as to how culturally responsive practices have been incorporated in the process of communicating, relating, and collaborating with consultees. Outcome evaluation should involve an examination of changes in the consultee, client, and consultant with questions emphasizing: Were there changes in the consultees’ attitudes, beliefs and perceptions about ELs’ instructional needs? What was the impact of the IC process on the consultees’ instructional practices with ELs? Were there changes in the ELs’ academic progress? Was the consultant responsive to the consultees’ needs as well as to the needs of ELs? Among the issues that need to be carefully considered and evaluated are how systemic components impact ELs and the process of IC for these students. Systems that encourage collaboration between bilingual staff, ESL teachers, and other educators benefits ELs because their teachers are able to share resources and engage in peer support (Goldstein & Harris, 2000). Attitudes communicating that ELs belong to all teachers foster educational environments that embrace those students and promote student engagement. The presence of bilingual and ESL personnel, the availability of instructional materials designed for ELs, and the support of administrators can all positively influence the implementation of IC for ELs. Terminating or Concluding an IC Case

The decision to bring a case to closure should be undertaken with a reflective stance that explores: Were multicultural issues consistently and clearly addressed in the consultation process? Were concerns resolved in a way that adequately addressed cultural issues and differences between consultants, consultees, and clients? And, were instructional concerns addressed using culturally responsive practices? A useful termination strategy is to provide consultees with a summary of the IC case, including intervention scripts describing the interventions and adaptations used

50   Lopez and Velasco

during the consultation case (Rosenfield, 1987). Consultees are then able to refer to that information in the future when instructing other ELs. Sheridan (2000) suggested finding ongoing systems of support to facilitate the termination of consultation services. Potential systems of support for teachers of ELs include co-teaching opportunities with ESL teachers and ongoing consultation as teachers find new instructional challenges. Participation in inservice training focused on instructional issues for ELs is also recommended for consultants and consultees (Pettit, 2011). A strong argument is made in this chapter for the collaboration between consultants, such as school psychologists, and teachers as consultees for the benefit of ELs. Undoubtedly, school psychologists and teachers can create pathways between assessment and instruction, policy and practice, and language and academic content that can pave the way to refocusing on the learning needs of ELs. As the practice of culturally responsive IC evolves, the issues of conducting future IC research, and training consultants and consultees need further consideration.These are the topics examined in the next section of the chapter.

Implications for Future Research and Training Under the larger umbrella of multicultural consultation, there are a number of key research questions that continue to need investigation: What are the cultural issues that impact collaboration in consultation? To what extent does language and culture affect rapport, relationship building, and communication between consultants and consultees? How does a multicultural framework impact process and outcome variables in consultation? A number of other research questions can also be explored specifically from an IC perspective. For example, how do IC consultants’ and consultees’ beliefs about ELs and specific instructional programs, such as bilingual education, impact consultation outcomes in terms of intervention acceptability? How do consultees’ perceptions of ELs impact IC outcomes? And, what strategies can IC consultants use to help consultees to reconceptualize their perceptions and expectations of ELs in instructional contexts? Pettit (2011) recently reviewed empirical research showing that teachers’ beliefs about ELs impact student motivation and performance, and classroom interactions between teachers and students. The research also shows that general education teachers often have misconceptions about second language development and ELs’ abilities to master challenging curricula. Predictors found to influence teacher beliefs included teacher training and experiences instructing ELs. The utility of IC is promising for ELs and this is research that should enlighten us about consulteecentered approaches that will help consultants to engage consultees in discourse that explores their beliefs about and experiences with ELs.

Supporting Teachers of ELs via IC   51

A number of different methodologies are available to investigate culturally responsive practices in IC. Ingraham (2000) argued that case study research on multicultural consultation facilitates the investigation of “subtle cross-cultural issues such as pressures on consultees for student achievement and multicultural education, power differential associated with privilege or cultural/professional status, and the interaction of consultant, consultee(s), and client(s) individual and cultural variables” (p. 323). Participant and action research can also be instrumental in examining multicultural consultation practices as consultants and consultees reflect on their own IC experiences. Single subject design readily lends itself to investigating interventions outcomes in IC for ELs. Quantitative methods should also be used to examine process as well as outcomes in IC focused on ELs. Training issues also need our attention in the preparation of culturally responsive instructional consultants. Coursework and field experiences emphasizing competencies in cross-cultural communication, collaboration, and rapport building are essential for school psychologists to demonstrate competencies in IC within a multicultural framework. Case conceptualization and analyses should be expanded via supervision in courses and fieldwork experiences with multicultural emphases. Consultants must also be prepared to deconstruct and address systemic issues impacting the delivery of IC services to ELs. Preservice and inservice training must emphasize the unique skills needed to work with multicultural populations and, most relevant to this chapter, the competencies needed by consultants and consultees to address the instructional needs of ELs (Lopez, 2006; Lopez & Bursztyn, 2013). As training in these areas evolves, research is needed on the preparation of IC consultants to deliver services using culturally responsive practices. In essence, the field of IC is in its early stages of development in regard to multicultural practices and we must continue to grow as IC practitioners, trainers, and researchers to meet the instructional needs of ELs.

Resources Discussion Questions 1. What are core principles in the practice of IC using a multicultural framework? 2. How can consultants integrate a multicultural framework through every stage of the IC consultation process? 3. What kinds of instructional issues related to language and culture do IC consultants need to consider when designing interventions for ELs?

52   Lopez and Velasco

Professional Organizations Center for Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence (CREDE) Colorin Colorado

Additional Readings Ingraham, C. L. (2014). Studying multicultural aspects of consultation. In W. Erchul & S. Sheridan (Eds.). Handbook of research in school consultation (2nd ed., pp. 323–348). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. The author provides a discussion of research methods to explore multicultural issues in consultation. The chapter also provides a thorough review of the literature and research relevant to multicultural consultation. Gottlieb, M. & Ernst-Slavit, G. (2014). Academic language in diverse classrooms. Definitions and context. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. This book presents the evolving theory behind the construct of academic language. It provides a discussion of academic language, examples of each of its components, and a template for direct classroom applicability. This source also describes the process by which teachers can integrate academic language into their everyday classroom practices.

References Bailey, A. L., & Heritage, M. (2014). The role of language learning progressions in improved instruction and assessment of English language learners. TESOL Quarterly, 48(3), 480–506. doi:10.1002/tesq.176. Brown, D., Pryzwansky, W. B., & Schulte, A. C. (2011). Psychological consultation and collaboration: Introduction to theory and practice (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. Bunch, C., Kibler, A., & Pimentel, S. (2012). Realizing opportunities for English learners in the Common Core Language Arts and Disciplinary Literacy Standards. In K. Hakuta & M. Santos (Eds.), Understanding language: Commissioned papers on language and literacy issues in the Common Core State Standards and the Next Generation Science Standards (pp. 1–16). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University. Every Student Succeeds Act. U.S. Department of Education. (2016). Ed. gov. (n.p.). Retrieved from , accessed October 13, 2015. Garcia, O. & Kleifgen, J. (2015). Educating emergent bilinguals: Policies, programs and practices. New York: Teachers College Press. Gersten, R. M. & Baker, S. K. (2000). The professional knowledge base on instructional practices that support cognitive growth for English-language learners. In R. Gersten, E. P. Schiller, & S. Vaughn (Eds.), Contemporary special education research: Synthesis of the knowledge base on critical instructional issues (pp. 31–79). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Supporting Teachers of ELs via IC   53

Gewertz, C. (March, 2016). State solidarity erodes on Common Core tests. Education Week. (N.p., n.d.). Retrieved from , accessed March 17, 2016. Goldstein, B. S. C., & Harris, K. C. (2000). Consultant practices in two heterogeneous Latino schools. School Psychology Review, 29, 368–377. Goodwin, A. & Jiménez, R. (2016). TRANSLATE: New strategic approaches for English language learners. The Reading Teacher, 69(6), 621–625. Haager, D., Gersten, R. M., Baker, S. K., & Graves, A. M. (2003). The English-language Learner Classroom Observation Instrument: Observations of beginning reading instruction in urban schools. In S. R.Vaughn & K. L. Briggs (Eds.), Reading in the classroom: Systems for observing teaching and learning (pp. 111–114). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Heritage, M., Walqui, A., & Linquanti, R. (2015). English language learners and the new standards: Developing language, content knowledge, and analytical practices in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Ingraham, C. L. (2000). Consultation through a multicultural lens: Multicultural and cross-cultural consultation in schools. School Psychology Review, 29, 320–343. Ingraham, C. L. (2003). Multicultural consultee-centered consultation: When novice consultants explore cultural hypotheses with experienced teacher consultees. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 14, 329–362. doi:10.1080/10474412.2003. 9669492. Klingner, J. K., & Artiles, A. J. (2003). When should bilingual students be in special education? Educational Leadership, 61(2), 66–71. Knotek, S. E., & Hylander, I. (2014). Research issues in mental health consultation and consultee-centered approaches. In W. Erchul & S. Sheridan (Eds.), Handbook of research in school consultation (2nd ed., pp. 153–179). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Lopez, E. C. (2000). Conducting instructional consultation through interpreters. School Psychology Review, 29, 378–388. Lopez, E. C. (2006).Targeting English language learners, tasks, and treatments in instructional consultation. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 22, 59–79. doi:10.1300/J370v22n02_04. Lopez, E. C., & Bursztyn, A. M. (2013). Future challenges and opportunities towards culturally responsive training in school psychology. Psychology in the Schools, 50, 212–228. doi:10.1002/pits.21674. Lopez, E. C. & Nastasi, B. K. (2014). Process and outcome research in selected models of consultation. In W. Erchul & S. Sheridan (Eds.), Handbook of research in school consultation (2nd ed., pp. 304–320). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Lopez, E. C. & Rogers, M. R. (2001). Conceptualizing cross-cultural school psychology competencies. School Psychology Quarterly, 16, 270–302. doi:10.1521/scpq.16.3.270.19889. Lynch, E.W. (2011). Developing cross-cultural competence. In E.W. Lynch & M. J. Hanson (Eds.), Developing cross-cultural competence: A guide for working with children and their families (4th ed., pp. 41–78). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Marzano, R. J. (2004). Building background knowledge for academic achievement. Alexandria,VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Meyers, B. (2002). The contract negotiation stage of a school-based, cross-cultural organizational consultation: A case study. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 13, 151–183. doi:10.1207/S1532768XJEPC1303_02. Moschkovich, J. (2012). Mathematics, the Common Core, and language: Recommendations for mathematics instruction for EL aligned with the Common Core. In K. Hakuta & M. Santos (Eds.), Understanding language: Commissioned papers on language and literacy issues in

54   Lopez and Velasco

the Common Core State Standards and the Next Generation Science Standards (pp. 17–31). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010a). Application of the Common Core State Standards for English Language Learners. Washington, DC. Retrieved from , accessed October 14, 2015. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010b). Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts. Washington, DC. Retrieved from , accessed October 14, 2015. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010c). Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts in History and Social Studies.Washington, DC. Retrieved from , accessed October 14, 2015. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010d). Common Core State Standards for Mathematics.Washington DC. Retrieved from , accessed October 14, 2015. Next Generation Science Standards Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Retrieved from , accessed October 14, 2015. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. U.S. Department of Education. A guide to education and No Child Left Behind. Retrieved from , accessed October 13, 2015. Office of English Language Learners (January, 2015). Profiles of English language learners (ELs). EDFacts/Consolidated State Performance Reports, 2004–2005 to 2011–2012. Retrieved from , accessed October 1, 2015. Pearson, P. D. (2013). Research foundations of the Common Core State Standards in English Language Arts. In S. Newman & L. Gambrell (Eds.), Quality reading instruction in the age of Common Core Standards (pp. 237–262). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Pettit, S. K. (2011). Teachers’ beliefs about English language learners in the mainstream classroom: A review of the literature. International Multilingual Research Journal, 5, 123–147. doi:10.1080/19313152.2011.594357. Quinn, H., Lee, O., & Valdés, G. (2012). Language demands and opportunities in relation to Next Generation Science Standards for English language learners: What teachers need to know. In K. Hakuta & M. Santos (Eds.), Understanding language: Commissioned papers on language and literacy issues in the Common Core State Standards and the Next Generation Science Standards (pp. 32–43). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University. Ramirez, S. Z., & Alghorani, M. A. (2003). School psychologists’ consideration of Hispanic cultural issues during consultation. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 20, 5–26. doi:10.1300/J370v20n01_02. Reisman, A. (2012). Reading like a historian: A document-based history curriculum intervention in urban high schools. Cognition and Instruction, 30(1), 86–112. doi:10.1080/ 07370008.2011.634081. Rogers, M. R., & Lopez, E. C. (2002). Identifying critical cross-cultural school psychology competencies. Journal of School Psychology, 10, 115–141. doi: 10.1016/S0022-4405(02) 00093-6. Rosenfield, S. A. (1987). Instructional consultation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Supporting Teachers of ELs via IC   55

Rosenfield, S. A., Gravois,T. A., & Silva, A. E. (2014). Bringing instructional consultation to scale: Research and development of IC and IC Teams. In W. Erchul & S. Sheridan (Eds.), Handbook of research in school consultation (2nd ed., pp. 248–275). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Sheridan, S. M. (2000). Considerations of multiculturalism and diversity in behavioral consultation with parents and teachers. School Psychology Review, 29, 344–353. Silva, A. S., & Rosenfield, S. (2004, April). Documenting English language learners’ cases in instructional consultation teams schools. Poster presented at the National Association of School Psychologists conference, Dallas, TX. Steffensen, M. S., Joag-Deve, C., & Anderson, R. C. (1979, July). A cross-cultural perspective on reading comprehension. Technical Support No. 97. Education Resources Information Center. ERIC Document Reproduction Service, No. ED 159 660. Sunderman, G. (2008). Holding NCLB accountable. Achieving accountability, equity and school reform. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Tarver Behring, S., Cabello, B., Kushida, D., & Murguia, A. (2000). Cultural modifications to current school-based consultation approaches reported by culturally diverse beginning consultants. School Psychology Review, 29, 354–367. Velasco, P. (2015). The role of background knowledge in the implementation of Standard 10 for reading in NYSED Common Core Progressions. New York State TESOL Journal, 1, 49–63. Velasco, P., & Johnson, H. (2015). New York State Bilingual Common Core Initiative: Creating scaffolds for the successful education of language learners. In L. Minaya-Rowe (Ed.), A handbook to implement educational programs, practices, and policies for English language learners (pp. 30–61). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Wong Fillmore, L., & Fillmore, C. (2013). What does text complexity mean for English learners and language minority students? Understanding language. Retrieved from , accessed March 23, 2013.

4

Consulting with Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Parents Sara G. Nahari, Danielle G. Martines, and Peishi Wang

The U.S. population is becoming increasingly more ethnically diverse. According to the 2015 U.S. Census, 38% of the U.S. population is composed of individuals from culturally diverse backgrounds, with the Hispanic population constituting the largest minority group (United States Census Bureau, 2015). By the year 2020, students of color are projected to make up almost half of all school-age youth (Gollnick & Chinn, 2013). Today, 9% of all pupils enrolled in U.S. public schools are English Language Learners (ELL) (National Center for Education Statistics, 2015a) and 85% of the ELL population is composed of Spanish speakers (Uro & Barrio, 2013). Children from culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) groups are often disproportionately represented in special education programs (Gollnick & Chinn, 2013). Enrollment data suggest overrepresentation of African Americans in classes for students with intellectual disabilities or behavior disorders. Asian Americans are underrepresented in these programs, but tend to be overrepresented in programs for individuals who are gifted and talented. A report from the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (2014) on educational disparities revealed that 48% of Black preschoolers received more than one out-of-school suspension even though they only represent 18% of children enrolled in preschools.This report also indicated that American Indian and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander children were 56

Consulting with CLD Parents   57

retained at nearly twice the rate of White kindergarten students. In addition, Aud, Fox, and KewalRamani (2010) reported that the percentages of students who were retained in a grade were higher amongst Hispanic students (12%) and students of two or more races (14%) than White (9%) and Asian (3%) students. The educational experiences of CLD students often place them at risk for underachievement and dropping out of school. In 2013, the achievement gap in the reading assessment between non-ELL and ELL students was 38 points at the fourth-grade level and 45 points at the eighth-grade level, with ELL students demonstrating achievement deficits (National Center for Education Statistics, 2015b). These data suggest not only that the gaps in reading achievement become greater in higher grades, but also that interventions are needed to address these achievement disparities. One of the interventions that are recommended is working with parents to enhance home school collaboration. Within the school psychology literature, parent consultation is defined as a structured, indirect, collaborative, and problem-solving relationship between the consultant (i.e., school psychologist) and one or more parents (i.e., consultees) focused on helping students (i.e., clients) (Sheridan, Kratochwill, & Bergan, 1996). The growing role of school psychologists in parent consultation can be traced to federal laws such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004) and No Child Left Behind (NCLB, 2001), which mandate parental involvement in the education of their children, including children with exceptionalities, to improve their educational outcomes. Additionally, parent consultation and the need for collaboration with parents are supported by well-documented research on the benefits of parental involvement on students’ academic performance ( Jeynes, 2012; St. Clair, Jackson, & Zweiback, 2012). As schools and communities become increasingly diverse, school psychologists are routinely challenged to effectively consult with parents of varying ethnic, cultural, language, and economic backgrounds (Holcomb-McCoy & Bryan, 2010). Tarver Behring and Ingraham (1998) proposed that culture influences all aspects of consultation and it should be a central component of consultation theory, research, training, and practice. Cultural issues can emerge during any of the five stages in the problem-solving process of consultation (Zins & Erchul, 2002). For example, during the stage of establishing a strong collaborative relationship between a consultant and a parent consultee, parents from diverse cultural backgrounds may view collaboration in schools in different ways that may differ from the consultants’ expectations (e.g., the consultant may expect the parents to be partners in decisionmaking whereas the parents may view the consultant as the expert and may feel hesitant to participate in decision-making (Lopez & Truesdell, 2007). Parents and consultants may hold different definitions and interpretations of consultation referral problems due to differences in values, beliefs, and expectations (Sheridan, 2000). Cultural differences may also lead to mismatched goals and expectations,

58   Nahari, Martines, and Wang

which imply that consultants must demonstrate knowledge about cultural differences in order to work collaboratively with CLD parents. Thus engaging in parent consultation requires appreciating that each family is unique in terms of its ethnic heritage, level of acculturation, socioeconomic status, language practices, belief systems, religious and lifestyle orientation, number and ability levels of members, and involvement with extended family members (Trumbull, RothsteinFisch, Greenfield, & Quiroz, 2001). Parent consultation is an important support system that has been well researched and studied but little has been written about parent consultation from a culturally and linguistically diverse perspective.The purpose of this chapter is to (a) examine models of consultation services that have applications for parents and families who are from diverse backgrounds and evaluate their research evidence in terms of effectiveness; (b) discuss implications for practice in relation to consultation services in diverse settings, and (c) provide suggestions for future research and training regarding consultation with CLD parents.

Theoretical and Research Basis There is a growing body of literature on culture and how it influences all aspects of consultation.Within the consultation literature, Ingraham (2000) defined culture as “an organized set of thoughts, beliefs, and norms for interaction and communication, all of which may influence cognitions, behaviors, and perceptions” (p. 325). Ingraham’s consultation constellations refer to the five ways cultures are distributed among members of the consultation system (consultant, consultee, and client), specifically, consultant-client similarity, consultant-consultee similarity, consultee-client similarity, three-way cultural diversity, and triad-context difference (i.e. all members of the consultation share a common minority culture which is different from the larger society) (Ingraham, 2000). As our schools are becoming increasingly diverse, current demographics for school psychologists reflect predominantly middle-class European American backgrounds (Curtis, Castillo, & Gelley, 2012). In addition, most public school teachers (82%) are White and non-Hispanic (National Center for Education Statistics, 2013). Therefore, the most prevalent consultation constellation consists of consultant and teacher-consultee similarity with a culturally diverse family and student (Ingraham, 2000). A multicultural school consultation (MSC) framework within school psychology has emerged in response to the social, demographic, and cultural changes in U. S. schools (Ingraham, 2000; Tarver Behring & Ingraham, 1998). Multicultural consultation is defined as “a culturally sensitive, indirect service in which the consultant adjusts the consultation services to address the needs and cultural values of either the consultee or the client, or both” (Tarver Behring & Ingraham, 1998,

Consulting with CLD Parents   59

p. 58). The MSC framework recognizes the potential influence of culture and cultural values on the entire consultation process and the individuals involved in the consultation triad (Ingraham 2000; 2004). For example, when there is cultural dissimilarity between a consultant and a consultee or a client, different approaches to communication and relationship building may have a profound impact on the consultation process (Ingraham, 2000). MSC adheres to a comprehensive multicultural framework that is not restricted to particular models but rather is suitable for a variety of models, such as the behavioral, ecological, instructional, mental health, and conjoint consultation models. MSC is considered a framework for understanding the influence of culture on consultation rather than as a distinct model of its own (Sheridan, 2000). Ingraham (2000) outlined five areas of knowledge and skills of the MSC framework: (a) consultant learning and development (e.g., understanding of own culture, other cultures, cross-cultural consultation skills); (b) consultee learning and development (e.g., knowledge, skills, self-confidence, and professional objectivity); (c) cultural variations in the consultation constellation (e.g., consultant-consultee similarity; consultantclient similarity; consultee-client similarity; three-way diversity); (d) contextual and power influences, and (e) hypothesized methods for supporting consultee and client success. She also pointed out that the MSC consultant needs to explore individual differences as well as cultural differences to prevent overgeneralization and remain cognizant that culture is far more complex than discretely focusing on race, ethnicity, or language. In general, MSC consultants must examine their own stereotypes and biases to reduce misinterpretations developed from the consultants’ own lack of objectivity. According to Ingraham (2000), as a framework, multicultural consultation guides the conceptualization of the issues in the consultation process, informs consultants about potential approaches for consulting within a cultural context, and aids in the identification of areas for future investigation. The MSC framework also guides consultants in developing hypotheses regarding the presentation of problems, interactions between consultees and clients, and decision-making in selecting consultation approaches and techniques.

Consultation Models Relevant to Multicultural Parent Consultation This section reviews two models of consultation, consultee-centered consultation (Sandoval, 2003; Ingraham, 2004) and conjoint behavioral consultation (Sheridan & Kratochwill, 1992; Sheridan, et al., 1996).The focus of the discussion is on these two models because they have (a) a promising body of evidence related to effectiveness, (b) relevancy to parent consultation, and/or (c) applications to culturally diverse

60   Nahari, Martines, and Wang

contexts and settings.The provision of consultation in early childhood is also explored given the emphases on providing support to parents in early intervention and preschool settings (LoCasale-Crouch, Cabell, Jimenez, & Taylor, 2014).

Consultee-Centered Consultation Consultee-Centered Consultation (CCC) was originally a type of mental health consultation with its foci on consultees and clients in clinical settings (Sandoval, 2003). Over time, CCC evolved and expanded to schools and childcare settings. The contemporary definition of CCC emphasizes a non-hierarchical helping role relationship between a consultant and a consultee who seeks professional help with a problem involving a client (Knotek & Sandoval, 2003). In this model, the goal of the consultation process is the joint development of a new way of conceptualizing the problem so that the repertoire of the consultee is expanded and the professional relationship between the consultee and the client is restored and improved. In other words, change is facilitated through the interpersonal process of the relationship. As the problem is jointly reconsidered, new ways of approaching the problem may lead to acquiring new solutions (Sandoval, 2003). Ingraham (2003) expanded the CCC model by proposing a multicultural consultee-centered consultation (MCCC) framework with an emphasis on consultee development when the consultee is culturally different from the client, consultant, or both. Consultants assess the consultees’ and their own needs for increased knowledge, skill, perspective, and confidence following each consultation session. An MCCC approach supports multicultural consultants as they explore cultural issues during the consultation process. The limited but available research on the effects of MCCC emphasizes the importance of using a cultural perspective when working with consultees, including parents. Ingraham (2003) analyzed three MCCC case studies on how ethnically diverse novice consultants explored cultural issues with experienced teachers (i.e., consultees) of diverse students. Through the use of MCCC, two out of three consultants were able to encourage their consultees to explore the influence of culture on problem identification, intervention selection, and intervention outcomes, which ultimately led to conceptual change and increased cultural competence in the consultees (i.e., teachers). Some of the MCCC approaches used in the two successful case studies that have potential for consulting with parents include self-disclosure regarding the consultant’s own cultural learning process, reframing, bridging across differences, creating emotional safety, co-constructing the problem definition, and reframing cultural perspectives. Tarver Behring, Cabello, Kushida and Murguia (2000) investigated how novice consultants made cultural modifications to current consultation approaches when

Consulting with CLD Parents   61

working with teacher consultees and culturally diverse students and families. This study used structured interviews with 28 novice consultants on their reported use of current consultation approaches and modifications to those approaches with consultees in cases involving clients (students) with the same, or different, cultural backgrounds as the consultants. The 28 novice consultants represented four cultural groups: European-American, African-American, Asian-American, and Latino. The findings are particularly relevant to conducting consultation with parents as modifications reported included (a) allowing more time with parents from non-European-American cultures for relationship building and developing trust; (b) demonstrating awareness of and respect for parent cultural style; (c) speaking in the native language or dialect of the parents to optimize communication; (d) behaving as an ethnic role model (e.g., African-American, Asian-American, and Latino consultants all reported seeing themselves as cultural or ethnic role models), and (e) making home visits. Results from this study suggest that modifications to current consultation approaches may be required for culturally sensitive consultants to work with parents of students from non-European-American backgrounds and that the type of modification may differ according to culture. For an example, the European- and non-European-American consultants with Asian-American children and families reported respecting cultural style by using a more formalized relationship with the family, using a directive or expert approach, and understanding the parent’s high value placed upon educational success. To date, studies have mainly focused on the effects of MCCC on the consultation process in culturally diverse settings, rather than the outcomes of consultation. Current studies on MCCC also largely examined teachers as consultees, not parents as consultees. More research studies are essential to evaluate the effect of MCCC in culturally diverse settings with parents as consultees (Ingraham, 2004). MCCC process and research holds promise for our understanding of its application for consulting with CLD parents.

Conjoint Behavioral Consultation Conjoint Behavioral Consultation (CBC) is a structured consultation model wherein a consultant works collaboratively with parents, teachers, and support staff to address the academic, behavioral, and social concerns of a child for whom all stakeholders bear some responsibility (Sheridan & Kratochwill, 1992, p. 122). CBC is an extension of the traditional behavioral consultation model in which consultees, parents and teachers, together with the consultant, collaborate throughout the consultation process. Problems are identified, defined, analyzed, and treated through mutual and collaborative interactions between parents and teachers with the guidance and assistance of a consultant (Sheridan & Kratochwill, 2008). The

62   Nahari, Martines, and Wang

goals of CBC are to address students’ needs through evidence-based intervention procedures, promote parent engagement and involvement in learning, and build relationships and facilitate partnerships across families and schools (Garbacz,Woods, Swanger-Gagné,Taylor, Black & Sheridan, 2008). CBC emphasizes the relationship between family members and teachers that is typified by cooperation, trust, and clearly articulated rights and responsibilities. Hence, this approach endorses a constructive family-school partnership that builds on the strengths and capacities of families and teachers. The consultant role is to empower parents and teachers by supporting their skills and abilities in addition to providing opportunities that will enable parents and teachers to access their strengths and expertise (Sheridan, Clarke & Ransom, 2014). Sheridan (2000) first defined multicultural CBC as a “home-school consultation relationship wherein important individual differences are present among two or more participants (i.e. parent, teacher, child, school psychologist-consultant) with respect to associations with distinct cultural group(s) . . . including sociodemographic (e.g., race, gender, national origin, class, language) as well as less tangible features of individuals (e.g., beliefs, attitudes, values) and schools (e.g., norms, customs)” (p. 345). Sheridan explored multiculturalism and diversity factors and noted that unique challenges may be present during each of the problem-solving stages when working with diverse consultees. For example, in the problem identification stage, one must keep in mind that problems are not universal. Biases or values of the majority culture must be recognized before making assumptions regarding the presence of a “problem.” If a consultant is unfamiliar with cultural differences between the consultant and the consultee and/or client, problems may be approached or defined incorrectly or in an insensitive manner. Another potential challenge that can emerge during the data collection stage is that consultees need to monitor their own actions and reactions to the child in order to understand functions the behavior serves and natural contingencies in the environment. However, in some cultures this level of self-disclosure could be perceived as inappropriate and cause discomfort for parent consultees. During the stage of plan development, a potential issue could be the availability of resources necessary to implement interventions at home. It is possible that even if family members are comfortable with a structured behavioral plan, they may not be able to deliver due to lack of time, energy, skills, support, or money. Sheridan reminded us that parents generally desire what is best for their children. Sometimes parent-consultees are unable to adhere to the behavioral plan due to a mismatch between what is required and ecological/familial/cultural realities. Consultants should interpret the behaviors of parent-consultees with this perspective in mind instead of immediately jumping to the conclusion that the behaviors are due to consultee resistance. Several large-scale data-based reviews of CBC research revealed that CBC holds promise as an evidence-based consultation model (Guli, 2005; Sheridan, Clarke,

Consulting with CLD Parents   63

Knoche & Edwards, 2006; Sheridan, Eagle & Doll, 2006). CBC has been shown to be effective in improving social-behavioral outcomes for elementary-aged students (e.g., Kratochwill, Elliott, Loitz, Sladeczek & Carlson, 2003; Sheridan, Bovaird, Glover, Garbacz,Witte, & Kwon, 2012) as well as academic outcomes (e.g., Murray, Rabiner, Schulte & Newitt, 2008; Sheridan, Clarke & Ransom, 2014). Few empirical studies have examined the effectiveness of CBC with children and parents from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds (e.g., Sheridan, Eagle, & Doll, 2006). Participants’ ethnicity and primary language were unspecified in the majority of studies (Guli, 2005; Sheridan et al., 2014). Additional CBC research is needed to further evaluate the effects of CBC services on CLD parents and teachers.

Multicultural Parent Consultation in Early Childhood Settings Due to strong evidence in schools (i.e., in Kindergarten to twelfth-grade settings) that consultation plays a key role in supporting children’s development, early childhood consultation recently has received much attention and became the focus of extensive reviews (LoCasale-Crouch, Cabell, Jimenez, & Taylor, 2014). Early childhood consultation is defined as a collaborative partnership between a consultant and classroom professional, with the intention to change teachers’ skills and behaviors to improve classroom interaction quality and children’s outcomes (Brennan, Bradley, Allen & Perry, 2008). Much recent research has focused on consultation to preschool teachers or daycare providers as a vehicle to support consultees to enhance children’s social-emotional development (Raver et al., 2008; Sheridan & Kratochwill, 2008; Williford & Shelton, 2008), language and literacy development (Neuman & Cunningham, 2009; Pianta et al., 2008), and children’s global development (Pianta, Mashburn, Downer, Hamre, & Justice, 2008). Several early childhood consultation models have been identified as effective in producing changes in teacher behaviors and child outcomes, such as the Chicago School Readiness Project, Incredible Years, Conjoint Behavioral Consultation, and the Exceptional Coaching for Early Language Literacy Program. However, only the Conjoint Behavioral Consultation model involves both teachers and parents in a conjoint decision-making process (see review by LoCasale-Crouch et al., 2014). Sheridan, Clarke, Knoche and Edwards (2006) investigated the effects of CBC on young children’s behaviors across home and school settings (Head Start classrooms, private preschools, public school kindergarten classrooms), parents’ and teachers’ perceptions of their relationship with one another as a function of CBC, and the acceptability and perceived effectiveness of CBC. Results suggested that

64   Nahari, Martines, and Wang

interventions implemented in the context of CBC were effective at addressing behavioral, academic, and social-emotional concerns shared by parents and teachers. Parents reported significant changes in their perceptions of communication with their child’s teacher after completing CBC, and both parents and teachers reported high levels of acceptability, satisfaction, and goal attainment. To date, only one experimental study (Sheridan, Eagle, & Doll, 2006) examined the effects of CBC on home and preschool settings when working with clients and families from diverse backgrounds. Sheridan and colleagues (2006) measured behavioral change, goal attainment, acceptability, satisfaction, and perception of efficacy of the CBC model with 125 preschoolers representing varying levels of diversity (such as racial, economic, and/or linguistic) and 192 target behaviors. Findings indicated that CBC is effective for children from diverse backgrounds including ethnicity, language spoken in the home, and socioeconomic status. Participants, including teachers and family members from diverse backgrounds, also reported the CBC procedures as positive. Early childhood consultation emphasizes continuity and positive relationships among caregiving systems and a family-centered approach. CBC provides a structured, data-based model of service delivery that uses an ecological-dynamic and family-centered approach to problem solving, which suggests its potential usefulness within early intervention contexts (Sheridan, Clarke, & Ihlo, 2012). More research needs to examine the effectiveness of CBC in reaching intended outcomes across diverse settings within the early childhood context. The CCC and CBC models of consultation were discussed, including their application to consulting, with CLD parents. The research suggests that engaging in culturally responsive practices are important when working with parents and teachers as consultees. The next section of this chapter addresses implications for the practice of consultation with this parent population.

Implications for Practice In recent years, both the American Psychological Association (APA, 2010) and the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP, 2010) published guidelines relevant to providing services to culturally and linguistically diverse populations. Even though there has been significant advancement in the recognition of culturally and linguistically diverse children and families in school psychology service delivery, providing culturally responsive services remains challenging for school psychologists (Newell et al., 2010). This section of the chapter provides recommendations for the delivery of multicultural parent consultation focusing on (a) developing crosscultural competencies, (b) working with school interpreters, and (c) providing consultation to parents in early childhood settings.

Consulting with CLD Parents   65

Developing Cross-Cultural Competencies in Parent Consultation Ingraham (2000) recommended eight domains for consultant learning and development in knowledge and skills for competence in multicultural consultation. These domains include: (a) understanding one’s own culture; (b) understanding the impact of one’s own culture on others; (c) respecting and valuing other cultures; (d) understanding individual differences within cultural groups and the multiple cultural identities prevalent in many individuals; (e) using cross-cultural communication and multicultural consultation approaches for rapport development and maintenance; (f ) understanding cultural saliency and how to build bridges across salient differences; (g) understanding the cultural context for consultation; and (h) applying multicultural consultation and interventions appropriate for the consultee(s) and client(s). These eight domains are relevant to conducting consultation with parents of CLD students as they guide consultants in addressing cultural issues in the parent consultation process. The identification of essential cross-cultural competencies is instrumental in helping school psychologists to evaluate their own skills in working with culturally diverse consultees and clients. Cross-cultural competence is defined as the ability to demonstrate cross-cultural knowledge and engage in behaviors or skills that reflect an awareness and sensitivity to cross-cultural issues (Lopez & Rogers, 2001). Two studies investigated essential cross-cultural competencies for school psychologists (Lopez & Rogers, 2001; Rogers & Lopez, 2002). Both studies involved identifying cross-cultural competencies relevant to school psychology practice and asking national experts in cross-cultural school psychology to rate the importance of the competencies. A Delphi procedure was used in both studies and consultation was one of the primary competencies identified as important in school psychology practice. Eight cross-cultural competencies were identified in consultation across these two studies. Specifically, cross-culturally skilled school psychologists should have: (a) knowledge about cultural and linguistic factors that can influence the input, process, and outcome of consultation; (b) skills in working with CLD parents, children, and school staff; (c) skills in using a variety of data collection techniques for problem identification and clarification, and planning and implementing interventions that are culturally and linguistically sensitive; (d) skills in recognizing prejudice and prevalent obstacles that may affect consultation (e.g., racism, sexism); (e) skills in working with others (e.g., patience, good judgment); (f ) skills in demonstrating sensitivity towards the culture of school personnel involved in the consultation; (g) skills in responding flexibly with a range of possible solutions that reflect sensitivity to cross-cultural issues; and (h) knowledge of the culturally related factors that may affect accurate assessment of the “problem” in the problem-solving sequence (Lopez & Rogers, 2001; Rogers & Lopez, 2002).

66   Nahari, Martines, and Wang

Cross-cultural consultation competencies require a lifetime of professional commitment to developing awareness, knowledge, and skills relevant to understanding one’s own cultural experiences and worldview and those of consultees and clients, while integrating that information into culturally appropriate contextualized practice (Nastasi, 2006). In order to meet the needs of diverse families and children, school psychologists must adopt a reflective approach to practice with deliberate attention given to culture and context.This is particularly true during the provision of consultative services because the outcome of a specific consultation and the strength of the relationships established can have profound implications for a child’s present and future success in school.

Conducting Parent Consultation via Interpreters Language differences often become communication barriers when CLD students and families are not able to communicate effectively because they are proficient in languages other than English. Consultants typically seek the services of school interpreters to address this challenge (Lopez, 2000). Lynch (2011) proposed that an interpreter should have the following competencies: (a) proficiency in the language (including specific dialect) of the family as well as that of the service provider; (b) education and experience in cross-cultural communication and the principles and dynamics of serving as an interpreter; (c) education in the appropriate professional field relevant to the specific family-service provider interaction; (d) ability to understand and appreciate the respective cultures of both professionals (e.g. school psychologists) and families and to convey the more subtle nuances of each with tact and sensitivity; and (e) ability to maintain family confidentiality and neutrality in their designated role. Lopez (2000) recommended that consultants and consultees should receive training to work with interpreters. Training provided through university consultation courses, consultation practica, and internship experiences can be instrumental in helping future consultants gain knowledge and practical skills in work with interpreters. Without proper training, working with interpreters can be a barrier rather than an asset for consultants (Lopez, 2000). Lynch (2011) cautioned against the use of immediate family members and relatives as interpreters. Parents and other family members may be reluctant and/or embarrassed to discuss difficult matters with members of the opposite sex or with younger or older family members.The tendency for parents of recent immigrants to rely on older children as their interpreters often also creates significant psychological burdens for the children. Therefore, school psychologists should discourage this practice and should rely primarily on trained interpreters when providing consultation to CLD parents.

Consulting with CLD Parents   67

Delivering Early Intervention via Multicultural Parent Consultation In 1986, Congress passed the most comprehensive legislation on behalf of infants and young children, PL 99–457, Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments, in which services were mandated for children from birth through age three. This milestone legislation later became Part C of Individuals with Disability Education Act (IDEA) in 1997. Part C of IDEA dictates that early intervention services should be provided in children’s and their families’ homes, childcare centers, and/ or other community-based educational programs instead of clinics. Simultaneous with the change in location for service delivery, the intervention focus shifted from engaging children in planned educational and therapy activities to supporting caregivers to embed interventions within their typical daily activities/routines (McWilliam, 2010;Woods,Wilcox, Friedman, & Murch, 2011).Within early childhood consultation, CBC is a good fit as a service delivery model because of its focus on the interactions between children and the primary systems in their lives, thus strengthening relationships across home and school through joint goal setting and decision-making. Family-centered supports and services for infants/toddlers with disabilities and their families are evidence-based practices in early intervention (Division of Early Childhood [DEC], 2014; National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center [NECTAC], 2008; Sandall, Hemmeter, Smith, & McLean, 2005). Family-centered practice emphasizes the importance of promoting child development and welfare within the family unit, establishing parent and professional partnerships, building the capacity of caregivers to support children’s learning, and supporting parents as decision makers (Winton, Brotherson, & Summers, 2008). The CBC model stresses important principles consistent with this ecological-system conceptualization of early intervention. These include: (a) addressing the priorities and concerns of all primary caregivers; (b) strengthening social supports and promoting partnerships and collaboration among systems; and (c) developing and enhancing the competencies and skills of parents and teachers. A CBC consultant supports family members and early interventionists in determining the focus for services, utilizes existing strengths and resources in intervention planning and design, establishes and strengthens home-school partnerships through communication and collaboration, and enhances families’ and teachers’ structured problem-solving competencies. Although CBC has a growing body of evidence as an effective consultation model, no research has investigated the effects of CBC with culturally diverse children and their families in the birth to three population. The current model of service delivery in early intervention—coaching parents and caregivers of infants and toddlers with developmental delays within family routines—purports to build the confidence and competence of family members

68   Nahari, Martines, and Wang

and caregivers (Rush & Shelden, 2011). Coaching and consultation share some similar features but there are also distinct differences. According to Erchul (2015), both coaching and consultation are indirect service delivery models and problemsolving approaches with emphases on prevention, remediation, and evidence-based practices. Some differences include: (a) coaching is an established professional development approach for capacity-building for parents and teachers through activities such as guided practice, modeling and demonstration for skill development, whereas consultation is not; (b) voluntary participation and confidentiality of communication are commonly assumed in consultation but not in coaching; and (c) coaching implies a hierarchical supervisory approach that is not assumed in the consultant-consultee relationship. Coaching has been used most often with both early intervention professionals and families of young children with disabilities in home settings and other natural environments, although there is a growing interest in the use of coaching to support teaching practices in early education classrooms. By contrast, consultation has been used more frequently with educators in early childhood classrooms but also could be applied to collaborative work with families and other adults who work with very young children in a variety of community settings (Buysee & Wesley, 2005). Research examining consultation practice in early intervention is limited. Extant research has examined early childhood professionals’ beliefs and perceptions about the processes of consultation but has not investigated the effectiveness of consultation by using randomized, controlled studies. A concerted research effort is needed to refine the approach of early childhood consultation and build its evidence base (Green, Gordon, Everhart, & Gettman, 2006).

Implications for Future Training and Research In order to undertake the role of multicultural consultants, school psychologists will need to become informed about cultural differences, and how to provide support to parents by (a) disseminating information on parents’ rights and district policies, (b) informing parents about the expectations of school personnel in the U.S., and (c) assuming the role of an advocate by helping teachers and other school professionals to understand CLD parents and their children’s needs. Skills in cross-cultural communications are essential in working with CLD parents in order to establish home-school partnerships. Cross-culturally competent consultants also need to collaborate with all school professionals to enhance the partnerships. This can be partly accomplished by assisting and guiding school leaders to develop special workshops and in-service training for staff on the cultural patterns of communication and the cultural styles of the surrounding communities (Nahari, Cheng, & Falquez, 1999). According to

Consulting with CLD Parents   69

Holcomb-McCoy (2001), differences in cultural backgrounds may be manifested in outright mutual resistance as consultants and consultees may not successfully engage in the process due to cultural miscommunications and misunderstandings. Consultants’ awareness of this type of resistance can be enhanced through training that has a multicultural emphasis. Tarver Behring and Ingraham (1998) stressed the importance of specific training in multicultural consultation techniques and its application throughout the consultation process. Rogers (2006) found that the integration model (i.e., where multicultural content is infused throughout all aspects of the training curriculum), coupled with separate multicultural courses, was the most frequently used approach to multicultural training in school psychology.Through analysis of case studies, Arra (2010) examined the effects of a focused school-based consultation course on crosscultural competencies and found that the course resulted in increasing graduate students’ perceptions of their cross-cultural competencies. Newell, Nastasi, Hatzichristou, Jones, Schanding, and Yetter (2010) conducted a comprehensive and critical review of multicultural training in school psychology and concluded that there has been significant advancement in the recognition of CLD children and families in school psychology service delivery. Nevertheless, there is still a great need for school psychologists to engage in practices that (a) bridge the communication gap between schools and the homes of CLD parents; (b) minimize the psychosocial and cultural effects associated with migration and acculturation; (c) provide parents, not only with information, but also with strategies for parenting their children in new environments (e.g., acculturating to new culture); and (d) create a consultative and collaborative unit between school professionals, teachers, students and their CLD parents. Therefore, school psychology training programs not only need to infuse multicultural consultation content throughout the training programs, but also need to have specific multicultural courses and provide consultation fieldwork experiences with multicultural populations. These training approaches should be applied to teaching multicultural consultation in order to help future school psychologists to develop advanced skills in this specific area. Given the diverse student population and the need to increase culturally sensitive consultation practice for CLD children and families, a multicultural school consultation framework is recommended (Holcomb-McCoy & Bryan, 2010; Ingraham, 2000; Martines, 2005; Meyers, 2002; Nahari, 2008).This chapter focused on reviewing the CCC and CBC models given their relevancy to multicultural consultation with parents. Within the CCC model, research is needed examining consultation processes and outcomes with CLD parents as consultees. Helping parents to view problems from different perspectives while collaborating with teachers and school psychologists is a process that merits attention in the consultation research.

70   Nahari, Martines, and Wang

Although there is emerging evidence of the effectiveness of CBC using a multicultural framework when working with CLD students, there was only one study on the effects of CBC on clients and families from diverse backgrounds in the early childhood settings (Sheridan et al., 2006). There is no evidence in the literature on the effects of CBC with diverse children and families in the birth to three population at this time. Sheridan et al. (2014) suggest that in addition to studies validating the CBC model and its efficacy with multicultural populations, research should be directed at exploring the long-term effects of multicultural consultation on parents, teachers and students. Furthermore, research should include more methodologically sound studies, such as the use of larger sample and random assignment to experimental and control conditions. The variables that moderate the effects of CBC on student outcomes need to be studied to determine for whom and under what conditions CBC is effective, particularly when working with CLD families. Longitudinal research that explores changes in the nature of relationship between multicultural parents and teachers will be helpful. In addition, Sheridan et al. (2014) recommends that “the inherent interactions amongst systems and participants need to be studied to understand the complex realities of consultation including reciprocal and dynamic influences and outcomes” (p. 242). Quantitative and qualitative studies are needed to examine the experiences of consultants conducting multicultural consultation that include the examination of communication, relationships, and collaborations between consultation stakeholders from diverse backgrounds, including parent consultees. Future studies in multicultural consultation examining consultant, consultee, and client outcomes will expand our understanding of outcomes when conducting consultation with CLD parents. Without further exploration into these areas, school consultants will be limited in their ability to provide research-based multicultural consultation to families from CLD backgrounds. More studies are also needed to explore effective strategies on cross-cultural consultation with parents as well as teachers, including the identification of problem identification tools to gather information in a culturally responsive manner. The home-school consultation model is of tremendous importance for consultants since so many consultative school-based intervention plans ultimately require the support of parents. Another area that needs exploration is the issue of resistance. For example, what are the contributing factors to parental resistance in home-school consultation within a culturally diverse context and what variables predict resistance that are culturally contextual (e.g., cultural differences in how issues of privacy, ethnic norms, values, time management, or disciplinary methods are viewed; Holcomb-McCoy & Bryan, 2010; Martines, 2005)? In summary, as the school population is becoming increasingly diverse, it is essential that school psychologists integrate multicultural approaches and acquire

Consulting with CLD Parents   71

competencies to work with students and families from diverse cultural backgrounds. A multicultural school consultation framework is pivotal when delivering services using different consultation models in diverse settings (e.g., home, school, early childhood centers). Extant research is promising but limited and more research is needed to explore the many aspects of multicultural consultation with CLD parents.

Resources Discussion Questions 1. What is multicultural consultation and how can it be applied to providing consultation services to culturally and linguistically diverse parents? 2. What aspects of the Consultee-Centered and Conjoint Behavioral Consultation models lend themselves to providing consultation to culturally and linguistically diverse parents? 3. What competencies do consultants need to provide multicultural consultation to culturally and linguistically diverse parents?

Professional Organizations Sinergia National Coalition for Parent Involvement in Education (NCPIE) Family Involvement Network of Educators (FINE)

Additional Readings Kampwirth, T. J. & Powers, K. M. (2012). Collaborative consultation in the schools: Effective practices for students with learning and behavior problems (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. A distinctive and clear guide for school consultants wishing to learn about community collaboration with the help of learning tools such as case studies and resources. Miranda, A. (Ed). (2015). Consultation across cultural contexts: Consultee-centered case studies. New York, NY: Routledge. This book provides both theoretical background knowledge and a wealth of technical and practical information, animated by first-hand accounts. It is divided into sections that touch upon topics such as consulting with teachers and the roles of poverty, race, and class.The case studies include examples from diverse school ecologies, schools in various states of transition, resource challenged schools, and more.

72   Nahari, Martines, and Wang

References American Psychological Association (APA) (2010). APA guidelines on multicultural education, training, research, practice and organizational change for psychologists. Retrieved from on May 21, 2016. Araujo, B. E. (2009). Best practices in working with linguistically diverse families. Intervention in School and Clinic, 45, 116–123. doi:10.1177/1053451209340221. Arra, C. (2010). An examination of cross-cultural curriculum development and student cross-cultural competencies in a school-based consultation course. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 20, 169–183. Aud, S., Fox, M., & KewalRamani, A. (2010). Status and trends in the education of racial and ethnic groups (NCES 2010–015). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Brennan, E. M., Bradley, J. R., Allen, M. D., & Perry, D. F. (2008). The evidence base for mental health consultation in early childhood settings: Research synthesis addressing staff and program outcomes. Early Education and Development, 19, 982–1022. Buysse, V., & Wesley, P. W. (Eds.). (2005). Consultation in early childhood settings. Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Curtis, M. J., Castillo, J. M., & Gelley, C. D. (2012). School psychology 2010: Demographics, employment, and the context for professional practices—part 1. Communiqué, 40(7), 1, 28–30. Division for Early Childhood. (2014). DEC recommended practices in early intervention/early childhood special education. Retrieved from . Erchul, W. P. (2015). Put me in, coach: Observations on selected studies implementing supportive interventions to teachers. School Mental Health, 7, 74–79. doi:10.1008/ s12310-015-9144-1. Garbacz, S. A., Woods, K. E., Swanger-Gagné, M. S., Taylor, A. M., Black, K. A., & Sheridan, S. M. (2008).The effectiveness of a partnership-centered approach in conjoint behavioral consultation. School Psychology Quarterly, 23(3), 313–326. doi:10.1037/1045-3830. 23.3.313. Gollnick, D. & Chinn, P. (2013). Multicultural education in a pluralistic society (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Green, B. L., Everhart, M., Gordon, L., & Gettman, M. G. (2006). Characteristics of effective mental health consultation in early childhood settings: Multilevel analysis of a national survey. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education (Fall 2006) 26(3) 142–152. doi:10.117 7/02711214060260030201. Guli, L. A. (2005). Evidence-based parent consultation with school-related outcomes. School Psychology Quarterly, 20(4), 455–472. doi:10.1521/scpq.2005.20.4.455. Holcomb-McCoy, C. (2001). Exploring the self-perceived multicultural counseling competence of elementary school counselors. Professional School Counseling, 4, 195–201. Holcomb-McCoy, C., & Bryan, J. (2010). Advocacy and empowerment in parent consultation: Implications for theory and practice. Journal of Counselling & Development, 88(3), 259–268. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2010.tb00021.x. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act,  Amendments of 1997. . Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004). .

Consulting with CLD Parents   73

Ingraham, C. (2004). Multicultural consultee-centered consultation: Supporting consultees in the development of cultural competence. In N. M. Lambert, I. Hylander, & J. H. Sandoval (Eds.) Consultee-centered consultation: Improving the quality of professional services in schools and community organizations (pp. 133–148). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Ingraham, C. (2005). Cross-cultural consultation. In S. Lee (Ed.), Encyclopedia of school psychology (pp. 141–144). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi:10.4135/ 9781412952491.n70. Ingraham, C. L. (2000). Consultation through a multicultural lens: Multicultural and crosscultural consultation in schools. School Psychology Review, 29(3), 320–343. Ingraham, C. L. (2003). Multicultural consultee-centered consultation: When novice consultants explore cultural hypotheses with experienced teacher consultees. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 14(3–4), 329–362. doi:10.1207/s1532768 xjepc143&4_7. Ingraham, C. L. (2008). Studying multicultural aspects of consultation. In W. P. Erchul & S. M. Sheridan (Eds.) Handbook of research in school consultation (pp. 269–291). New York: Routledge. Jeynes, W. H. (2012). A meta-analysis of the efficacy of different types of parental involvement programs for urban students. Urban Education 47(4), 706–742. doi:10.1177/ 0042085912445643. Knotek, S. E., & Sandoval, J. H. (2003). Current research in consultee-centered consultation. Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation, 14(3–4), 243–250. doi:10.1207/ s1532768xjepc143&4_2. Kratochwill, T. R., Elliott, S. N., Loitz, P. A., Sladeczek, I., & Carlson, J. S. (2003). Conjoint consultation using self-administered manual and videotape parent-teacher training: Effects on children’s behavioral difficulties. School Psychology Quarterly, 18(3), 269–302. doi:10.1521/scpq.18.3.269.22574. LoCasale-Crouch, J., Cabell, S. Q., Jimenez, M., & Taylor, M. (2014). Research on consultation in early childhood programs. In W. D. Erchul & S. M. Sheridan (Eds., 2nd ed.) Handbook of research in school consultation (pp. 473–494). New York: Routledge. Lopez, E. C. (2000). Conducting instructional consultation through interpreters. School Psychology Review, 29(3), 378–388. Lopez, E. C., & Rogers, M. R. (2001). Conceptualizing cross-cultural school psychology competencies. School Psychology Quarterly, 16, 270–302. Lopez, E. C., & Truesdell, L. (2007). Multicultural issues in instructional consultation for English Language Learners. In G. Esquivel, E. C. Lopez & S. Nahari (Eds.), Handbook on multicultural school psychology (pp. 71–98). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Lynch, E. W. (2011). Developing cross-cultural competence. In E. W. Lynn & M. J. Hanson (Eds.) Developing cross-cultural competence: A guide for working with children and their families (pp. 41–77). Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Martines, D. (2005). Teacher perceptions of multicultural issues in school settings. The Qualitative Report, 10(1), 1–20. Retrieved from . McWilliam, R. A. (2010). Routines-based early intervention. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing. Meyers, J. (2002). A 30-year perspective on best practices for consultation training. Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation, 13(1–2), 35–54. doi:10.1207/S1532768 XJEPC1301&2_05.

74   Nahari, Martines, and Wang

Murray, D. W., Rabiner, D., Schulte, A., & Newitt, K. (2008). Feasibility and integrity of a parent–teacher consultation intervention for ADHD students. Child & Youth Care Forum, 37(3), 111–126. doi:10.1007/s10566-008-9054-6. Nahari, S. (2008). Multicultural competencies for parental training programs. In D. Martines (Ed.) Multicultural school psychology competencies: A practical guide (pp. 331–355). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781452231624. Nahari, S., Cheng, S., & Falquez, A. (1999, Summer). Enhancing the school involvement of culturally diverse students with severe disabilities. In A. Burstein and E. Lopez (Eds.) The School Psychologist, Newsletter of the American Psychological Association: Division 16. Nastasi, B. K. (2006). Multicultural issues in school psychology practice: Introduction. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 22(2), 1–11. doi:10.1300/J370v22n02_01. National Association of School Psychologists (2010). Principles for professional ethics. Bethesda, MD: Author. Retrieved from . National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). Retrieved from . National Center for Education Statistics. (2015a). The condition of education 2015.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from . National Center for Education Statistics. (2015b). The Nation’s report card: Reading assessment. Retrieved from . National Early Childhood Technical Assistant Center. (2008). Agreed upon practices for providing early intervention services in natural environments. Retrieved from . Neuman, S. B., & Cunningham, L. (2009). The impact of professional development and coaching on early language and literacy instructional practices. American Educational Research Journal, 46, 532–566. Newell, M. L., Nastasi, B. K., Hatzichristou, C., Jones, J. M., Schanding, G. T., & Yetter, G. (2010). Evidence on multicultural training in school psychology: Recommendations for future directions. School Psychology Quarterly, 25(4), 249–278. doi:10.1037/a0021542. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P.L. 107–110, 20 U.S.C. § 6319 (2002). Retrieved from . Pianta, R. C., Mashburn, A. J., Downer, J. T., Hamre, B. K., & Justice, L. (2008). Effects of web-mediated professional development resources on teacher-child interactions in preschool classrooms. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 431–451. Raver, C. C., Jones, S. M., Li-Grining, C. P., Metzger, M., Champion, K. M., & Sardin, L. (2008). Improving preschool classroom processes: Preliminary findings from a randomized trial implemented in Head Start settings. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 10–26. Rogers, M. R. (2006). Exemplary multicultural training in school psychology programs. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 12(1), 115–133. doi:10.1037/1099-9809. 12.1.115. Rogers, M. R., & Lopez, E. C. (2002). Identifying critical cross-cultural school psychology competencies. Journal of School Psychology, 40(2), 115–141. doi 10.1016/S0022-4405(02) 00093-6. Rush, D. D., & Shelden, M. L. (2011). The early childhood coaching handbook. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing Company.

Consulting with CLD Parents   75

Sandall, S., Hemmeter, M. L., Smith, B., & McLean, M. (2005). DEC recommended practices: A comprehensive guide for practical application in early intervention/early childhood special education. Longmot, CO: Sopris West. Sandoval, J. H. (2003). Constructing conceptual change in consultee-centered consultation. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 14(3 & 4), 251–261. Sheridan, S. M. (2000). Considerations of multiculturalism and diversity in behavioral consultation with parents and teachers. School Psychology Review, 29(3), 344–353. Sheridan, S. M., Bovaird, J. A., Glover, T. A., Garbacz, S. A., Witte, A., & Kwon, K. (2012). A randomized trial examining the effects of Conjoint Behavioral Consultation and the mediating role of the parent-teacher relationship. School Psychology Review, 41(1), 23–46. Sheridan, S. M., Clarke, B. L., & Ihlo, T. (2012). Promoting young children’s mental health through early childhood consultation: Ecological advances and research needs. In R. Pianta, L. Justice, S. Barnett, & S. M. Sheridan (Eds.) Handbook of early childhood education (pp. 435–456). New York: Guilford. Sheridan, S. M., Clarke, B. L., Knoche, L. L., & Edwards, C. P. (2006).The effects of conjoint behavioral consultation in early childhood settings. Early Education and Development, 17(4), 593-617. Sheridan, S. M., Clarke, B. L., & Ransom, K. A. (2014). The past, present, and future of conjoint behavioral consultation research. In W. D. Erchul & S. M. Sheridan (Eds.) Handbook of research in school consultation (2nd ed., pp. 210–247). New York: Routledge. Sheridan, S. M., Eagle, J. W., & Doll, B. (2006). An examination of the efficacy of conjoint behavioral consultation: Results of a 4-year investigation. Journal of School Psychology, 39, 361–385. Sheridan, S. M., & Kratochwill, T. R. (1992). Behavioral parent-teacher consultation: Conceptual and research considerations. Journal of School Psychology, 30, 117–139. Sheridan, S. M., & Kratochwill,T. R. (2008). Conjoint behavioral consultation: Promoting familyschool connections and interventions. New York: Springer. Sheridan, S. M., Kratochwill, T. R., & Bergan, J. R. (1996). Conjoint behavioral consultation: A procedural manual. New York: Plenum Press. St. Clair, L., Jackson, B., & Zweiback, R. (2012). Six years later: Effect of family involvement training on the language skills of children from migrant families. School Community Journal, 22(1), 9–19. Tarver Behring, S., Cabello, B., Kushida, D., & Murguia, A. (2000). Cultural modifications to current school-based consultation approaches reported by culturally diverse beginning consultants. School Psychology Review, 29 (3), 354–367. Tarver Behring, S., & Ingraham, C. L. (1998). Culture as a central component of consultation: A call to the field. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 9(1), 57–72. doi:10.1207/s1532768xjepc0901_3. Trumbull, E., Rothstein-Fisch, C., Greenfield, P. M., & Quiroz, B. (2001). Bridging cultures between home and school: A guide for teachers. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. United States Census Bureau (2015). Quick facts United States. Retrieved from . Uro, G., & Barrio, A. (2013). English Language Learners in America’s great city schools: Demographics, achievement, and staffing. Council of the Great City Schools,Washington, DC. Retrieved from .

76   Nahari, Martines, and Wang

Williford, A. P., & Shelton, T. L. (2008). Using mental health consultation to decrease disruptive behaviors in preschoolers: Adapting an empirically-supported intervention. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49, 191–200. Winton, P. J., Brotherson, M. J., & Summers, J. A. (2008). Learning from the field of early intervention about partnering with families. In M. Cornish (Ed.) Promising practices for partnering with families in the early years. Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Woods, J. J., Wilcox, M. J., Friedman, M., & Murch, T. (2011). Collaborative consultation in natural environments: Strategies to enhance family-centered supports and services. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services, 42, 379–392. doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2011/ 10-0016). Zins, J. E., & Erchul, W. P. (2002). Best practices in school consultation. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (4th ed., pp. 625–643). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

5

Multicultural Process and Communication Issues in ConsulteeCentered Consultation Colette L. Ingraham

Multicultural consultee-centered consultation (MCCC) gives consultants tools for enhancing teacher–student and adult–child relationships and developing consultee knowledge, skill, perspective, and confidence for working with their culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students. This chapter emphasizes MCCC with educators, defined broadly to include teachers, parents, child-care providers, and others.These educators, in schools, homes, and communities, have responsibility for the care and success of children. MCCC uses a broad definition of culture that refers to an organized set of thoughts, beliefs, values, and norms for interaction and communication, all of which may influence thoughts, behaviors, and perceptions. Consultants should recognize both the pervasiveness and limits of cultural context, exploring cultural, as well as individual differences, but not over generalizing about potential cultural themes or dynamics. Culture is very complex, far more complex than one’s physical appearance, language, ethnicity, or country of origin, and often involves the intersectionality of many different aspects of one’s identity. A whole tapestry of factors shape the paradigm and worldview from which one operates. Two individuals from the same family, ethnicity, and linguistic background may have different cultural perspectives due to their different life experiences. People have multiple identities (e.g., associated 77

78   Ingraham

with gender, role, race, worldview, social location, language, ethnicity, religion, socio-economic status, core values, and more) that include their individual, group, and universal identity and affiliations. Consultants must continually examine the potential for their own stereotypes and biases to surface and actively work to reduce interpretations or hypotheses developed out of their own lack of knowledge, perspective, or ethnocentric worldviews. Consultants seek to understand cultural influences on the thoughts, expectations, and behaviors for each party in the consultation process, including the consultee(s), client(s), school system, larger culture, and of course, our own. When teachers, parents, and other adults are supported in developing culturally appropriate interventions for students, multiple positive outcomes result. Students learn and develop successfully, educators expand their capacity to work effectively with a diverse group of students, adults increase their cultural competence and confidence, and systems change is fostered in schools (Ingraham, 2003, 2007; Ingraham & Meyers, 2000). This chapter is organized into three sections: (a) theoretical basis and research for MCCC, (b) implications for the practice of MCCC in school settings, and (c) implications for future research and practice that highlight possibilities for new research, training and practice.

Theoretical and Research Basis Multicultural consultee-centered consultation focuses on relationships and shared understandings across individuals from diverse backgrounds and perspectives. It integrates a multicultural framework for school consultation that can be used with a variety of consultation models (Ingraham, 2000), with a specific model of consultation called consultee-centered consultation (CCC). This integration then focuses attention on the development of cultural competence and shared understandings in both the consultee and the consultant as they work to resolve problem situations involving students. CCC, a model developed through an international collaborative of psychologists, focuses on process, conceptual change, and building relationships to co-construct new understandings of the problem situation (Lambert, Hylander, & Sandoval, 2004; Sandoval, 2014). Both consultant and consultee work together through a non-hierarchical, non-prescriptive relationship to support those who have direct responsibility for the clients, typically students, children, or youth. The consultee may be a teacher, parent, or other adult who has direct responsibility for the learning, development, or productivity of the client.The goal of CCC is to expand the repertoire of the consultee and restore or improve the relationship between consultee and client.

Consultee-Centered Consultation   79

MCCC can be used with individual, group, or systems level interventions in schools to help develop the positive learning communities in which all students can thrive and succeed (Ingraham, 2000; Knotek, 2012; Nastasi, Moore, & Varjas, 2004). Consultants trained in MCCC can educate others about contextual factors such as home culture, language, learning styles, minority status, communication styles, racism, cross-cultural interactions, power and status within the school and community, and how these can influence learning, development, and behavior.

Educators Need Better Support in Working with their Diverse Students There is much room for improvement in the preparation of adults to work with the diversity of individuals who are in today’s schools. Educators often face situations that challenge their knowledge, skill, confidence, and professional objectivity (Caplan & Caplan, 1993; Ingraham, 2000). Needs for development in these four areas can grow dramatically when viewed through a multicultural lens. As the diversity of schools, families, and child-care programs increases, so can the cognitive and affective complexities of effective instruction and care for a multicultural society. With increases in the numbers of blended families, multi-racial adoptions, childcare programs, and diverse school populations, the need for adults prepared to work with diverse children continues to expand. Of concern, however, is the disparity between what the educators of CLD students indicate they need for training and the support they are actually receiving, especially for teachers. Most teachers are not adequately prepared to teach CLD students due to limited and inadequate training (Ballantyne, Sanderman, & Levy, 2008; Zehler, Fleischman, Hopstock, Stephenson, Pendzick, & Sapru, 2003). For example, Ballantyne et al. (2008) reported that while 57% of teachers believe they needed more training in order to provide effective education for ELL students, only 29.5% had training to teach ELL students. Zehler et al. (2003) found that while 61.6% of teachers of three or more ELL students reported that they had received training related to teaching ELLs, the median amount of such training was only four hours. In California, a state with extensive student diversity, there was marked variability in the amount and type of pre-service and in-service cultural competence training for teachers and administrators (Farr, Sexton, Puckett, Pereira-León, & Weissman, 2005). Among teachers and administrators who have been working in the educational system for some time, Farr et al. reported: Our research shows that the majority of this group has not had cultural competency training that is appropriate to their local needs, that reflects

80   Ingraham

what is known about high-quality and effective training on this topic, or that reflects the literature on effective professional development. (Farr et al., 2005, p. 6) Clearly, teachers need support in working with diverse students.With its specific attention to cultural and linguistic diversity, MCCC offers the potential to support teachers and care providers in their work with diverse students. MCCC uses processes for co-constructing understandings of problem situations across diverse individuals and perspectives, with the ultimate goal of building stronger relationships between consultees and clients. It is one means to support adults in developing cultural competency and problem-solving so they can provide effective services in CLD schools (Ingraham, 2003, in press; Knotek, 2012).

Using a Multicultural Perspective in Consultation: Process and Communication Dynamics Literature highlights the importance of developing a multicultural perspective to guide consultation services in schools (Ingraham, 2000, 2003, 2014; Ingraham & Meyers, 2000; Knotek, 2012). This perspective draws on scholarship from multiple disciplines (e.g., multicultural counseling, cross-cultural psychology, intergroup communications, and international school psychology). Consultation researchers have used a variety of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies to study multicultural issues in consultation. Evidence suggests the importance of knowledge, depth, and skill in multicultural consultation, specifically cultural knowledge, attentiveness, and consultant responsiveness to cultural and ecological issues (Ingraham, 2014). Newell (2010) used computer simulations and a qualitative case study design to investigate how African American and European American consultants engaged in racial/cultural diversity when conceptualizing problems during consultation in a multiracial context. Her discourse analysis revealed that the consultants had limited use of an ecological approach, lacked cultural responsiveness, and used more negative within-child focus for the African American compared with the European American case. Newell posited that this may be due to lack of training on how to discuss issues of race and include analysis of these issues in the consultation process, and to potential unconscious race-based perceptions. In a second study, Newell (2012) found that consultants were more proficient at asking questions that focused on behavioral consultation techniques than they were at relationship and interactive factors, especially aspects of multicultural consultation. She recommended that . . . training programs must make more space in the training curriculum for developing consultants’ ability to obtain insights and perspective from the

Consultee-Centered Consultation   81

consultee and then for training consultants to transform that knowledge into assessment and intervention. (Newell, 2012, p. 25)

A Framework for Multicultural Consultation in Schools Culture can influence the entire process of consultation, the individuals involved, and the context in which it occurs (Ingraham, 2000, 2007). In MCCC, cultural issues are brought to the forefront and used to inform adjustments in consultation processes and practices to address the needs and cultural values of both consultees and clients. Culture-specific consultation approaches (i.e., where the communication and relationship patterns are consistent with those of a specific cultural group) may be used when there is cultural similarity among the members of the consultation constellation (i.e., individuals involved in the immediate consultation process) or through use of cultural brokers (Ingraham, 2000; Nastasi et al., 2004; Varjas, Nastasi, Moore, & Jayasena, 2005). Cultural brokers are like cultural guides who coach and educate consultants about the unique cultural norms, practices, and expectations for cultures with whom the consultant has limited experiences. In the multicultural school consultation framework, five areas of knowledge and skill are important: (a) consultant multicultural development (understanding of own culture, other cultures, cross-cultural consultation skills), (b) consultee needs for development (knowledge, skill, confidence, and perspective), (c) cultural variations in consultation triads and consultation approaches for each, (d) issues of social context and power, and (e) methods to support consultees in increasing their capacity to work with diverse individuals and communities.The framework attends to communication style, power, empowerment, and dimensions of diversity, thereby attending to the development of cultural competence of both consultee and consultant (Ingraham, 2000). Multicultural consultation begins with the consultant’s own cultural learning: understanding one’s own culture, other cultures, and skills in cross-cultural consultation and intervention. One can’t guide others in the development of cultural competence unless one is highly aware of one’s own cultural lenses and how these influence one’s cognitions, behaviors, and conceptualizations of problem situations. Approaches for multicultural counseling (e.g., Ponterotto, Casas, Suzuki, & Alexander, 2010; Sue & Sue, 2013) place this as a crucial step in developing effective knowledge and skills for work in multicultural contexts. A critical process in effective MCCC is the relationship-building focus of CCC whereby consultants work to build their relationship with the consultee, with the goal of improving outcomes for the student(s). First the consultant builds the relationship directly with the consultee, using active listening and exploring

82   Ingraham

problem situations together in ways that support the consultee. Sandoval (2014) and Hylander (2004, 2012) described ways that CCC helps in the co-construction of new conceptualizations in both the consultant and consultee.The consultant listens and learns how the consultee perceives the problem situation, their theory for why the current situation is happening, and what might be done. With MCCC, the consultant also looks for opportunities to develop cross-cultural knowledge and skills and culturally-informed ways of understanding the problem situation. With its explicit focus on process and cultural factors, MCCC is a nonthreatening, supportive approach that is particularly sensitive to the consultee’s affect and evolving cultural knowledge. It is well-suited to working with teachers and families in diverse schools because, in contrast to traditional in-services, it enhances professional growth in a naturally occurring, problem-focused “window of opportunity” when consultees are motivated to succeed. Moreover, use of onedownsmanship, a process for elevating the consultee’s knowledge about the case and downplaying the consultant’s authority, is particularly important when the consultee wants the consultant to solve the problem. The consultant can say, “Well you have seen Jaime grow up, so you really know a lot more about him than I do. Let’s see what we can figure out together,” highlighting the importance of the consultee’s knowledge and participation in the problem-solving process. In sum, MCCC is focused on relationships and developing shared understandings across diverse individuals. It is grounded in social constructivism and egalitarian principles, and it attends to the cultural similarities and differences across its participants. This theoretical foundation has many implications for practice in schools, as discussed in the next section.

Implications for Practice There are many implications for using MCCC in school consultation. When consultants are aware of some of the dynamics and potential cultural issues that can arise, they are better equipped to address them in ways that support the goals of school-based consultation and the development of cultural competence among teacher and parent consultees. Additionally, home-school collaboration and systemic impacts on school climate and student achievement are possible.

Knowledge, Skill, Perspective, and Confidence Consultee needs for knowledge, skill, perspective, and confidence are prevalent in many of today’s changing schools and consultants can support consultees in developing in each of these four areas (Caplan & Caplan, 1993; Ingraham, 2000).

Consultee-Centered Consultation   83

In MCCC, consultants monitor their own and their consultee’s potential for developing increased knowledge, skill, perspective, and confidence (Ingraham, 2003). The consultant ponders, “Why is this consultee having difficulty with this problem situation?” The consultant is learning about the consultee’s perception of the problem situation and mentally developing hypotheses regarding potential areas for consultee development. Would the consultee benefit from some type of knowledge or skill to handle this problem situation? Is the consultee viewing the problem with a clear perspective or is there a need for another perspective or less cultural stereotyping? What is the consultee’s level of confidence in working with this problem situation? Often a consultee is experiencing challenges in several areas. Reflecting on these questions can guide the consultant in knowing which direction to focus the consultation. With the growing numbers of cultures and backgrounds in today’s classrooms, it is difficult for teachers and care providers to have deep knowledge about each of the cultural backgrounds their students bring. Consultants educated in MCCC can support consultees through inservices, group consultation, and individual consultation. They can assist consultees to learn more about the students’ home cultures, customs, interests, and patterns of communication and behavior, as well as teaching and parenting methods that correspond to students’ diverse learning styles and interests (e.g., partnered learning, multimodal instructions, cooperative learning, projects). Through co-constructing the problem definition and collaborating to develop successful interventions, educators’ feelings of confidence, efficacy and empowerment rise (Ingraham, 2003).

Process Issues that can Arise in the Practice of Multicultural Consultation When working across different cultures, there are several dynamics that can impede consultation relationship development. Multicultural counseling literature (e.g., Ponterotto et al., 2010; Sue & Sue, 2013) is a foundation for understanding several threats to objectivity or perception that can arise in multicultural consultation. Some of the processes that can challenge perceptions in multicultural consultation include filtering perceptions through stereotypes and taking a color-blind approach (Ingraham, 2000). When situations are ambiguous, as cross-cultural interactions frequently are, one tends to construct meaning out of whatever limited knowledge one has, often leading to the use of stereotypes. When people filter their understanding of a student, group of students, or a whole system, through stereotypes, they may make inaccurate assumptions. For example, thinking that all members of a particular cultural group like math, music, cooperative learning, or other common stereotypes

84   Ingraham

can lead to inaccurate interpretations of the problem and ineffective interventions. Similarly, a parent who thinks most school professionals are part of a privileged class may feel inhibited to share vulnerabilities at school. Another threat to a clear perspective is a color-blind approach. In this dynamic, an educator may seek to treat all students equally, regardless of their race or ethnicity, potentially neglecting cultural characteristics that are meaningful to the students. For example, when an adolescent is developing a group ethnic identity as a Latino, a teacher who does not recognize the student’s identity may unknowingly act to negate or threaten the cultural identity, thereby making the student feel culturally invisible, unaccepted by the teacher, or of diminished value. Consultants can introduce the idea that students and families may want to be recognized for their cultural affiliation and this is part of their healthy identity development. This perspective might shift the consultee’s thoughts and lead to conceptual change. Working to reframe an educator’s color-blind approach can be very challenging. Consultees may need support in learning to value the cultural diversity that students bring and how to affirm cultural identity and support student success in school (Ingraham, 2003, 2016; Todd & Adams, 2011). In diverse schools, consultee confidence is frequently at risk. Educators are expected to teach all of their students, know what strategies to use to address the specific needs of students, and be respectful and inclusive. When educators experience challenges with students, they sometimes feel sensitive to criticism about their teaching or parenting, and if they believe cultural factors may be involved, they may adopt one of two response patterns. First, some people develop intervention paralysis, an awareness of cultural differences with an inability to develop any intervention for fear that it might not be culturally appropriate. With intervention paralysis, the consultant can support the consultee in identifying and analyzing the relevant elements of the problem situation and developing a corresponding intervention. By helping the consultee to look at different aspects of the problem situation and to access strategies they have used with previous cases, the consultant can do much to break the paralysis and move the consultee into problem-solving (Ingraham, 2000, 2003). Another dynamic is reactive dominance, where “the consultee reacts to the collision of their own needs with the complexities of cross-cultural interaction by asserting dominance or imposing their patterns of thinking and behavior on the interaction” (Ingraham, 2000, p. 333). Some people are threatened when they find themselves operating outside of their comfort zones. A consultee who has needs for control, predictability, acceptance, success, or structure may assert a particular course of action or belief system, regardless of its appropriateness for the client, as a reaction to the uncertainties of cross-cultural interaction. There are many ways that a consultee’s perspective or professional objectivity can be threatened in MCCC (Ingraham, 2000).Two of the most prevalent are (a) theme

Consultee-Centered Consultation   85

interference (when the consultee’s own issues or biases cloud their judgment and accurate perception of events [Caplan & Caplan, 1993]), and (b) over-identification with the client (e.g., when they share the same cultural background or a common experience like an alcoholic parent, a disability, or other significant point of similarity). Consultants can gently challenge the consultee’s perception by disclosing information about their own cultural learning, thereby offering a different way to conceptualize the issue, or by sharing what they have learned about cultural influences (Ingraham, 2003).The dynamics between consultants and consultees are complex when consultants seek to expand consultee perceptions regarding culture. Consultants may need coaching and supervision to successfully reframe consultee views of the problem and develop successful interventions (Ingraham, 2016).

Culture is Located in Different Ways within Consultation Constellations The multicultural framework includes different constellations that can vary by culture or perspective. When one of more members of the consultation constellation (consultant, consultee[s], client[s]) differs significantly in culture or perspective from the others, multicultural consultation strategies can be used. (See Ingraham, 2000, for a more thorough discussion of the constellations and their impact on consultation dynamics.) In MCCC, there are often similarities and differences between the multiple identities of consultants and consultees. To see this more fully, consider the similarities and differences within a sample consultant–consultee relationship. For example, the school psychologist may perceive herself as a hard-working, well-educated recent graduate, Latina, Catholic, daughter and aunt, oldest child, single, and heterosexual; and she values the importance of family, educational access for all, pride in cultural heritage and biculturalism, and a passion for social justice. Perhaps the consultee’s identity includes being an experienced teacher, male, married father of two daughters, White, avid cyclist, and values such as fairness to all students, selfreliance, with a focus on quality of life and love of outdoor activities. While there are several differences, the consultant can work to bridge along the similarities as educators, caring about family, and dedication to opportunities for students. For example, the consultant might mention how the consultant and consultee both care deeply about their own families and are dedicated educators wanting to see the students succeed, thus highlighting the similarities they share, rather than accentuating their differences. Diagrams may be used as symbolic representations of salient similarities and differences, and they can help illustrate when various consultant strategies are needed (Ingraham, 2000, 2007).

86   Ingraham

FIGURE 5.1  A Consultation Constellation Diagram with Consultant–Client Cultural Similarity Solid shapes represent female gender and clear shapes represent male gender, which should be described in the key or under that shape. Here the consultee is of a different perspective or culture and is shown with a different shape—a square. Bicultural identities can be shown by combining shapes.

Figure 5.1 depicts an example where the consultant and client are culturally similar and the consultee is culturally different. In this constellation, the consultee may request that the consultant assume primary responsibility for the intervention with comments such as, “You know much more about working with these kinds of students than I do. Can you work with him?” Consultants can use onedownsmanship and similar strategies to position the consultee as the primary person responsible for the interventions, thereby using the case to educate the consultee about working with this cultural group. Additionally, the consultee may project onto the consultant stereotypes about the consultant’s and client’s culture. Here, the consultant can use self-regulation to consider how and when to respond in a way that the teacher can hear the consultant’s perspective without getting too defensive. An “I” statement or an example where the stereotype did not fit may be a good way to counteract consultee stereotyping and projection. In both cases, the consultant uses the emerging consultant–consultee relationship to support the consultee in learning about the client’s culture, gradually building the consultee–client relationship. Another set of dynamics occurs with consultant–consultee similarity. Here the consultant and consultee share common identity factors, and the consultant can build on this similarity to establish rapport and bridge with the consultee’s perspective. Modeling methods for learning about the culture of the client, consultants can use self-disclosure to show their own mistakes or vulnerability as they are learning about a new culture. Consultants can provide emotional and motivational supports for the consultee to learn about a new culture, try new strategies, and expand their capacity to work with similar students in the future.

Consultee-Centered Consultation   87

Communication Issues in Multicultural ConsulteeCentered Consultation With relationship development and conceptual change at the center of MCCC, culturally competent communication plays a key role. Literature in multicultural counseling (e.g., Ponterotto et al., 2010; Sue & Sue, 2013) provides a wealth of information to guide thought and practice of MCCC. This literature calls on helping professionals to respect differences, remain open to differing perspectives, affirm cultural identities and understandings, and work to understand the worldviews and vantage points of those with backgrounds different than their own— skills that need greater attention in school psychology training programs (Ingraham, 2016, in press; Newell, 2012). Awareness of the different ways people think and communicate can help consultants improve their cross-cultural competence and consultation. Some individuals and cultures tend to use direct communication, whereas others prefer more indirect communication styles. For example, when individuals are familiar with the cultural context of the communication, they may use indirect communication, where subtle and often nonverbal communications are possible because the individuals already understand each other thoroughly. In contrast, when cultures are highly diverse or when learning new material, direct communication may be preferred because it is more explicit and less open to misunderstanding. In working with groups of school professionals there are also deep individual differences in the types of communication preferred by members of the same culture, gender, and ethnicity. A typical school setting is composed of individuals who have a range of preferences along the direct to indirect communication continuum. Conflicts can arise, especially when there are wide differences in preferred communication styles (Ingraham, in press). Challenges to communication are even more salient when there are cultural variations between the members of the consultation constellation. It is important to remain non-threatening and open to different preferences for task-focused (e.g., getting down to business, agenda-oriented) versus interpersonal orientations (which are likely to include social pleasantries and focus on the development of trust and relationship). Consultants need to be very attentive to both verbal and non-verbal cues to guide them in building trusting relationships and watching for consultee signals to change communication styles, pacing, personal distance, and other techniques to restore rapport. Hylander (2004, 2012) refers to “turnings” as critical points when there is a shift in the conceptualization of the problem. She describes several scenarios where similarities and differences between consultee and consultant representation (internal conceptualization) and presentation (articulation to the other) lead to different processes. The goal is for consultant and consultee to co-construct both

88   Ingraham

representations and presentations to develop a shared understanding of the problem, why it exists, and what might be done about it. There are some promising approaches for using multicultural consultation to focus on consultee development. Case studies provide opportunities to study the use of various consultation approaches with real consultation cases in multicultural contexts (e.g., Ingraham, 2003; Knotek, 2012; Miranda, 2016; Rosenfield, 2012). These studies offer guidance to consultants wishing to develop their competence in multicultural consultation. When conceptualizing cases in consultation training, this author teaches consultants-in-training (CIT) to consider factors such as salient similarities and differences among members of the consultation constellation, the diagram of the consultation constellation, and the consultant’s perception of the consultee’s (as well as his or her own) developmental needs for knowledge, skill, perspective, and confidence following each consultation session and at the end of the entire case. Consultants record quotes and evidence to support their emerging hypotheses, approaches they took to address the identified needs, and consultee responses to these approaches. We examine dimensions of diversity, context, and power, how these may have emerged within the consultation constellation, and methods the consultants can use to support consultee and client success. We support consultant learning through reflective practice and cross-cultural feedback (Ingraham, 2016, in press). Consultants for the three cases reported in Ingraham (2003) used this method of case analysis to examine their MCCC with a specific teacher consultee. From these case studies, three factors appear to contribute to MCCC success: (a) the consultant’s use of self-disclosure about the consultant’s own process of crosscultural learning, (b) the teacher’s understanding that cultural factors can affect the classroom, and (c) the consultant’s use of multicultural consultation methods. Additionally, it is possible that consultants who combine a focus on the instructional process with consultee-centered consultation may be more successful in creating conceptual change in teachers compared with consultants who only focus on the teacher’s attitudes, but additional research is needed to confirm this hypothesis.

Implications for Research and Training There is much to be done to further the research and practice of MCCC with teachers and parents, and additional research is needed in many areas. Research and training in multicultural consultation is needed for school psychologists and others to provide consultation in diverse school contexts (Ingraham, 2016, in press). Ingraham (2003) outlined questions for future research to address that still need to be studied. Among these questions were: What is the relationship between the

Consultee-Centered Consultation   89

consultant and consultee ethnicity and its influence on consultation processes and outcomes? When raising cultural hypotheses, does the culture of the consultant influence consultee reactions? Is there a difference in willingness to explore cultural hypotheses through consultation among bilingual teachers compared with monolingual English speakers? Which approaches to support consultees’ cultural learning are most linked with client success? What kinds of training and support do consultants need to effectively raise cultural hypotheses with their often more senior and European American consultees? Some scholars have asked that future research more fully include the perceptions of consultees and clients to better understand the processes and outcomes of multicultural consultation. Henning-Stout and Meyers (2000) called on researchers and practitioners to seek out the perspectives of those most marginalized in the school or community systems and to consider the limitations of consultation strategies grounded in the dominant culture. Similarly, Ingraham (2003) suggested that future research include data regarding the perspectives and conceptualizations of consultees and clients, especially those who may represent diverse or minority worldviews and perspectives. However, consultee perceptions may be challenging to collect.While consultants may want to understand the consultee’s worldview and cultural lens, how do they actually go about accessing it? Consultants may find it awkward to ask consultees how they identify culturally, yet without the consultee’s perspectives, consultants are left to infer cultural orientations, which is an imperfect way to understand one’s cultural perspectives. Future research will need to develop and validate non-threatening methods for accessing the consultee’s perceptions, values, worldview and cultural identity in order to more deeply study how culture impacts consultation processes. Another area for future work involves identifying training approaches to support consultants in making cultural adaptations and raising cultural hypotheses with consultees. Studies by Tarver Behring, Cabello, Kushida, and Murguia (2000) and Ingraham (2003) identified challenges European American novice consultants faced in cross-cultural consultation. While the consultants had the desire to raise cultural issues and modify approaches for cultural appropriateness, they appeared to lack knowledge of specific cultural practices and/or strategies for how to challenge cultural stereotypes among consultees. If one of the goals of multicultural consultation is to support consultees in developing increased cultural competence, then consultants may need specialized coaching or practice to fulfill this goal (Ingraham, 2016, in press; Newell, 2012). Without this, consultants may be susceptible to the same threats to cultural competence (e.g., intervention paralysis, avoidance of sensitive topics, overemphasis of culture, or fear of offending) that can threaten consultee perspective and confidence (see Ingraham, 2000). There are also many possibilities for using technology to more fully study multicultural consultation. For example, Newell (2010, 2012) used computer

90   Ingraham

simulations to examine the conceptualizations and consultation strategies used by consultants of different races. Ingraham and Oka (2013) reported positive results from a five-year study using virtual communities (online, Skype, and real time) to offer CITs a wider range of cross-cultural consultation experiences and to explore more deeply cultural understandings, stereotypes, and learning. With education and practice in MCCC, school psychologists have an important role to play in developing effective consultations and interventions. MCCC can increase student learning and development by supporting consultees in developing culturally informed and effective interventions for students. Consultants can enhance their competence and effectiveness through reflective practice and feedback, as well as future research, on the use of MCCC. Also, training programs have an important role in bringing global perspectives to consultation through their curriculum and supervision of CITs (Ingraham, 2016, in press). Given the complexities of multicultural process and communication issues in consultation, consultants should be carefully taught and supervised in these approaches. When consultants build multicultural bridges of understanding and success, they create win-win situations where consultees expand their cultural competence and confidence, and students benefit through positive learning and development.

Resources Discussion Questions 1. What are some ways you might see yourself using multicultural consulteecentered consultation in your work with teachers and parents? In what ways might these approaches be useful to you in your work? 2. Think about people of different cultures and/or perspectives with whom you have contact. Which cultural groups are more challenging for you to develop rapport and understanding? What is it about these interactions that is uncomfortable? Are there some strategies suggested in the chapter that might be valuable to you? 3. We all have limits in our cultural competence and knowledge about working with diverse peoples. What cultural images, stereotypes, or communication styles might you need to self-monitor as you use multicultural consulteecentered consultation?

Professional Organizations Consultee-Centered Consultation Interest Group of NASP

Consultee-Centered Consultation   91

Additional Readings Ingraham, C. L. (2003). Multicultural consultee-centered consultation: When novice consultants explore cultural hypotheses with experienced teacher consultees. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 14, 329–362. This journal article uses qualitative methods to examine MCCC used by three novice consultants and their experienced teacher consultees. It gives readers an idea of how to implement MCCC in practice, issues that can arise in MCCC, and methods used by consultants-in-training. Ingraham, C. L. (2014). Studying multicultural aspects of consultation. In W. Erchul & S. Sheridan (Eds.), Handbook of research in school consultation: Empirical foundations for the field (2nd ed.) (pp. 323–348). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. This book chapter provides a comprehensive review of research studying multicultural aspects of consultation, with special attention to multicultural and cross-cultural consultation theory and research and methods to bring cultural perspectives into consultation research.

References Ballantyne, K. G., Sanderman, A. R., & Levy, J. (2008). Educating English language learners: Building teacher capacity. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. Available at , retrieved October 15, 2016. Caplan, G., & Caplan, R. B. (1993). Mental health consultation and collaboration. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Farr, B. P., Sexton, U., Puckett, C., Pereira-León, M., & Weissman, M. (2005). Study of the availability and effectiveness of cultural competency training for teachers in California: Final report. San Francisco, CA: Rockman et al. Available at , retrieved October 15, 2016. Henning-Stout, M., & Meyers, J. (2000). Consultation and human diversity: First things first. School Psychology Review, 29, 419–425. Hylander, I. (2004). Analysis of conceptual change in consultee-centered consultation. In N. M. Lambert, I. Hylander, & J. H. Sandoval (Eds.), Consultee-centered consultation: Improving the quality of professional services in schools and community organizations (pp. 45–61). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Hylander I. (2012). Conceptual change through consultee-centered consultation: A theoretical model. Consulting Psychology Journal: Research and Practice, 64, 29–45. Ingraham, C. L. (2000). Consultation through a multicultural lens: Multicultural and crosscultural consultation in schools. School Psychology Review, 29, 320–343. Ingraham, C. L. (2003). Multicultural consultee-centered consultation: When novice consultants explore cultural hypotheses with experienced teacher consultees. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 14, 329–362. Ingraham, C. L. (2007). Focusing on consultees in multicultural consultation. In G. B. Esquivel, E. C. Lopez, & S. Nahari (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural school psychology (pp. 98–118). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

92   Ingraham

Ingraham, C. L. (2014). Studying multicultural aspects of consultation. In W. Erchul & S. Sheridan (Eds.), Handbook of research in school consultation: Empirical foundations for the field (2nd ed.) (pp. 323–348). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. Ingraham, C. L. (2016). Educating consultants for multicultural practice of consulteecentered consultation. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation. Available at , retrieved October 15, 2016. Ingraham, C. L. (in press). Training and education of consultants: A global perspective. In C. Hatzichristou & S. A. Rosenfield (Eds.), International handbook of consultation in educational settings. New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. Ingraham, C. L., & Meyers, J. (Eds.). (2000). Multicultural and cross-cultural consultation in schools: Cultural diversity issues in school consultation. [Special issue]. School Psychology Review, 29(3). Ingraham, C. L., & Oka, E. R. (2013, August). Promoting cultural proficiency and conceptual change through web-based learning communities. Poster presented at annual conference of the American Psychological Association, Honolulu, HI. Knotek, S. E. (2012). Utilizing culturally responsive consultation to support innovation implementation in a rural school. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 64, 46–62. Lambert, N. M., Hylander, I., & Sandoval, J. H. (Eds.). (2004). Consultee-centered consultation: Improving the quality of professional services in schools and community organizations. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Miranda, A. H. (Ed.). (2016). Consultation across cultural contexts: Consultee-centered case studies. New  York: Routledge. Nastasi, B. K., Moore, R. B., & Varjas, K. M. (2004). School-based mental health services: Creating comprehensive and culturally specific programs. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. Newell, M. L. (2010). The implementation of problem-solving consultation: An analysis of problem conceptualization in a multiracial context. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 20, 83–105. doi:10.1080/10474411003785529. Newell, M. L. (2012). Transforming knowledge to skill: Evaluating the consultation competence of novice school-based consultants. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 64, 8–28. doi:10.1037/a0027741. Newman, D. S., Ingraham, C. L., & Shriberg, D. (2014). Consultee-centered consultation in contemporary schools. Communiqué, 42(6), 14–17. Available at , retrieved October 15, 2016. Ponterotto, J. G., Casas, J. M., Suzuki, L. A., & Alexander, C. M. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook for multicultural counseling (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Rosenfield, S. A. (2012). Becoming a school consultant: Lessons learned. New York: Routledge/ Taylor & Francis Group. Sandoval, J. H. (2014). An introduction to consultee-centered consultation in the schools: A stepby-step guide to the process and skills. New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. Sue, D. W., & Sue, D. (2013). Counseling the culturally diverse: Theory and practice (6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Tarver Behring, S., Cabello, B., Kushida, D., & Murguia, A. (2000). Cultural modifications to current school-based consultation approaches reported by culturally diverse beginning consultants. School Psychology Review, 29, 354–367.

Consultee-Centered Consultation   93

Todd, N. R., & Adams, E. M. (2011).White dialectics: A new framework for theory, research, and practice with White students. The Counseling Psychologist, 39, 353–395. Varjas, K. M., Nastasi, B. K., Moore, R. B, & Jayasena, A. (2005). Using ethnographic methods for development of culture-specific interventions. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 241–258. Zehler, A. M., Fleischman, H. L., Hopstock, P. J., Stephenson,T. G., Pendzick, M. L. & Sapru, S. (2003). Policy Report: Summary of Findings Related to LEP and SpEd-LEP Students. Washington DC: USDE, OELA. Available at , retrieved October 15, 2016.

Part III

Interventions Focused on Academic and Mental Health Issues

6

Building Reading Skills for English Learners within a Response to Intervention Framework Doris Luft Baker, Catherine Richards-Tutor, Russell Gersten, Scott K. Baker, and Jean Louise M. Smith

One of the most dramatic demographic shifts in the United States (U.S.) population over the past 200 years has been the influx of immigrants in the last 35 years, the vast majority of whom do not speak English as their first language. Although since 2008, immigration has slowed, it is unclear whether this deceleration will continue as the economy recovers. Regardless, the English learner school population is substantial and represents a significant challenge for schools across the country for two reasons. First, the slowdown in first generation immigration has shed light on the fact that now many English learners (ELs) in the country are second- and third-generation immigrants (i.e., they were born in the U.S.), who speak primarily a language other than English at home. For example, a recent survey indicates that 73% of Hispanics aged five and older speak Spanish at home (Krogstad & Gonzalez-Barrera, 2015). Second, while early waves of immigrants tended to concentrate in major urban areas in California, Texas, New York, Florida, and Illinois, more recent arrivals have also settled in parts of the country that have witnessed relatively low rates of immigration historically. States such as South Dakota, Alabama, Maryland, and 97

98   Luft Baker et al.

Tennessee, have seen their English learner populations more than double in a brief period of time, a pattern reflected in many states throughout the country (Ennis, Rios-Vargas, & Albert, 2011). Thousands of schools that previously had little experience with ELs are searching for ways to effectively serve these students. As a result, teachers, school psychologists, and other educators are increasingly being asked to organize and provide services for ELs. The challenge for schools is not only that larger numbers of ELs are attending their schools than ever before, which present unique language and cultural issues, but also that ELs are more likely than other students to struggle academically. For instance, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reported in 2013 that ELs scored 38 points lower than non-ELs on the fourth-grade reading assessment, and 45 points lower on the eighth-grade reading assessment (Kena et al., 2014). These average lower scores are statistically significant and very large in magnitude. Limited proficiency with English, however, is not the only factor contributing to low academic achievement among ELs. Poverty (e.g., 33% of Latinos live in poverty compared to 13% of whites (Kena et al., 2014)), mobility, and school absenteeism also contribute to the academic performance gap between ELs and non-ELs (Fry & Gonzales, 2008; Soifer, 2009). Although schools and school psychologists cannot easily alter many of these factors, they can directly influence the quality of instruction and services provided to ELs. Improving education services for ELs, including quality of instruction, is likely to increase literacy and academic achievement, and reduce the rates of inappropriate referrals and placements of ELs in special education. The purpose of this chapter is to describe how a Response to Intervention (RtI) model can serve as a basis for improving the quality of instruction and intervention for ELs. The chapter focuses on the theoretical and empirical foundations of RtI, including the central premises of providing a coordinated system of high quality instruction and intervention for all students in a school building, and assessments that support instruction and intervention. Next, the issue of how school psychologists with broad training in evidence-based practices, consultation, assessment, and leadership can be instrumental in the effective implementation of RtI is discussed, particularly, for example, in the interpretation of formative assessments to screen students for difficulties and monitor their progress over time.The chapter concludes with a section on implications for researchers and school psychologists.

Theoretical and Research Basis Response to Intervention as a Framework for Improving Instruction for ELs The term Response to Intervention refers to a prevention and identification system of instruction and intervention designed to support all students in schools, and

Building Reading Skills in an RtI Framework   99

reduce the number of students diagnosed with specific learning disabilities (S. K. Baker, Fien, & Baker, 2010). Central pillars of RtI are: (a) high quality instruction in the core or T   ier 1 program, (b) implementation of increasingly intense, evidencebased interventions for students who do not respond adequately to core classroom instruction, and (c) the use of reliable and valid assessments to screen students for academic difficulties and monitor student progress over time (Vaughn, Cirino et al., 2006). High quality instruction and intervention for all students, and particularly for ELs, in RtI models is designed to rule out incomplete or poor instruction as the underlying reason for sustained poor achievement and insufficient progress (S. K. Baker & Baker, 2008). An important common feature of schools that use some type of RtI model is the goal of transparent linkages among the tiers provided (e.g.,Tier 1,Tier 2, and Tier 3).That way, any student, including an EL, who moves through the tiers because of lack of progress, is provided with services that become increasingly and systematically more intense and individualized (Vellutino, Scanlon, Small, Fanuele, & Sweeney, 2007). In reading, Tier 1 refers to instruction that is provided to all students in the class, or nearly all students in the class, using what is typically referred to as a core-reading program (Gersten et al., 2007). In early reading, the focus generally is on systematic instruction that fosters both code-based and text-based strategies for word reading, fluent text reading, vocabulary, and comprehension (Vellutino et al., 2007). Students who experience some degree of sustained difficulty maintaining sufficient progress with Tier 1 instruction typically receive, as a first level of intervention, continued Tier 1 instruction plus Tier 2 intervention. The hallmark of Tier 2 intervention is instruction in small group formats of between two and six students. There are a number of ways the intensity of intervention can be increased in Tier 2 before a decision is made to provide the student with the most intense level of intervention, Tier 3 (Gersten et al., 2008). Adjustments in Tier 2 to increase intensity may include group size and composition, minutes of intervention per day, or adjustments in teacher or curriculum variables. For many, Tier 3 may represent special education (the most intense level of service possible) or another level of intensity beyond Tier 3 may be reserved for those students who have a specific learning disability.

Quality of Instruction Instruction for non-ELs and ELs across all tiers should include the following characteristics: (a) modeling the reading skills and knowledge students are expected to use and apply (Mathes, Denton, Fletcher, Anthony, Francis, & Schatschneider, 2005), (b) providing multiple opportunities for students to practice taught skills (Gunn, Smolkowski, Biglan, Black, & Blair, 2005), (c) correcting, and/or addressing

100   Luft Baker et al.

student errors immediately and systematically (Gunn et al., 2005), and (d) pacing lessons in a fast and efficient manner to ensure high student engagement (Archer & Hughes, 2011). These characteristics increase student understanding of teacher expectations (e.g., with a clear model students do not have to guess what the assignment is), and based on student responses, the teacher can scaffold and adjust the lesson (e.g., by using simpler vocabulary in the initial explanation of a concept) without lowering expectations or dramatically changing the language of instruction (August & Shanahan, 2006). For ELs specifically, instruction should also include extended time and extensive opportunities devoted to vocabulary and academic language instruction with direct supervision and feedback by the teacher (S. K. Baker, Gersten, & LinanThompson, 2010; Graves, August, & Mancilla-Martinez, 2013).  Academic language, in general, is defined as the abstract, decontextualized, and more cognitively demanding language used in schools (Anstrom, DiCerbo, Butler, Katz, Millet, & Rivera, 2010). Although there is considerable evidence indicating that ELs can learn decoding and word-reading skills as fast or faster than English-only students (Geva & Yaghoub-Zadeh, 2006), highly-focused attention on helping them to develop vocabulary and language proficiency skills needs to occur in order for them to understand what they read. Moreover, teaching ELs vocabulary at different levels of understanding needs to be considered. That is, ELs might need support in learning or translating (a) basic words in everyday life such as tip, can, and bank, (b) abstract words used in multiple different texts such as admire, polite, survive, and (c) content knowledge words such as reptiles, habitat, herbivores, multiplication (Graves et al., 2013).

Role of Bilingual Teachers Bilingual teachers can support the development of students’ language skills by using their primary language to, for example, translate target words into the student’s native language. However, a translation does not always support student understanding of these words. For example, the basic words mentioned above have multiple meanings depending on the context (i.e., the word can is an auxiliary verb, and it also refers to a metal container shaped as a cylinder that holds food). Thus, a translation of the word would also require the teacher to explain the context in which the word is used. The abstract words (e.g., admire) frequently require activities that increase student depth of understanding of the word in order for them to define and use these specific words appropriately in either English or their native language. This type of deep vocabulary instruction would be required in English or in the student’s native language. Content knowledge words such as the ones mentioned above tend to be cognates (i.e., they are visually and auditorily similar, such as

Building Reading Skills in an RtI Framework   101

“habitat” in Spanish and English) in other languages because their roots come from Latin. However, these words have specific characteristics that students need to learn independently of the language they are learning them in. One of the differences between learning vocabulary in the native language versus a second language is that native language speakers can move through the different levels of vocabulary development in predictable ways and over extended periods of time. For many ELs acquiring English, however, the learning time is necessarily compressed and it is not feasible or practical, for example, to wait until they have acquired basic word knowledge in the second language to introduce them to abstract words. Thus, intense vocabulary instruction has to occur at multiple levels and across all grades, ideally starting in preschool (Graves et al., 2013; Shanahan & Beck, 2006). RtI models can provide a structure for deep and frequent vocabulary instruction for ELs in which this instruction is a central part of all three tiers. Although this type of instruction is particularly important for ELs to understand content, it can also benefit non-ELs, who have limited vocabulary knowledge.

High Quality Instruction to Teach Vocabulary A good example of robust vocabulary instruction in English is provided by Carlo et al. (2004), and in Spanish by Cena, Baker, Kame’enui, Baker, Park, & Smolkowski, 2013). In the study by Carlo et al., students in the treatment group received a daily 30 to 45 minute vocabulary intervention for 15 weeks. Classroom teachers employed explicit instructional routines using a variety of strategies to teach ten to 12 target English words per week for a total of 180 new vocabulary words. In the comparison classrooms, students received instruction normally included in the school curriculum. Results of this study indicated that a focus on academic words, awareness of multiple word meanings, and morphological analysis significantly improved the performance of ELs and non-ELs. In the study by Cena et al. (2013), all students who received Spanish-reading instruction in first grade were taught abstract words in Spanish for 15 minutes per day for eight weeks. Teachers in the treatment group received training and a script on how to increase students’ deep knowledge of abstract words. Teachers in the control group were asked to teach the same words using the core-reading program, and general features of explicit instruction. Findings indicated that ELs in the treatment group significantly increased their knowledge of the target words compared to ELs in the control group (Hedges g = 0.73). Both of these studies suggest that robust vocabulary instruction in the context of Tier 1 can be taught effectively in English or in Spanish, and that English learners benefit from this instruction whether it is provided in the second language or in the native language.

102   Luft Baker et al.

Role of English Language Proficiency Vocabulary, however, is not the only element that is important in improving general reading skills. Recent studies indicate that reading comprehension (i.e., the goal of proficient reading for all students) of ELs is also directly affected by their level of English language proficiency, in addition to their level of native language and reading proficiency (D. L. Baker, Park, & Baker, 2013; S. K. Baker et al., 2014; Farnia & Geva, 2011; Gottardo & Mueller, 2009; Kieffer, 2008). Cummins (1979) conceptualized language proficiency as the ability to use language for basic interpersonal communicative skills (BICS), and for cognitive or academic language proficiency (CALP) in academic settings such as schools. CALP is particularly important for reading comprehension as it pertains to academic language skills that students need to succeed in tasks such as reading comprehension. The study by Kieffer (2008) compared the growth trajectories of ELs who entered kindergarten with higher English proficiency levels to ELs who entered kindergarten with lower levels of English proficiency in the U.S. Given that the majority of ELs were Latinos, most of the students in the study spoke Spanish as their native language. Results indicated that ELs with lower English proficiency were more likely to struggle in developing adequate reading comprehension skills throughout elementary school compared to ELs who started kindergarten with higher levels of English proficiency. In a longitudinal study conducted in Canada with second to fifth grade ELs, Farnia and Geva (2011) found that after several years in the school system, ELs continued to lag behind their monolingual counterparts on complex language and reading comprehension tasks in English that required broad background knowledge and more advanced language skills. In this study, the native language of ELs included Punjabi, Gujarati, Tamil, Cantonese, Portuguese, and a small number of other languages. The performance pattern was robust even when controlling for word-level reading skills, reading fluency, and cognitive component skills, further substantiating the importance of English language skills in the development of reading comprehension in the early grades, independently of students’ native language. The importance of this association was also confirmed in the study by D. L. Baker et al. (2013). The authors found a significant statistical interaction between English language proficiency and English literacy in the beginning of first grade in the prediction of reading comprehension at the end of second grade. Although Spanish native reading proficiency in first grade was significantly related to English reading comprehension at the end of second grade, English language proficiency and reading skills mediated this effect. These findings suggest that the combination of Spanish native reading proficiency, and English language and reading proficiency, are the best indicators of English reading comprehension.

Building Reading Skills in an RtI Framework   103

Next, a summary of interventions that have been effective for ELs who are at risk for a learning disability (LD) or with a LD (i.e., interventions that were provided in the context of Tier 2 or Tier 3) is provided. This next section will allow school psychologists and other educators to help schools make decisions about the most effective interventions that are currently available to increase the reading performance of ELs at risk for LD, once it has been determined that Tier 1 instruction has not been sufficient to adequately increase their reading performance.

Evidence-Based Interventions for ELs in Tier 2 and Tier 3 The authors reviewed experimental studies that examined the effects of reading interventions for ELs at risk or with a reading disability, and that were published between 2000 and 2012 (see Richards-Tutor, Baker, Gersten, Baker, & Smith, 2015). Emphasis was placed on reviewing only experimental studies because these studies allow researchers and practitioners to make causal inferences about intervention effects on ELs’ academic performance (Gersten, Baker, Haager, & Graves, 2005). The review located 12 studies that met our criteria. All the studies focused on the improvement of ELs’ reading skills only. Ten of the studies were conducted in the elementary grades, and two studies were conducted in middle schools (Lovett et al., 2008, and Vaughn et al., 2011). The small number of intervention studies was surprising given the larger number of intervention studies that had been conducted during the same approximate timeframe for non-ELs (i.e., more than 80, see Edmonds et al., 2009; see Wexler,Vaughn, Roberts, & Denton [2010] for a review of these studies), and given the importance of intervention studies to improve the reading outcomes of ELs. Student participants in ten of the studies were Spanish-speaking ELs from low socioeconomic backgrounds who attended schools with a large percentage of students receiving free and reduced-price lunch, a measure of poverty. In the remaining two studies, participants used a variety of primary languages (Lovett et al., 2008;Vadasy & Sanders, 2010). Ten studies included interventions delivered in small groups with a range of between two and eight students per group and an average of three to four students. In the remaining two studies, the intervention was provided to students individually (Begeny, Ross, Greene, Mitchell, & Whitehouse, 2012;Vadasy & Sanders, 2010).The review did not locate any studies that specifically examined the effects of Tier 1 or whole group instruction for ELs at risk for reading difficulties or with a disability, although the premise of RtI is that high quality instruction in Tier 1 is provided before students start receiving a Tier 2 or Tier 3 intervention. The duration of

104   Luft Baker et al.

interventions ranged from eight weeks to 15 months, with an average of 90 30-minute lessons. The majority of the studies reported using a comprehensive intervention that covered the five areas of literacy outlined in the National Literacy Panel for Language Minority Students: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension (August & Shanahan, 2006). As illustrated in Table 6.1, all studies used interventions that included explicit instruction and systematic feedback. Three of the 12 studies used a researcher-developed intervention (Denton, Anthony, Parker, & Hasbrouck, 2004; Solari & Gerber, 2008;Vadasy & Sanders, 2010). Intervention outcomes are summarized by type of outcome (i.e., word or text level) and by grade (i.e., kindergarten/first grade, second to eighth, or multiple grade levels). In general, text level outcomes included measures of oral reading fluency and comprehension. Interventions in Kindergarten and First Grades

In terms of word level outcomes, all studies conducted in kindergarten and first grade had significant outcomes favoring the intervention group. Effect sizes (Cohen’s d) ranged from 0.12 for the shortest study provided for eight weeks, three days per week for 20 minutes (i.e., Solari & Gerber, 2008), to 1.09 for the study by Vaughn, Cirino et al. (2006), provided for 50 minutes per day for approximately seven months. In terms of text level outcomes, effect sizes ranged from 0.28 favoring the treatment group in the Spanish intervention study by Vaughn, Cirino et al. (2006) to 1.27 for the 18-week intervention for 30 minutes four days/week in the Vadasy and Sanders (2010) study. In three different studies,Vaughn and her colleagues (2006) found that first grade ELs who were provided an integrated intervention in alphabetic skills, connected text practice, comprehension, oral language practice, and vocabulary made gains on both word level skills (word identification and word attack) and text level skills (fluency, passage comprehension, and vocabulary). These gains held true whether the students received the intervention in English or Spanish, and were maintained even after one year. Effect sizes for the follow-up study ranged from 0.45 on word reading outcomes to 0.49 on text level outcomes favoring the treatment group (Cirino et al., 2009). Regarding the language of instruction, the two studies by Vaughn, Cirino et al. (2006) and Vaughn, Linan-Thompson et al. (2006) that used a Spanish intervention (i.e., Lectura Proactiva) indicated that ELs who received the intervention in Spanish did significantly better than the comparison group on Spanish reading measures. Additionally, in the Vaughn, Cirino et al. (2006) study, the effects of both the Spanish and English interventions were examined based on the language of reading instruction. Effect sizes for text level outcomes of the Spanish intervention were larger than the effect sizes for the English intervention at the text level (ranges varied from d = 0.28 to 0.33 for the English intervention, and d = 0.35 to 0. 75 for

Building Reading Skills in an RtI Framework   105

Study/EL Primary Language

Grade level

Intervention Group Size/ Duration (weeks/ Composition days per week/ minutes per day)

Intervention Program and Content

O’Connor et al., 2010/Spanish

K

Solari & Gerber, 2008/Spanish

K

36/3/15 (270–1430 mins) 8/3/20 (480 mins)

Ladders to Literacy: Alphabetics Phonological awareness oral language Phonological awareness Listening comprehension

Vandasy & Sanders K 2010/28 multiple languages: Spanish (49%) Vietnamese (15%) Somali (6%) Chinese (6%) Tagalog (3%) Gunn et al., 2000/ K–3 Spanish

18/4/30 (2,160 mins)

2–3/ homogeneous groups 4–5/ homogeneous groups 1 on 1 instruction

Alphabetics Phonological awareness Word reading Spelling Oral language

60/5/25–30 (7,500–9,000 mins)

2–3/ SRA Reading; Mastery & homogeneous Corrective Reading groups Phonological awareness Alphabetics Reading fluency Vaughn et al., 1 32/5/50 3–5/ Proactive reading or Lectura 2006a/Spanish (4,560–6,900 homogeneous Proactiva mins) groups Words recognition Fluency Comprehension Oracy & vocabulary Lectura Proactiva Vaughn et al., 1 32/5/40 3–5/ 2006b/Spanish (6,400 mins) homogeneous Words recognition Fluency groups Comprehension Oracy & vocabulary Proactive reading 3–5/ Vaughn et al., 1 32/5/50 homogeneous Words recognition 2006c/Spanish (4,476–6,402 Fluency groups mins) Comprehension Oracy & vocabulary Begeny et al., 2012/ 2 20–28/2–3/10 1 on 1 HELPS fluency Program: Spanish (600–840 mins) instruction Reading fluency Comprehension Denton et al., 2–5 10/3/40 1–4/ Read Well or modified 2004/Spanish (1,200 mins) homogeneous program of Read Naturally: based on Alphabetics decoding Reading fluency Vocabulary Comprehension Lovett et al., 2008/ 2–8 21*/4–5/60 4–8/ Reading Mastery or Corrective Multiple (6,300 mins) homogeneous Reading: languages: groups based Alphabetics Portuguese (49%) on decoding Word reading Spanish (21%) Phonological awareness 28/5/30 2–4 within Wilson Reading: Wanzek & Roberts, 2–4 schools Word reading 2012/Spanish within (2,550–3,420 Comprehension schools mins) Vaughn et al., 7–8 32/5/50 Individual REWARDS and Wilson 2011/Spanish (8,000 mins) tutoring/ Reading: small groups Reading fluency of 5 Vocabulary Comprehension

TABLE 6.1.  Original Studies Examining Interventions for English Learners using Experimental Design * Not reported. Calculated by the authors

106   Luft Baker et al.

the Spanish intervention). However, similar to the Cena et al. (2013) study, and to the D. L. Baker et al. (2013) study, the Spanish interventions did not have a direct significant effect on English reading outcomes, indicating that cross-linguistic transfer of reading skills from Spanish to English or vice versa does not always occur naturally and it appears to depend on student level of English language proficiency, student English reading skills (Nakamoto, Lindsey, & Manis, 2012), and the quality of instruction (D. L. Baker & Kosty, 2012). These findings do not indicate that Spanish native language instruction is unimportant to develop strong English reading skills, but it illustrates that precisely how cross-linguistic transfer between two alphabetic languages occurs is still elusive and more research needs to be conducted to understand this process (Baker, Park, & Baker, 2012). Interventions in Second to Eighth Grade or Across Multiple Grades

For grades two to eight or multiple grade levels, only one study included effect sizes in text level gains in fluency (d = 0.97), and in comprehension (d = 1.24) (Begeny et al., 2012). The two studies that included middle school students did not find any significant effects on reading comprehension despite the length of the interventions (i.e., 21 weeks and 32 weeks respectively) (i.e., Lovett et al., 2008;Vaughn et al., 2011). In the case of Lovett et al. (2008) a significant effect was found on phoneme blending (g = 0.59). However, data were not disaggregated by grade level so one cannot be sure that the older students (sixth to eighth graders) alone made significant gains on their reading skills. Given the few studies available for middle school, it is difficult to draw conclusions about whether the interventions in these studies would be potentially effective for a heterogeneous group of ELs. A follow-up analysis of the effects of the intervention by Gunn et al., (2005), indicated that ELs and non-ELs who received the intervention did better on reading fluency one year later than students in the control group. In fact, Spanishspeaking ELs did significantly better than non-ELs on word level outcomes (d = 0.46), and on text level outcomes (d = 0.40; Gunn, Smolkowski, Biglan, & Black, 2002). In a second follow-up study two years later, effect sizes were still significant for word level outcomes (d = 0.25), and on text level outcomes including comprehension (d = 0.29).These effect sizes were similar for Spanish-speaking ELs and non-ELs (Gunn et al., 2005). In summary, the results of the 12 studies included here confirm that, independently of the type of intervention used, or the language of the intervention, ELs, just like non-ELs, benefit from small group instruction that integrates different reading components (e.g., alphabetic skills, connected text practice, comprehension, oral language, and vocabulary) and uses a systematic and explicit approach (Edmonds et al., 2009; Gersten et al., 2007). In general, shorter interventions in terms of duration and amount of time per session tended to yield smaller effects than

Building Reading Skills in an RtI Framework   107

interventions that lasted longer and were delivered for at least 30 minutes per day. Further, the best way to improve ELs’ overall reading outcomes included interventions that focused on both word level and text level skills.

Aligning Tier 1 and Tier 2 Instruction The intervention studies reviewed here as well as two Institute of Education Sciences (IES) Practice Guides addressing the early literacy needs of ELs and providing early reading instruction in the context of RtI converge on practical recommendations that can be used in an RtI framework to improve reading outcomes for ELs (i.e., Effective literacy and English language instruction for English learners in the elementary grades; Gersten et al., 2007; Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to Intervention [RtI] and multi-tier intervention for reading in the primary grades: A practice guide; Gersten et al., 2008). These recommendations can be applied to instruction provided in the context of general classroom (Tier 1) instruction, as well as interventions (Tier 2) to assist ELs who are not making adequate literacy progress. A theme running through the intervention studies and Practice Guides is the use of explicit instruction and intervention provided in small groups. This type of instruction has been delivered most often in Tier 2 contexts, but the small group format can also be used to differentiate instruction during Tier 1 as illustrated in the Cena et al. (2013) study. A particularly valuable feature of small group instruction for ELs is that it not only provides more intense instruction in reading, but it also offers an excellent opportunity for students to use academic language. The small group format ensures that ELs have extended opportunities to interact directly with the teacher, and skilled teachers can steer these instructional interactions to match the language proficiency and academic knowledge of individual ELs.

Valid and Reliable Assessments A comprehensive assessment system can help school psychologists and coaches lead teams in designing and implementing RtI systems, and plan progress-monitoring components for Tier 2 and Tier 3 services (NASP, 2010). Valid and reliable assessments have to be sensitive enough to provide information about a student’s current level of achievement in relation to a performance standard. In addition, assessments should allow for frequent monitoring of academic skills to determine if students are responding adequately to instruction, and therefore making sufficient progress in relation to a standard for adequate growth. When progress is less than adequate, an essential first step in RtI models is to make sure that the amount and

108   Luft Baker et al.

quality of instruction being provided is consistent with the school’s RtI plan (Clements & Kratochwill, 2008). Once inadequate implementation has been ruled out as a potential cause of a student’s lack of progress, then other variables can be changed in a systematic manner to intensify instruction.Three categories of variables that can be manipulated include increasing the amount of instructional time, changing instructional content, or changing the composition or size of the instructional group (e.g., reducing the size of the instructional group from eight to four students).The underlying guiding principle is to manipulate the potential intensity of instruction and intervention from the target child’s vantage point as a way to increase learning engagement and progress (Gersten et al., 2008). Experts have expressed concern about the use of assessment tools for screening and monitoring progress that may be psychometrically sound for non-ELs but not appropriate for ELs, particularly with measures that do not appear to have taken into account language and sociocultural factors that can influence their performance in ways that are unrelated to the objective of the assessment, or to the decision being made (Klingner, Artiles, & Barletta, 2006; Rueda & Windmueller, 2006). Developing measures that appropriately consider language and cultural factors is a central part of the test development process to eliminate biased assessments. In the case of assessments for ELs in English, several studies have demonstrated that some formative assessments used to screen students for difficulties and monitor progress over time on foundational reading skills are equally sound psychometrically for ELs and non-ELs (D. L. Baker, Park, & Baker, 2010; Fien et al., 2008; Richards-Tutor et al., 2012;Vanderwood, Linklater, & Healy, 2008). Review of Studies on Assessments for ELs

The study by Fien et al. (2008) and Vanderwood et al. (2008) demonstrated that ELs grew as much as non-ELs in word reading skills in kindergarten and first grade and that this growth predicted equally well for both groups how fluently they read, and how well they comprehended what they read at the end of first grade. The same types of findings regarding the relation in Spanish between word reading proficiency, growth in word reading proficiency, and reading comprehension have been found in studies examining beginning reading in Spanish for ELs attending bilingual literacy programs (D. L. Baker et al., 2010). Richards-Tutor et al. (2012) also found that for early reading assessments, phoneme segmentation and nonsense word fluency, EL performed similarly to non-EL. Although many previous studies have focused mainly on ELs whose native language was Spanish, Wiley and Deno (2005) examined the predictive validity of oral reading fluency in English on English reading comprehension for third and fifth grade ELs who spoke Hmong as their native language, and who were

Building Reading Skills in an RtI Framework   109

struggling with reading comprehension. Findings indicated that words read correctly on oral reading fluency in English passages in the third and fifth grades predicted performance (r = .61 and .69, respectively, by grade) on the state reading assessment, the Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments in reading (Children’s Educational Services Inc., 1987). This study is important not only because it addresses ELs who speak a native language other than Spanish, and indicates that oral reading fluency is a moderate to strong predictor of reading comprehension, but also because the primary language spoken by the study participants was not an alphabetic language. In summary, research evidence suggests that a number of formative reading measures that have been validated for use with non-ELs can also be used with the same level of confidence with ELs. Currently, formative assessments in Spanish are also available and given that Spanish and English are both alphabetic languages, results of formative assessments in Spanish could also be interpreted by school psychologists in a similar way even if they don’t speak Spanish, provided, of course, that students are assessed by trained and competent Spanish speakers (D. L. Baker, Stoolmiller, Good, & Baker, 2011).

Implications for Practice In the Model for Comprehensive and Integrated School Psychological Services (NASP, 2010), school psychologists are called to improve academic engagement and achievement, facilitate effective instruction through consultation, support diverse learners, and improve assessment and accountability. Central to the role of school psychologists is to use valid and reliable assessments to evaluate and modify instructional support plans at the systems and individual levels, and facilitate instructional consultation that can lead to an improvement of academic engagement and achievement for all students. Thus, knowledge of instructional design for all students, and ELs in particular, is necessary for school psychologists to effectively consult with teachers on intervention planning and data-based decision-making. As discussed in this chapter, one way to increase academic engagement and achievement for diverse learners can be achieved through the implementation of effective instruction that addresses the specific needs of ELs in the language of instruction.Thus, school psychologists need to be trained on how to recognize the features that are fundamental for effective instruction for ELs. The sections below outline seven evidence-based features of instructional support that school psychologists should consider when working with teachers on effective interventions for ELs. Specific examples on how these features are being implemented within a lesson can be retrieved from https://ctl.uoregon.edu/research/projects/ systematic-and-explicit-teaching-routines.

110   Luft Baker et al.

Time Making sure there is sufficient time to conduct instructional activities provides ELs with necessary opportunities to answer questions, practice reading individual words, and reading connected text.

Small Group Instruction Instruction in homogeneous groups of four to six students offers an excellent opportunity for ELs to use academic language in addition to intensifying the instruction. ELs can have more opportunities to interact directly with the teacher, and skilled teachers can steer these instructional interactions to match the language proficiency and academic knowledge of individual ELs.

Sequence of Activities The sequence of activities in a lesson should ensure that moving from one section to another of the lesson is seamless, reducing the amount of time teachers have to spend explaining each step of an activity.

Pacing The pacing of instruction should be brisk (i.e., fast and effective), especially during instructional interactions in which the teacher is asking for responses that have clear correct answers (e.g., identifying the individual sounds in a word). With questions that require more student reflection (e.g., retelling the story students just read in the decodable book), the pace should allow more time for thinking, but teachers can still ensure that EL engagement is high by, for example, asking students to retell a story to their partner instead of one student retelling the story to the rest of the group.The short duration of specific activities helps keep students focused. However, teachers do need to be aware of students’ level of language proficiency if the lesson is being conducted in the less proficient language, as language proficiency can impact speed of response or comprehension for ELs.

Vocabulary Explanations When the target of the lesson is not vocabulary, it is still important to provide brief explanations and demonstrations of potentially unknown or confusing content (e.g.,

Building Reading Skills in an RtI Framework   111

the meaning of can, pet, bug, sub) as the content is encountered in real time. These quick explanations help ELs remember the words better and they are brief enough that the purpose of the lesson (e.g., building student alphabetic understanding) is not lost.

Responding in Complete Sentences When ELs respond with very brief or one-word answers, which is typical of ELs in the early stages of their English language development, the teacher can incorporate student answers in complete sentences, which students can repeat for practice. The goal is for all students, and particularly ELs, to answer questions in complete sentences even if their sentences are not always grammatically correct. The teacher can repeat the student’s sentence correctly, and emphasize the words that were not grammatically correct (e.g., the student using the incorrect verb tense). It is not necessary for the teacher to explicitly point out every grammar error the student makes. Rather, by emphasizing correct grammar in rephrasing the student’s statement, and practice the grammatically correct statement through repetition, the student does not need to be singled out for making a mistake.

Setting up a Positive Classroom Environment Given that ELs have to respond to the double demands of learning content and a second language simultaneously, it is critical to build in substantial instructional time that encourages ELs to participate actively and verbally in all aspects of the lesson (Gersten & Baker, 2000). However, for this to happen successfully it is essential for teachers to set up classroom-learning environments in which ELs feel safe taking verbal risks such as using complete sentences, even though they may contain grammatical mistakes.

Implications for Research and Training This chapter demonstrates that more research studies are emerging that focus specifically on increasing ELs’ vocabulary knowledge and academic language (see Graves et al., 2013 for a description of four current experimental studies, and D.L. Baker, Al Otaiba, Ortiz, Correa, & Cole, 2014). However, additional research is still needed to unveil the relation between oral language proficiency and reading comprehension.This type of research is necessary given the persistent low academic performance of ELs as measured by NAEP and the demands of the Common Core

112   Luft Baker et al.

State Standards. Focusing research particularly on the relation between language proficiency and reading comprehension across grades and across tiers of instruction would provide guidance on how to design effective vocabulary and language proficiency interventions and assessments that can be used in the context of comprehensive RtI systems. Educators and support personnel such as school psychologists must be familiar with the available research base for RtI so that they are able to apply the findings to the instruction of ELs. They also need to have training in instruction and RtI specifically for ELs. School psychologists need particular competencies as instructional consultants. Consultation services are key to providing teachers with support in the RtI process.

Resources Discussion Questions 1. This chapter provided guidance for both instruction and assessment within an RtI model. As a school psychologist how would you support teachers and parents of ELs in the RtI process? 2. This chapter presented seven evidence-based features for effective instruction for ELs. As a school psychologist, what type of training do you think you would need to be able to recognize these features when you observe teachers in the classroom and then provide them with feedback? 3. How can school psychologists support teachers via consultation services in the process of RtI?

Professional Organizations Center on Teaching and Learning: Systemic and Explicit Teaching Routines Center for Applied Linguistics: English Language Learners

References Anstrom, K., DiCerbo, P., Butler, F., Katz, A., Millet, J., & Rivera, C. (2010). A review of the literature on academic English: Implications for K-12 English Language learners. Arlington,VA: The George Washington University Center for Equity and Excellence in Education. Archer, A. L., & Hughes, C. A. (2011). Exploring the foundations of explicit instruction. In A. L. Archer & C. A. Hughes (Eds.), Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching (pp. 1–22). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Building Reading Skills in an RtI Framework   113

August, D., & Shanahan, T. (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on language minority children and youth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Baker, D. L., Al Otaiba, S., Ortiz, M, Correa,V., & Cole, R. (2014).Vocabulary development and intervention for English Language Learners in the early grades. In J. Benson (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior, 46 (pp. 281–338). San Diego, CA: Elsevier. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-800285-8.00010-8. Baker, D. L., & Kosty, D. (2012, February). Effect of learning opportunities on the reading performance in Spanish of first grade English learners. Research paper in D. L. Baker (Chair), The relation between observations of student–teacher interactions and student performance. Panel presented at the Pacific Coast Research Conference, San Diego, CA. Baker, D. L., Park,Y., & Baker, S. K. (2010). Effects of initial status and growth in pseudoword reading on Spanish reading comprehension at the end of first grade. Psicothema, 22, 955–962. Baker, D. L., Park,Y., & Baker, S. K. (2012). The reading performance of English learners in grades 1–3: The role of initial status and growth on reading fluency in Spanish and English. Reading and Writing, 25, 251–281. doi:10.1007/s11145-010-9261-z. Baker, D. L., Park, Y., & Baker, S. K. (2013, July). Effect of English Language proficiency and Spanish and English literacy on English reading comprehension for Spanish-speaking English Learners. Interactive paper presented at the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading Conference, Hong Kong, China. Baker, D. L., Stoolmiller, M., Good, R. H., & Baker, S. K. (2011). Effect of reading comprehension on passage fluency in Spanish and English. School Psychology Review, 40, 331–351. Baker, S. K., & Baker, D. L. (2008). English learners and response to intervention: Improving quality of instruction in general and special education. In E. L. Grigorenko (Ed.), Educating individuals with disabilities: IDEA 2004 and beyond (pp. 249–273). New York, NY: Springer. Baker, S. K., Fien, H., & Baker, D. L. (2010). Robust reading instruction in the early grades: Conceptual and practical issues in the integration and evaluation of tier 1 and tier 2 instructional supports. Focus on Exceptional Children, 42(9), 1–20. Baker, S. K., Gersten, R. M., & Linan-Thompson, S. (2010). Early reading instruction and intervention with English learners: Key considerations in a multi-tiered approach. In M. R. Shinn & H. M. Walker (Eds.), Interventions for achievement and behavior problems in a three-tier model including RtI (3rd ed., pp. 501–526). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists. Baker, S. K., Lesaux, N., Jayanthi, M., Dimino, J., Proctor, C. P., Morris, J., Gersten, R., Haymond, K., Kieffer, M. J., Linan-Thompson, S., & Newman-Gonchar, R. (2014). Teaching academic content and literacy to English learners in elementary and middle school (NCEE 2014–4012). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from the NCEE website . Begeny, J. C., Ross, S. G., Greene, D. J., Mitchell, R. C., & Whitehouse, M. H. (2012). Effects of the Helping Early Literacy with Practice Strategies (HELPS) reading fluency program with Latino English language learners: A preliminary evaluation. Journal of Behavioral Education, 21, 134–149. doi:10.1007/s10864-011-9144-7.

114   Luft Baker et al.

Carlo, M. S., August, D., McLaughlin, B., Snow, C. E., Dressler, C., Lippman, D. N., . . .White, C. E. (2004). Closing the gap: Addressing the vocabulary needs of English-language learners in bilingual and mainstream classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 39, 188–215. Cena, J., Baker, D. L., Kame’enui, E. J., Baker, S. K., Park,Y., & Smolkowski, K. (2013). The impact of a systematic and explicit vocabulary intervention in Spanish with Spanishspeaking English learners in first grade. Reading and Writing, Advanced online publication. doi:10.1007/s11145-012-9419-y. Children’s Educational Services Inc. (1987). Test of reading fluency. Minneapolis, MN: Author. Cirino, P.T.,Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., Cardenas-Hagan, E., Fletcher, J. M., & Francis, D. J. (2009). One-year follow-up outcomes of Spanish and English interventions for English language learners at risk for reading problems. American Educational Research Journal, 46, 744–781. doi:10.3102/0002831208330214. Clements, M., & Kratochwill, T. R. (2008). Multi-tiered prevention models: Implications and future perspectives. In C. R. Greenwood, T. R. Kratochwill & M. Clements (Eds.), Schoolwide prevention models: Lessons learned in elementary schools (pp. 269–290). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49, 222–251. Denton, C. A., Anthony, J. L., Parker, R., & Hasbrouck, J. E. (2004). Effects of two tutoring programs on the English reading development of Spanish–English bilingual students. Elementary School Journal, 104, 289–305. Denton, C. A., Wexler, J., Vaughn, S., & Bryan, D. (2008). Intervention provided to linguistically diverse middle school students with severe reading difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23, 79–89. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2008.00266.x. Dominguez de Ramirez, R., & Shapiro, E. (2006). Curriculum-based measurement and the evaluation of reading skills of Spanish-speaking English language learners in bilingual education classrooms. School Psychology Review, 35, 356–369. Edmonds, M. S.,Vaughn, S.,Wexler, J., Reutebuch, C., Cable,A.,Tackett, K. K., & Schnakenberg, J. W. (2009). A synthesis of reading interventions and effects on reading comprehension outcomes for older struggling readers. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 262–300. Ennis, S. R., Rios-Vargas, M., & Albert, N. G. (2011). The Hispanic population: 2010.Table 2. Hispanic or Latino population for the United States, regions, states, and for Puerto Rico: 2000– 2010. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Farnia, F., & Geva, E. (2011). Cognitive correlates of vocabulary growth in English language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32, 711–738. doi:10.1017/S0142716411000038. Fien, H., Baker, S. K., Smolkowski, K., Smith, J. M., Kame’enui, E. J., & Thomas Beck, C. (2008). Using nonsense word fluency to predict reading proficiency in K-2 for English learners and native English speakers. School Psychology Review, 37(3), 391–408. Fien, H., Santoro, L., Baker, S. K., Park, Y., Chard, D. J., Williams, S., & Haria, P. (2011). Enhancing teacher read alouds with small-group vocabulary instruction for students with low vocabulary in first-grade classrooms. School Psychology Review, 40, 307–318. Fry, R., & Gonzales, F. (2008). One-in-five and growing fast: A profile of Hispanic public school students. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center. Fry, R., & Passel, J. S. (2009). Latino children: A majority are US-born offspring of immigrants. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center.

Building Reading Skills in an RtI Framework   115

Gersten, R. M., & Baker, S. K. (2000).What we know about effective instructional practices for English-language learners. Exceptional Children, 66, 454–470. Gersten, R. M., Baker, S. K., Haager, D., & Graves, A.W. (2005). Exploring the role of teacher quality in predicting reading outcomes for first-grade English learners: An observational study. Remedial and Special Education, 26, 197–214. Gersten, R. M., Baker, S. K., Shanahan, T., Linan-Thompson, S., Collins, P., & Scarcella, R. (2007). IES Practice Guide: Effective literacy and English language instruction for English learners in the elementary grades. Washington DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Educational Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Gersten, R. M., Compton, D., Connor, C. M., Dimino, J., Santoro, L., Linan-Thompson, S., & Tilly, W. D. (2008). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to Intervention and multi-tier intervention for reading in the primary grades: A practice guide. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Geva, E., & Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z. (2006). Reading efficiency in native English-speaking and English-as-a-second-language children: The role of oral proficiency and underlying cognitive-linguistic processes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 31–57. Gottardo, A., & Mueller, J. (2009). Are first- and second-language factors related in predicting second-language reading comprehension? A study of Spanish-speaking children acquiring English as a second language from first to second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 330–344. doi:10.1037/a0014320. Graves, M. F., August, D., & Mancilla-Martinez, J. (2013). Teaching vocabulary to English language learners. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Gunn, B., Biglan, A., Smolkowski, K., & Ary, D. (2000). The efficacy of supplemental instruction in decoding skills for Hispanic and non-Hispanic Students in early elementary school. Journal of Special Education, 34, 90–104. Gunn, B., Smolkowski, K., Biglan, A., & Black, C. (2002). Supplemental instruction in decoding skills for Hispanic and non-Hispanic students in early elementary school: A follow-up. Journal of Special Education, 36, 69–79. doi:10.1177/00224669020360020201. Gunn, B., Smolkowski, K., Biglan, A., Black, C., & Blair, J. (2005). Fostering the development of reading skill through supplemental instruction: Results for Hispanic and non-Hispanic students. Journal of Special Education, 39, 66–85. doi:10.1177/00224669050390020301. Hedges, L. V. (1981). Distribution theory for Glass’s estimator of effect size and related estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6, 107–128. doi:10.3102/10769986006002107. Kena, G., Aud, S., Johnson, F., Wang, X., Zhang, J., Rathbun, A., Wilkinson-Flicker, S., and Kristapovich, P. (2014). The Condition of Education 2014 (NCES 2014–083). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.Washington, DC. Retrieved from . Kieffer, M. J. (2008). Catching up or falling behind? Initial English proficiency, concentrated poverty, and the reading growth of language minority learners in the United States. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 851–868. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.100.4.851. Klingner, J. K., Artiles, A. J., & Barletta, L. M. (2006). English language learners who struggle with reading: Language acquisition or LD? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 108–129. Krogstad, J. M., & Gonzalez-Barrera, A. (2015). A majority of English-speaking Hispanics in the U.S. are bilingual. Retrieved from .

116   Luft Baker et al.

Lesaux, N. K., & Siegel, L. (2003). The development of reading in children who speak English as a second language. Developmental Psychology, 39, 1005–1020. López, F. & Velasco, G. (2011). The nongeneralizability of classroom dynamics as predictors of achievement for Hispanic students in upper elementary grades. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 33, 350–376. doi:10.1177/0739986311415222. Lovett, M.W., De Palma, M., Frijters, J., Steinbach, K.,Temple, M., Benson, N., & Lacerenza, L. A. (2008). Interventions for reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 333–352. doi:10.1177/0022219408317859. Mathes, P. G., Denton, C. A., Fletcher, J. M., Anthony, J. L., Francis, D. J., & Schatschneider, C. (2005).The effects of theoretically different instruction and student characteristics on the skills of struggling readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 40, 148–182. Nakamoto, J., Lindsey, K. A., & Manis, F. R. (2012). Development of reading skills from K-3 in Spanish-speaking English language learners following three programs of instruction. Reading and Writing, 25, 537–567. doi:10.1007/s11145-010-9285-4. National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2013). The nation’s report card: Reading 2013.Trial urban district assessment. Results at grades 4 and 8. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics; Institutes of Education Sciences; U.S. Department of Education. National Association of School Psychologists (2009). Appropriate Academic Supports to Meet the Needs of All Students (Position Statement). Bethesda, MD: Author. National Association of School Psychologists (2010). Model for Comprehensive and Integrated School Psychological Services, NASP Practice Model Overview. [Brochure]. Bethesda, MD: Author. O’Connor, R. E., Bocian, K. M., Beebe-Frankenberger, M., & Linklater, D. L. (2010). Responsiveness of students with language difficulties to early intervention in reading. The Journal of Special Education, 43, 220–235. doi:10.1177/0022466908317789. Richards-Tutor, C., Baker, D. L., Gersten, R. M., Baker, S. K., & Smith, J. M. (2015). The effectiveness of reading interventions for English Learners: A research synthesis of studies published since 2000. Exceptional Children, 82 (2), 1–26. doi:10.1177/00I4402915585483. Richards-Tutor, C., Solari, E. J., Leafstedt, J. M., Gerber, M., Filippini, A., & Aceves,T. (2012). Response to intervention for English learners: Examining models for determining response and non-response. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 38, 172–184. Rueda, R., & Windmueller, M. P. (2006). Special issue: English language learners struggling to learn to read: Emergent research on linguistic differences and learning disabilities— English language learners, LD, and overrepresentation: A multiple-level analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(2), 99–108. Santoro, L. E., Puhalla, E., & Baker, S. K. (2005, April). The read aloud project: Optimizing first grade read aloud instruction to promote comprehension and vocabulary. Paper presented at the 2005 American Education Research Association Conference, Montreal, Canada. Saunders, W., & Goldenberg, C. (2010). Research to guide English language development instruction. In D. Dolson & L. Burnham-Massey (Eds.), Improving education for English learners: Research-based approaches (pp. 21–81). Sacramento, CA: CDE Press. Shanahan, T., & Beck, I. (2006). Effective literacy teaching for English-language learners. In D. L. August & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing literacy in a second language: Report of the National Literacy Panel (pp. 415–488). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Soifer, D. (2009). The value of English proficiency to the United States economy. Arlington, VA: Lexington Institute.

Building Reading Skills in an RtI Framework   117

Solari, E. J., & Gerber, M. (2008). Early comprehension instruction for Spanish-speaking English language learners:Teaching text-level reading skills while maintaining effects on word-level skills. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23, 155–168. doi:10.1111/j. 1540-5826.2008.00273.x. Sprick, M., Howard, L., & Fidanque, A. (1998). Read Well: A research-based primary reading program. Longmont, CO: Sopris West. Stahl, S. A., & Nagy, W. E. (2006). Teaching word meanings. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Vadasy, P. F., & Sanders, E. A. (2010). Efficacy of supplemental phonics-based instruction for low-skilled kindergarteners in the context of language minority status and classroom phonics instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 786–803. doi:10.1037/ a0019639. Vanderwood, M. L., Linklater, D. L., & Healy, K. (2008). Nonsense word fluency and future literacy performance for English language learners. School Psychology Review, 37(1), 5–17. Vaughn, S., Cirino, P. T., Linan-Thompson, S., Mathes, P. G., Carlson, C. D., Hagan, E. C., . . . Francis, D. J. (2006a). Effectiveness of a Spanish intervention and an English intervention for English-language learners at risk for reading problems. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 449–487. doi:10.3102/00028312043003449. Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., Mathes, P. G., Cirino, P. T., Carlson, C. D., PollardDurodola, S. D., . . . Francis, D. J. (2006b). Effectiveness of a Spanish intervention for first-grade English language learners at risk for reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 56–74. Vaughn, S., Mathes, P. G., Linan-Thompson, S., Cirino, P., Carlson, C. D., Pollard-Durodola, S. D., . . . Francis, D. J. (2006c). Effectiveness of an English intervention for first-grade English language learners at risk for reading problems. Elementary School Journal, 107, 154–180. Vaughn, S., Wexler, J., Roberts, G., Barth, A., Cirino, P. T., Romain, M., . . . Denton, C. A. (2011). Effects of individualized and standardized interventions on middle school students with reading disabilities. Exceptional Children, 77(4), 391–407. Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Small, S., Fanuele, D. P., & Sweeney, J. (2007). Preventing early reading difficulties through kindergarten and first grade intervention: A variant of the three-tier model. In D. Haager, J. K. Klingner, & S. Vaughn (Eds.), Evidence-based reading practices for response to intervention (pp. 185–219). Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Wanzek,  J. & Roberts, G. (2012). Reading interventions with varying instructional emphases for fourth graders with reading difficulties. Learning Disability Quarterly, 35, 90–101. Wanzek, J., & Vaughn, S. (2007). Research-based implications from extensive early reading interventions. School Psychology Review, 36(4), 541–561. Wexler, J.,Vaughn, S., Roberts, G., & Denton, C. A. (2010).The efficacy of repeated reading and wide reading practice for high school students with severe reading disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 25, 2–10. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2009. 00296.x. Wiley, H. I., & Deno, S. L. (2005). Oral reading and maze measures as predictors of success for English learners on a state standards assessment. Remedial & Special Education, 26, 207–214.

7

Educating Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Children and Youth with Low Incidence Disabilities Craig A. Michaels, Sara G. Nahari, and Carolyn Hughes

American public schools are rapidly becoming more diverse racially and ethnically. From 2002 to 2012 the percentage of White students in public elementary and secondary schools fell from 59% to 51%; by 2024,White students, for the first time ever, are predicted at 46% to no longer be the majority public school population (National Center for Education Statistics, 2015). Black student enrollment decreased from 17% in 2002 to 16% in 2012, while Hispanic enrollment increased from 18% to 24%, Asian/Pacific Islander enrollment from 4% to 5%, and enrollment of students identifying as two or more races from negligible to 3% (National Center for Education Statistics, 2015). In addition, the percentage of students identified as English language learners (ELLs) increased from 8.7% in 2002 to 9.2% in 2012 (National Center for Education Statistics). Children and youth of racially and ethnically diverse backgrounds are disproportionately represented in low-income families. Approximately 39% Black, 37% Native American, and 33% Hispanic young people live in poverty compared 118

Education for CLD Low Incidence Disability   119

to 14% of their Asian American and White counterparts (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2015). In addition, the families of ELLs are also overrepresented at the lower end of the economic spectrum (Markham & Gordon, 2007). Further, increasing numbers of racially and ethnically diverse students are attending high-poverty, failing schools where they are less likely to be taught using effective, evidence-based instruction (Orfield & Frankenberg, 2014). Poverty is also more prevalent among students with disabilities, particularly those from culturally diverse backgrounds. In 2012, 13% of the public school population aged three to 21 received special education services (U.S. Department of Education, 2014). More than one fourth of children with disabilities are living in families with earnings below the poverty level and are more likely to be from single-parent families and racially and ethnically diverse backgrounds (Parish, Rose, & Andrews, 2010). Students served by special education represent a range of disabilities and enrollment rates by race and ethnicity. High incidence disabilities represent the majority of these students. For example, 56% of students with disabilities are identified as having specific learning disabilities (35%) or speech or language impairments (21%) (U.S. Department of Education, 2014). Among students with high incidence disabilities, Black, Native American, and Hispanic students are disproportionately likely to be identified as having learning disabilities whereas, of these groups, only Native American students are disproportionately likely to be identified as having speech or language impairments (Tincani, Travers, & Boutot, 2009). Students with low incidence disabilities, the focus of this chapter, include those identified with severe disabilities (e.g., intellectual disability, deaf-blindness, autism) and multiple disabilities (e.g., intellectual disability and blindness or orthopedic impairment) make up only 25% of those receiving special education services (U.S. Department of Education, 2014). Similar to high incidence disabilities, enrollment rates across low incidence disability categories vary by race and ethnicity. For example, Black students are disproportionately identified as having intellectual disability whereas Asian and Hispanic students are under-identified as having multiple disabilities (Tincani et al., 2009). Unfortunately, neither special education professionals nor their general education colleagues typically are well prepared to address the learning and support needs of students who are culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) and disproportionately from high-poverty backgrounds (Yates & Ortiz, 2004). This chapter begins with a definition of low incidence disabilities followed by a focus on the theoretical issues and educational inequities associated with CLD students with low incidence disabilities. Next, specific recommendations for educators and school psychologists working with CLD families and students with low incidence disabilities are provided; the chapter concludes with implications for future research and practice.

120   Michaels, Nahari, and Hughes

Theoretical and Research Basis The term “low incidence disabilities” refers to those disabilities that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004) categorizes as severe disabilities and multiple disabilities.They are frequently referred to as low incidence disabilities based on their low prevalence rates within the general population. According to the IDEA: Multiple disabilities means concomitant impairments (such as intellectual disability-blindness, intellectual disability-orthopedic impairment, etc.), the combination of which causes such severe educational problems that they cannot be accommodated in special education programs solely for one of the impairments. The term does not include deaf-blindness. (IDEA, 34 C.F.R., sec. 300 [b] [6]) In the IDEA, students with severe disabilities . . . refers to children with disabilities who, because of the intensity of their physical, intellectual, or emotional problems, need highly specialized education, social, psychological, and medical services in order to maximize their potential for useful and meaningful participation in society and for self-fulfillment. (IDEA, 34 C.F.R., sec. 315.4 [d]) The primary professional and advocacy organization for individuals with severe disabilities, TASH (formerly known as The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps), identifies individuals with severe disabilities as: . . . people with significant disabilities and support needs who are most at risk for being excluded from society; perceived by traditional service systems as most challenging; most likely to have their rights abridged; most likely to be at risk for living, working, playing and learning in segregated environments; least likely to have the tools and opportunities necessary to advocate on their behalf; and are most likely to need ongoing, individualized supports to participate in inclusive communities and enjoy a quality of life similar to that available to all people. (TASH downloaded 8/3/2015)

Cultural Diversity and Low Incidence Disabilities Park and Lian (2001) issued a challenge to both the field of multicultural education and the field of severe disabilities to infuse culture into education for students with

Education for CLD Low Incidence Disability   121

the most severe disabilities.This partnership would seem to make sense as “the education of students with severe disabilities draws upon, reflects, and echoes the same concerns as in multicultural education—equity, justice, and quality of life and full participation in a pluralistic and democratic society” (p. 135). Unfortunately, the focus on cultural and linguistic diversity and students with multiple and severe disabilities seems conspicuously absent within the professional literature. A review of empirical research articles published over a 27-year period (i.e., 1975–2002) in five major special education journals focusing on both highincidence and low-incidence disabilities, reported that less than 5% of the studies addressed issues of cultural and linguistic diversity (McCray & García, 2002), and much of this limited body of research tends to focus primarily on the disproportionate representation of CLD students in special education among the high incidence disability categories. More recently, Hughes, Cosgriff, Agran, and Washington (2013) addressed the limited opportunities for inclusion among students of color identified with severe disabilities attending a high-poverty urban high school. Hughes et al. reported that these youth spent significantly less time per week attending general education classes, participating in school-based job training, and receiving community-based instruction than their counterparts attending two more affluent schools. Students of color with severe disabilities attending the high-poverty school also scored significantly lower than their counterparts when asked to report their use of selfdetermination skills, including self-advocating, self-monitoring, choice making, and problem solving. Findings suggested that some high-poverty schools, particularly those serving students of color, may provide limited educational experiences outside separate special education classrooms for students with more severe disabilities.

Implications for Practice This section of the chapter explores implications and recommendations for educational and psychological practice in today’s schools, addressing: (a) CLD families in planning and goal setting, (b) language and assessment considerations, (c) assistive technology, (d) parents as co-assessors, (e) person-centered planning, (f) alternative and ecological assessments, (g) culturally responsive instructional practices, (h) cross-cultural competencies, and (i) transition and community integration.

Including CLD Families in Planning and Goal Setting Turnbull et al. (2013) suggest that many CLD families require both the use of skilled translators, who will work on facilitating communication through written

122   Michaels, Nahari, and Hughes

materials, and interpreters, who will focus on oral communication in order to minimize these language and cultural barriers. The IDEA stipulates that family concerns need to be considered in the development of goals and objectives for the Individualized Education Program (IEP); the IDEA also specifies that along with school personnel, parents are to be considered full and equal members of the IEP team. However, in practice school professionals in most instances set the goals and objectives for students’ IEPs in isolation, with little collaboration with, or input from, families. In fact, rather than encouraging collaboration, school professionals may actually engage in actions that are disempowering to parents and students and that overtly endorse their expert power (Turnbull & Turnbull, 2001). In a study that conducted focus groups with Hispanic families and school professionals, for example, Blue-Banning, Turnbull, and Pereira (2000) reported that power and authority differences seem to be a major barrier to successful partnering, collaboration, and shared decision-making. CLD families may also have cultural assumptions about disability that differ significantly from those of the dominant Western culture (Wagner, 2001).While the dominant Western cultural view is that disability is a physical phenomenon existing within the individual that requires remediation or fixing at the individual level (e.g., special education), an alternative cultural view suggests that school professionals must consider the family’s perception of the disability, which will shape educational goals and interventions. Jung (2011) argues that when working with CLD families, the “school professionals’ stance too often is to discourage parents from having an influential role in the decision-making process” (p. 23). Osterling and Garza (2004) found that parents encountered a number of logistical problems in relation to working collaboratively with schools related to childcare concerns, financial resources, safety, time, and transportation.The parents also reported an overall fear of intimidation from schools as they felt that their culture and language were misunderstood. The researchers suggest that lack of parental involvement may be due to either a dissonance between the beliefs and expectations of Latino parents and those of school administrators, or a lack of collaboration as educators are not engaging in culturally responsive practices that communicate acceptance and inclusiveness to parents.

Considering Language in the Assessment Process All states, local education agencies, and schools in the United States must have, and must implement, legally acceptable means of identifying ELLs.Various federal laws upheld by the Office of Civil Rights enforce this obligation. However, in spite of the long trajectory of bilingual education and bilingual assessments, the determination of language dominance and language proficiency is still problematic. When

Education for CLD Low Incidence Disability   123

considering CLD students with low incidence disabilities, it becomes increasingly more important to focus on the evaluation of receptive language in their native language. These students may appear to be non-verbal, having virtually no expressive verbal language. Typically these same students, based on the severity of their support needs, have caregivers from their extended family who speak to them in their native language (e.g., a grandmother) and have greater receptive language skills within this native language than many school professionals or even their own parents anticipate. CLD students with low disabilities may appear to have limited to no consistent communication skills in any language and have discrepancies between expressive and receptive language. Flexible instruction in a variety of modes of communication, including alternative and augmentative forms of communication, need to be available to CLD students with low incidence disabilities throughout the day and at home, including use of the native language, graphic symbols, or/and gestures/ manual signs. Assessment practices must be flexible and include a variety of assessment tools that allow for the collection of data in both languages and from multiple reporters in a variety of contexts (e.g., observations in home and classroom, data collected from parents and extended family members as well as school personnel via interviews).

Delivering Assistive Technology A considerable body of literature within the field of special education documents the potential importance of assistive technology (AT) to the academic success and inclusion of students with disabilities in elementary and secondary school programs (e.g., Smith, 2000). The appropriate application of assistive technology may be one of the greatest equalizing forces in the education and meaningful inclusion of students with disabilities both in terms of promoting access to the general curriculum and in facilitating the ability of students to demonstrate mastery of that knowledge (Michaels, 2000). Assistive technology can promote fuller participation and inclusion within school, home, and community environments and improve the overall quality of life for individuals with disabilities (U.S. Department of Education, 2000). Professionals working with CLD students with low incidence disabilities must feel confident that both the assistive technology and the implementation strategies that they suggest will match students’ needs and provide students with opportunities to participate in the general curriculum in meaningful ways. While families must also be actively involved in all AT decisions, this is particularly critical for CLD families (Parette & McMahan, 2002). School professionals must develop competencies to assist CLD families in making informed decisions regarding the use and

124   Michaels, Nahari, and Hughes

acquisition of AT in ways that acknowledge the family values and that are culturally respectful (Parette & McMahan, 2002). When working with CLD families, it is equally important that school professionals understand any potential cultural or familial barriers to the implementation of AT solutions and potential resources or strategies to assist CLD families in obtaining funding for AT supports (Beyerbach, Walsh, & Vannatta, 2001; National Association of State Directors of Special Education, 2002).

Including Parents as Co-Assessors The ability to understand and value each family’s uniqueness is crucial in developing culturally relevant and sensitive intervention plans. Fox, Vaughn, Wyatte, and Dunlap (2002) stress the importance of developing new systems of functional assessment that address needs in both the home and the school environment for students with multiple and severe disabilities. For school psychologists and other school professionals engaging in the assessment process, parents must be viewed as collaborative partners and co-assessors, rather than only as sources of information about developmental histories. Alternative assessments typically include a data folio or information collected over a period of time across instructional environments that is used to document achievement. The data folio should include a parent survey, which systematically gathers essential information about a family’s perception of student performance. Family involvement and participation is critical in this process as families have a broad base of knowledge about skill mastery and support needs across a variety of community and culturally relevant environments and tasks. School psychologists should work collaboratively with families to gather information regarding background information, socioeconomic status, first and second language acquisition, family history, and cultural and socio-linguistic background as they relate to the evaluation of students’ learning and behavior. The role of CLD parents in the assessment of students with low incidence disabilities requires an understanding of the family’s cultural interpretation of disability and child rearing traditions. Parent-desired long-term outcomes for students, behavior states, physical/medical needs, communication needs, home language, and cultural considerations are all essential considerations for school professionals to gather information about when determining CLD students’ strengths and support needs as part of a comprehensive assessment process.

Implementing Person-Centered Planning Person-centered planning has emerged as one of the most promising planning and assessment practices for creating and sustaining full citizenship for students with

Education for CLD Low Incidence Disability   125

multiple and severe disabilities. Person-centered planning holds tremendous promise for working with CLD students with disabilities, as it is grounded in building and sustaining inclusive communities. Person-centered approaches grew out of the search for new ways to involve people with different perspectives in creating community memberships for people with disabilities who had historically been marginalized and excluded from community participation (McFarland-Whisman, 2015). Person-centered planning honors diversity and multicultural approaches to community building by bringing together both formal (i.e., professionals) and informal (e.g., friends, relatives, and family members) supports to create community memberships and to focus on quality of life issues for people with disabilities. In this way, culturally and linguistically appropriate strategies can be generated that result in the building of connections, valued roles, competencies, and relationships for both CLD students and their families (Freeman et al., 2015). One of the more frequently used person-centered planning and assessment processes with CLD students and families is the Making Action Plans (MAPS) (O’Brien, Pearpoint & Kahn, 2010). MAPS encourages school professionals to assist students and families to dream about the future. The center of the MAPS process is the telling of the story (i.e., where we are today and how we got here). The plan of action moves forward from the telling of the story through eight key questions, which include: 1. What is a map? This question orients participants to the process and allows them to describe the territory to be covered by the map and create a title for the map. 2. What is the history or story? This question allows participants to tell the story embedded within a family-system and cultural context, and enables participants to learn about patterns of strengths, weaknesses, and support needs. 3. What is the dream? This question roots the planning process firmly in the dream, which is sometimes described as the North Star. 4. What is the nightmare? This question, while difficult, allows for the nightmare to be named and also provides ethical guidance to teams as to what should be avoided. 5. Who is the student? This question helps participants describe what makes the focus student tick by highlighting the values, attitudes, and qualities that are important to him/her. 6. What are the student’s strengths, gifts, and talents? This question provides the team with critical strength-based information about the focus student. 7. What are the student’s support needs? This question helps participants determine skills, life experiences, support needs, and roles and responsibilities

126   Michaels, Nahari, and Hughes

of formal and informal support members that will facilitate movement towards the North Star. 8. What is the plan of action? This final question enables participants to develop specific action steps, time frames, implementation strategies, and anticipated outcomes and follow-up strategies.

Using Alternative and Ecological Assessments School psychologists and other assessment school personnel need to engage in nonbiased assessment practices and make use of a number of alternative techniques and strategies to gather meaningful information and make accurate clinical judgments.The 2004 amendments to the IDEA and the No Child Left Behind Act (2001) were intended to better align special education programs and policies with the national school improvement effort, so that both efforts focus on higher content standards and assessments that measure how schools and students are meeting the standards while holding educators and students accountable. National and state standards have increasingly emphasized high-stakes testing and greater accountability for all students (Walpole, Justice, & Invernizzi, 2004). Specifically, the 2004 amendments to the IDEA state that regardless of the special education setting in which students receive their education and related services, and/or the disability classification of students, all IEPs must address students’ participation in state assessments. Specifically, IEPs should include a statement of any modifications in the administration of state or district assessments. The IDEA required states to implement an alternate assessment system by the year 2000. In order to meet these requirements states have created Alternate Performance Indicators for students with severe disabilities that require alternate assessment formats to allow students with even the most significant disabilities to demonstrate their mastery of skills and attainment of knowledge. Typically, CLD students with low incidence disabilities participate in some form of alternative assessment, rather than state or district level high-stakes testing. Alternative assessment is an ongoing process of evaluation that typically involves students and the assessor in the attainment of information to determine a student’s academic progress using non-conventional strategies, and requires teachers to consider the ecological domains in which students are functioning (Brown, McDonnell & Snell, 2016). Other best practices include assessing in both a student’s native and second language when appropriate. In terms of eligibility for special education, best practice suggests that CLD students meet the criteria for disability classification both in their first language and in English (Overton, Fielding, & Simonsson, 2004).

Education for CLD Low Incidence Disability   127

For students with low-levels of communication, an ecological assessment of communication needs in the natural environment can be particularly important. Such an assessment will assist school professionals when making decisions regarding language, and will allow professionals to incorporate information related to what families believe is important for their sons and daughters to learn in their native tongue (Westling & Fox, 2009).

Engaging in Culturally Responsive Instructional Practices Culturally responsive instructional practice refers to modifying curricula and materials, classroom interactions, teaching approaches, and parent outreach in response to students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds to create an environment more conducive to effective learning (Rueda, Lim, & Velasco, 2007). Teachers are urged to expand their understanding of students’ cultural backgrounds, values, customs, and traditions in order to increase their teaching effectiveness by welcoming students’ cultural differences (e.g., discipline methods, religious beliefs, health, and hygiene practices) and accepting that their own worldview is not universal (Ball, 2009). Students should not be expected to discard their culture and ethnicity at the school door because only cultural practices of the dominant group are taken as the norm (Hughes, Hollander, & Martinez, 2009). Culturally responsive practice is considered an appropriate means of addressing the nation’s increasingly diverse school population because it focuses on the attainment of cultural understanding at the societal level and integration of educational practices with the ethnic, racial, cultural, and economic diversity that characterizes U.S. society (Banks, 2005). Although teachers are urged to tailor their instruction in response to students’ cultural backgrounds, the literature reveals limited empirically-based guidelines for doing so (Trent, Kea, & Oh, 2008). Further, investigations of culturally responsive practice have overwhelmingly been conducted among general versus special education populations (e.g., Trent et al., 2008). As such, Trent and colleagues argue that over the past decade the empirical database shows little improvement in preparing special education teachers to use culturally responsive practices. This lack of guidance is particularly true in relation to low incidence disabilities where empirical investigations are extremely limited (Tincani et al., 2009). Harmon, KasaHendrickson, and Neal (2009) recommend focusing on individual students’ strengths and skills in relation to their cultural backgrounds versus adhering to the traditional “deficit model” of severe disabilities. Further, these researchers advocate educating CLD students with low incidence disabilities to the maximum extent with their peers in general education and assuring them access to the general

128   Michaels, Nahari, and Hughes

education curriculum to which they have traditionally been denied. Culturally relevant teaching practices encourage educators to view the unique characteristics of students with low incidence disabilities as contributions to the culture of the entire school population (Harmon et al., 2009). Finally, it is critical that the voices of students with low incidence disabilities from racially, ethnically, linguistically, and economically diverse backgrounds are heard regarding their views of culturally responsive practices and cultural dynamics in their schools (Hughes et al., 2009).

Developing Cross-Cultural Competencies “Working effectively with families from cultures that differ from one’s own requires an understanding of one’s beliefs and values as well as recognition that one’s language, culture and ethnicity influence interaction” (Lynch & Hanson, 2011, p. 37). Cross-cultural competence is defined as “the ability to think, feel, and act in ways that acknowledge, respect, and build upon ethnic, cultural, and linguistic diversity” (p. 50). Cross-cultural competence, cultural sensitivity, and the ability to collaborate with others, such as bilingual personnel, families, and teachers are essential requirements for staff working with CLD students (Baca & Cervantes, 2003). Educators and school psychologists should be cognizant of the body of research on culture and related areas, including cross-cultural studies, ethnic and cultural identity development and the impact of these factors on academic achievement. Personnel preparation programs for professionals in special education and related fields that incorporate coursework in the study of cross-cultural literature related to families and disabilities is needed to facilitate appropriate cross-cultural practices in the field (Harry, 2002).

Focusing on Transition and Community Integration The transition from school to adult life of students with multiple and severe disabilities has been described as a developmental process deeply rooted in the physiological, social, and emotional life changes and adjustments associated with moving from childhood through adolescence into adulthood (Wehman, 2013). Cultural perspectives on independence, employment, and adulthood must be explored and addressed as part of the planning process for the transition from school to adult life for CLD students with low incidence disabilities. Even with the best collaboration among school professionals, transition achievements are likely to be limited if families and students are not co-collaborators. Among diverse cultures

Education for CLD Low Incidence Disability   129

and CLD families, the American value and emphasis on independence and remunerated employment are not always understood or embraced.This also applies to the concept of self-determination, which is also valued as an educational outcome for students with low incidence disabilities. Self-determination is grounded in the accepted cultural norm or belief that it is appropriate for an individual to act as “the primary causal agent in one’s life . . . making choices and decisions regarding one’s quality of life free from undue external influence or interference” (Wehmeyer & Lawrence, 1995, p. 74). School professionals need to be cognizant of the fact that there may also be significant gender differences associated with perceptions of independence, paid employment, and self-determination existing in CLD families, not as prevalent within the dominant culture (e.g., living on your own upon graduating or aging out of high school may not be the cultural norm for females from all cultures).These cultural differences must be taken into consideration when helping CLD students with low incidence disabilities to transition and be part of their communities as differences in culture and language intersect with issues of gender, religion, socioeconomic status and other variables.

Implications for Research and Training Pugach (2001) argued that school professionals and the research community continue to . . .  lose a significant opportunity for taking full account of how special education research and practice is positioned with respect to issues of race, culture, and language. . . . As a result, [we may unwittingly] delimit the stories of diversity that are told by special education scholars, opting instead for stories of disability alone. (p. 448) Future research and training must expand its focus on CLD students beyond high incidence disabilities and encompass the segment of the school population that has been all too excluded from investigation: students with low incidence disabilities. This population includes students with very diverse communication, cognitive, and physical characteristics. As highlighted in this chapter, research and practice must view these students as individuals with very unique personal characteristics and tailor interventions on a case-by-case basis. Creating professionals and services that are culturally sensitive requires that preparation courses include coursework that helps future practitioners understand and value cultural diversity, and work collaboratively with CLD families and communities. Additionally, educators and school psychologists must receive

130   Michaels, Nahari, and Hughes

training in creating inclusive school communities where all learners are valued and supported.

Conclusion This chapter reviews some of the critical issues affecting CLD students with low incidence disabilities. Perhaps most salient is the fact that special education services for this population have typically been designed and delivered without consideration of cultural and linguistic variables. These findings support the need for more inclusive educational practices that focus on creating family and community partnerships that are culturally sensitive and that address the diverse instructional needs of CLD students with low incidence disabilities across a variety of school, home, and community environments. Focusing on the strengths and support needs of CLD students with low incidence disabilities and the hopes and dreams of their families will allow professionals to work in new and creative ways to promote inclusion.

Resources Discussion Questions 1. What are the key components or essential features of culturally responsive practice for CLD students with low incidence disabilities? 2. Describe some strategies and recommendations for conducting evaluations of CLD students with low incidence disabilities. 3. How do you see the equity issues and systemic barriers described in this chapter impacting school psychology and educational practice (e.g., assessment, instructional interventions and supports) for CLD students with low incidence disabilities in schools?

Professional Organizations Council for Exceptional Children TASH (formerly The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps) Technical Assistance Alliance for Parent Centers

Education for CLD Low Incidence Disability   131

Additional Readings Artiles, A. J., & Ortiz, A. (Eds). (2002). English language learners with special needs: Identification, placement, and instruction. Washington DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. This book does an excellent job of compiling research and best practices from the past 30 years into a complete, concise guide for determining appropriate referrals to special education, and reviews applicable assessment and classroom interventions for ELLs. Baca, L. M., & Cervantes, H.T. (Eds.). (2003). The bilingual special education interface (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill. This book is a primary resource for school professionals who are interested in classroom teaching strategies, current legislation, and the frameworks of bilingual education and how bilingual education practices dovetail with the principles of instruction in special education. Brown, F., McDonnell, J., & Snell, M. E. (2016). Instruction of students with severe disabilities (8th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc. This highly successful text addresses the full range of curriculum topics involved in educating individuals with severe disabilities. Clear descriptions and explanations of best practices, time-proven techniques, and a strong theory/research base combine to create one of the most comprehensive texts of its kind. Its focus on meaningful inclusion of students with disabilities and their peers without disabilities has important ramifications for CLD students and families with low incidence disabilities.

References Annie E. Casey Foundation (2015). 2015 KIDS COUNT Data Book. Retrieved from . Baca, L. A. & Cervantes, H. T. (Eds.). (2003). The bilingual special education interface (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill. Ball, A. F. (2009). Toward a theory of generative change in culturally and linguistically complex classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 46, 45–72. doi:10.3102/ 0002831208323277. Banks, J. A. (2005). Cultural diversity and education: Foundations, curriculum, and teaching (5th ed.). New York: Allyn and Bacon. Beyerbach, B., Walsh, C., & Vannatta, R. (2001). From teaching technology to using technology to enhance student learning: Pre-service teachers changing perception of technology infusion. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9, 105–127. Blue-Banning, M. J.,Turnbull, A. P., & Pereira, L. (2000). Group action planning as a support strategy for Hispanic families: Parent and professional perspectives, Mental Retardation, 38, 262–275. Brown, F., McDonnell, J., & Snell, M. E. (2016). Instruction of students with severe disabilities (8th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

132   Michaels, Nahari, and Hughes

Freeman, R., Enyart, M., Schmitz, K., Kimbrough, P., Matthews, K., & Newcomer, L. (2015). Integrating and building on best practices in person-centered planning, wraparound, and positive behavior support to enhance quality of life. In F. Brown, J. L. Anderson, & R. L. De Pry (Eds.), Individual Positive Behavior Supports:A standards-based guide to practices in schools and community settings (pp. 241–258). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Fox, L., Vaughn, B. J., Wyatte, M. L., & Dunlop, G. (2002). “We can’t expect other people to understand”: Family perspectives on problem behavior. Exceptional Children, 68, 437–450. Harmon, C., Kasa-Hendrickson, C., & Neal, L.V. I. (2009). Promoting cultural competencies for teachers of students with significant disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 34, 137–144. Harry, B. (2002). Trends and issues in serving culturally diverse families of children with disabilities.  Journal of Special Education, 36, 131–139. Hughes, C. A., Cosgriff, J., Agran, M., & Washington, B. (2013). Student self-determination: A preliminary investigation of the role of participation in inclusive settings. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 48, 3–17. Hughes, C. A., Hollander, M. J., & Martinez, A. W. (2009). Hispanic acculturation in a predominantly Black high school: Application of an adapted model. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 31, 32–56. doi:10.1177/0739986308329031. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105–17, 111, Stat. 37, codified in 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (1997). Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108–446, codified in 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq. Jung, A. (2011). Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) and barriers for parents from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Multicultural Education, 18(3), 21–25. Lynch, E. W., & Hanson, M. L. (eds). (2011). Developing cross-cultural competence. A guide for working with young children and their families. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Markham, P. L., & Gordon, K. E. (2007). Challenges and instructional approaches impacting the literacy performance of English language learners. Multiple Voices, 10, 73–81. McCray, A. D., & García, S. B. (2002). The stories we tell: Developing a research agenda for multicultural and bilingual special education. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 15, 599–612. doi:10.1080/0951839022000014330 McFarland-Whisman, J. (2015). Person-centered planning teams. In F. Brown, J. L. Anderson, & R. L. De Pry (Eds.), Individual Positive Behavior Supports: A standards-based guide to practices in schools and community settings (pp. 71–88). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Michaels, C. A. (2000). Technical assistance to staff, students, and families. In Promising practices in technology: Supporting access to, and progress in, the general curriculum (pp. 38–45). Washington: United States Office of Special Education Programs. National Association of State Directors of Special Education (2002). Research institute for assistive and training technologies. Retrieved May 17, 2002, from . National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). The condition of education. Retrieved from . No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107–110, § 115, Stat. 1425, codified in 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq. (2002). O’Brien, J., Pearpoint, J., & Kahn, L. (2010). The PATH and MAPS handbook: Person-centered ways to build community. Toronto: Inclusion Press.

Education for CLD Low Incidence Disability   133

Orfield, G., & Frankenberg, E. (2014). Brown at 60: Great progress, a long retreat and an uncertain future. Los Angeles, CA: The Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles at UCLA. Retrieved from . Osterling, J. P., & Garza, A. (2004). Strengthening Latino parental involvement: Forming community-based organizations/school partnerships. NABE Journal of Research and Practice, 2, 270–284. Overton, T., Fielding, C. & Simonsson, M. (2004). Decision making in determining eligibility of culturally and linguistically diverse learners: Reasons given by assessment personnel. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 319–331. Parette, P. S., & McMahan, G. A. (2002). What should we expect of assistive technology? Being sensitive to family goals. Exceptional Children, 35, 56–61. Parish, S. L., Rose, R. A., & Andrews, M. E. (2010).TANF’s impact on low-income mothers raising children with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 76, 234–253. Park, H. S., & Lian, M. G. (2001). Introduction to special series on culturally and linguistically diverse learners with severe disabilities. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 26, 135–137. Pugach, M. C. (2001). The stories we choose to tell: Fulfilling the promise of qualitative research in special education. Exceptional Children, 67, 439–453. Rueda, R., Lim, H. J., & Velasco, A. (2007). Cultural accommodations in the classroom: An instructional perspective. Multiple Voices, 10, 61–72. Smith, S. (2000). Teacher education—Associate editor’s column. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15, 59–62. TASH. (2015). TASH mission and vision. Retrieved from . Accessed on August 3, 2015. Tincani, M., Travers, J., & Boutot, A. (2009). Race, culture, and autism spectrum disorder: Understanding the role of diversity in successful educational interventions. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 34, 81–90. Trent, S. C., Kea, C. D., & Oh, K. (2008). Preparing preservice educators for cultural diversity: How far have we come? Exceptional Children, 74, 328–350. Turnbull, A. P., & Turnbull, R. (2001). Families, professionals, and exceptionalities: Collaborating for empowerment (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Merrill/Prentice-Hall. Turnbull, A. P., Turnbull, H. R., Wehmeyer, M. L., & Shogren, K. A. (2013). Exceptional lives: Special education in today’s schools (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson. U.S. Department of Education (2000). Promising practices in technology: Supporting access to and progress in the general curriculum. Available at . Wagner, C. (2001). Cultural reciprocity aids collaboration with families (ERIC/OSEP Digest # E614). Arlington: ERIC Clearing House of Disabilities and Gifted Education. Walpole, S., Justice, L. M., & Invernizzi, M. A. (2004). Closing the gap between research and practice: Case study of school-wide literacy reform. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 20, 261–283. Wehman, P. (Ed.) (2013). Life beyond the classroom: Transition strategies for young people with disabilities (5th ed.). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Wehmeyer, M. L., & Lawrence, M. (1995). Whose future is it anyway? Promoting student involvement in transition planning. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 18, 69–83.

134   Michaels, Nahari, and Hughes

Westling, D. L., & Fox, L. (2009). Teaching students with severe disabilities (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Pearson. Yates, J. R., & Ortiz, A. A. (2004). Classification issues in special education for English language learners. In A. M. Sorrells, H. J. Rieth, & P. T. Sindelar (Eds.), Critical issues in special education: Access, diversity, and accountability (pp. 38–56). Upper Saddle River: Pearson.

8

Culturally Responsive Mathematics Interventions for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students Sun A. Kim

Today’s schools are more culturally and linguistically diverse than ever before. Over two decades, the proportion of the Hispanic population in U.S. schools has doubled (from 13.5% in 1995 to 26.2% in 2015) while that of the White population has decreased (Kena et al., 2015). According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES; Aud et al., 2013), as of March 2015, the U.S. school population consisted of 49.2% White, 26.3% Hispanic, 15.4% Black, 5.2% Asian/Pacific Islander, and 1% American Indian/Alaska Native American students (Kena et al., 2015). Additionally, approximately 10% of children in public schools were placed in programs for English Language Learners (ELLs) and approximately 13% of all public school students received special education services (Aud et al., 2013). As our school population becomes more diverse, the research shows that many culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students are not meeting minimum academic standards and have not been reaching their maximum potential (Terry & Irving, 2010). Part of the concern is that educational practices and instructional strategies are not being adapted to meet the needs of a diverse student population (Obiakor, Utley, Smith, & Harris-Obiakor, 2002). Obiakor and colleagues suggest that instructional and educational services must be revamped to address the learning needs of culturally diverse students in content areas such as mathematics. 135

136   Kim

The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM, 2000) and the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSSM, 2010) are leading reform efforts in educational practices in mathematics. In the emerging best practices, students are expected to (a) engage in mathematical activities that are designed to build their conceptual understanding (i.e., conceptual understanding of key concepts, such as place value and ratios) and procedural fluency (i.e., speed and accuracy in calculation), (b) participate in mathematical discourse focusing on reasoning and sense-making, (c) demonstrate cognitive and linguistic abilities to build mathematical knowledge and skills through class discourse, and (d) demonstrate cross-cultural competency to share and learn through interactions with teachers and peers from diverse cultures (McAllister & Irvine, 2000; Moschkovich, 2012). Interventions should be strategically planned and implemented to ensure CLD students possess these prerequisite skills to achieve benchmark learning goals. Recent national assessment data indicate that CLD students did not reach gradelevel mastery of mathematics knowledge and skills. For example, 58% of fourthgrade ELLs and 6% of eighth-grade ELLs performed at or below proficient level on the 2013 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) mathematics assessment (U.S. Department of Education, NCES, 2014). The data also indicate that 82% of fourth-grade and 86% of eighth-grade Black, 74% of fourth-grade and 79% of eighth-grade Hispanic, and 76% of fourth-grade and 79% of eighth-grade American Indian/Alaska Native American performed below the proficient level on the NAEP mathematics assessment (U.S. Department of Education, NCES, 2014). Given the high learning standards for all students and the number of struggling CLD students in current standards-based mathematics education, it is necessary that educational practices address the needs of CLD students. Culturally responsive instruction is recommended as a promising pedagogical approach to address the social and academic needs of CLD students (Shumate, Campbell-Whatley, & Lo, 2012; Utley, Obiakor, & Bakken, 2011). In the literature, culturally responsive instruction is defined as “using the cultural characteristics, experiences, and perspectives of ethnically diverse students as conduits for teaching them more effectively” (Gay, 2002 p. 106). Contemporary approaches to culturally responsive instruction tend to focus primarily on integrating CLD students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds into instruction and do not sufficiently emphasize practical learning strategies, effectiveness, or outcomes. However, integrating students’ cultures or languages into instruction does not always guarantee academic success for CLD students (Herron, 2008; Shumate et al., 2012). The underachievement of CLD students may result from instruction that is poorly designed and fails to address their learning needs, especially in current standards-based mathematics classrooms (Cartledge and Kourea, 2008; Moschkovich, 2012; Shumate et al., 2012). In this case, culturally responsive instruction emphasizing only cultural continuity between home and

Math Interventions for CLD Students   137

school may not provide a full understanding of how to promote the academic achievement of CLD students. The literature on remedial mathematics practices suggests that (a) visual representation techniques, (b) peer-mediated learning, (c) elaborative, corrective feedback, and (d) explicit, direct instruction, produce large effects on mathematics outcomes of native English-speaking students with or at-risk for mathematics disabilities (MD) (e.g., Gersten et al., 2009; Steedly, Dragoo, Arafeh, & Luke, 2008). Although this research may provide a basis for teaching CLD students (Orosco, 2014a), it may not be “responsive” to the needs of CLD students in their mathematics learning. Thus, effective mathematics interventions or instructional approaches must be balanced, emphasizing interventions that are evidence-based and “responsive” to the cultural and linguistic backgrounds of CLD students. The purpose of this chapter is to provide an overview of culturally responsive mathematics instruction for CLD students based on evidence-based mathematics interventions validated with this population. The section of theoretical research basis presents the procedures used for the literature review and discusses promising mathematics instruction for CLD students. Subsequently, implications for school psychologists’ practices with CLD students, training of school psychologists, and future research are discussed based on the findings of the literature review.

Theoretical and Research Basis The theoretical and research basis of this chapter is based on a review of 25 research studies on mathematics interventions for CLD students (Kim, 2016). Research studies included in the review were (a) published since the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation of 2002, (b) used a single-subject, quasi-experimental, or experimental research design, and (c) examined the effectiveness of mathematics intervention(s) for CLD students with mathematics difficulties (i.e., math disabilities, math difficulties, and at-risk for mathematics disabilities). The results of this literature review revealed a set of instructional practices responsive to the unique needs of CLD students. First, CLD students were responsive to the following forms of mathematics instruction: (a) scaffolding or support of academic language of mathematics (Adamson, Maerten-Rivera, Secada, & Lee, 2011; Banerjee, 2011; Finnan-Jones, 2008; Freeman, 2012; Jeltova et al., 2011; Kong & Orosco, 2015; Moran, Swanson, Gerber, & Fung, 2014; Orosco, 2013; Orosco, 2014a; Orosco, 2014b; Orosco, Swanson, O’Connor, & Lussier, 2013; Shumate et al., 2012); (b) explicit teaching with representation techniques designed to enhance conceptual understanding of mathematical concepts and skills (Banerjee, 2011; Dillihunt & Tyler, 2006; Flores, 2010; Flores & Kaylor, 2007; Freeman, 2012; Hindley, 2003; Kim, Wang, & Michaels, 2015; Lopez, 2010; Shumate et al., 2012;

138   Kim

CLD subgroups Supporting mathematics language

Explicit teaching using representation

ELLs

Hispanic/Latino Word problems Asian

Non-ELLs

Hispanic/Latino Measurement African Geometry American Fractions Word problems

ELLs

Hispanic/Latino Overall math Asian achievement Word problems

Non-ELLs

Hispanic/Latino Number & African operations American Word problems

Using culturally ELLs relevant teaching examples Non-ELLs

Peer-mediated learning

Math topic

ELLs Non-ELLs

Hispanic/Latino Fraction Word Asian problems Alaska Native American African American Hispanic/Latino

Geometry Measurements Number & operations Geometry

African American

Number & operations

Studies Banerjee, 2011; Finnan-Jones, 2007; Freeman, 2012; Moran et al., 2014; Orosco, 2013; Orosco et al., 2013; Orosco, 2014a; Orosco, 2014b; Shumate et al., 2012 Adamson et al., 2011; Jeltova et al., 2011; Kong & Orosco, 2015; Moran et al., 2014 Banerjee, 2011; Freeman, 2012; Hindley, 2003; Kim et al., 2015; Lopez, 2010; Shumate et al., 2012 Dillihunt & Tyler 2006; Flores & Kaylor, 2007; Flores, 2010; Zollman, 2012 Kim et al., 2015; Shumate et al., 2012 Kisker et al., 2012; Moses-Snipes, 2005 Hindley, 2003 Cardona, 2002; Fuchs et al., 2001; Fuchs et al., 2002; Gardner et al., 2001

TABLE 8.1  Components of Mathematics Instruction Effective for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students

Zollman, 2012); (c) culturally relevant teaching examples (Kim et al., 2015; Kisker et al., 2012; Moses-Snipes, 2005; Shumate et al., 2012); and (d) peer-mediated learning (Cardona 2002; Fuchs, Fuchs, & Karns, 2001; Fuchs, Fuchs, Yazdian, & Powell, 2002; Gardner et al., 2001; Hindley, 2003). Table 8.1 presents a brief summary of the findings on mathematics interventions for CLD students by population and mathematics topic. The following sections discuss each of these instructional practices.

Math Interventions for CLD Students   139

Scaffolding or Supporting Academic Language of Mathematics Language and Mathematics

Academic language is the language through which an academic subject is taught and evaluated (Schleppegrell, 2012). Although many researchers and educators believe that mathematics learning is independent of language development because number and mathematics concepts are universal, learning mathematics, especially in today’s standards-based mathematics classroom, requires possessing and using mathematics academic language to engage in mathematics activities and learning (Schleppegrell & O’Hallaron, 2011). Students must also possess fluency in multiple layers of language including instructional language, mathematics vocabulary, and mathematical symbolic language (i.e., equal sign, addition sign, and subtraction sign) (Moschkovich, 2012). Since the language of mathematics is not “a list of vocabulary or technical words with precise meanings but the communicative competence necessary and sufficient for competent participation in mathematics discourse practices” (Moschkovich, 2012, p. 17), CLD students who have difficulties in any layer of mathematics language may not be able to learn as much as their peers in standards-based classrooms. Mathematics language plays a very important role in learning and solving word problems (Orosco, 2014a). Mathematical word problems include not only certain mathematics vocabulary (e.g., divide, fractions, percentile, etc.) but also linguistic structures that imply underlying mathematical structures and operations (e.g., take away, put them together, share, etc.). Solving a word problem becomes more difficult when the problem includes extraneous information, ambiguous contexts, indirect and inconsistent language, language which does not directly cue a particular operation in the problems, or when the solution requires multiple steps because it demands higher processing skills for working memory (Swanson, Lussier, & Orosco, 2015). Not surprisingly, research documents that ELLs were less successful in understanding word problems stated in English than in their native language, and were more likely to fail to solve problems in English than in their native language (Bernardo & Calleja, 2005). Some ELLs may fail in problem-solving only because linguistically they are baffled in the first step of the problem-solving process (i.e., comprehending the meaning of what exactly is being asked), even though they have the mathematical ability to proceed to complete the later processes of solving the problem successfully. It is evident that mathematics interventions for CLD students, especially ELLs, must include activities or materials to support their mathematics language in their most proficient language.

140   Kim

Evidence

The findings from the literature review suggests that scaffolding or supporting the mathematics language of CLD students is a promising instructional strategy for Latino ELLs with mathematics difficulties (Banerjee, 2011; Finnan-Jones, 2007; Freeman, 2012; Kong & Orosco, 2015; Moran, Swanson, Gerber, & Fung, 2014; Orosco, 2013; Orosco, 2014a; Orosco, 2014b; Orosco et al., 2013; Shumate et al., 2012) as well as English-proficient Latino and African American students with mathematics difficulties (Adamson et al., 2011; Jeltova et al., 2011). According to the literature, providing mathematics academic language support improved the word problem-solving performance of elementary and secondary level Latino ELLs (e.g., Banerjee, 2011; Freeman, 2012; Orosco, 2013; Orosco, 2014a; Orosco, 2014b; Orosco et al., 2013) and daily math quiz scores of secondary Latino ELLs (Shumate et al., 2012). Dynamic instruction (DI) involves systematic modifications of teaching examples and/or level of scaffolding to match the students’ level of understanding, and then assessing changes in student learning according to the level of modification and the level of scaffolding (Orosco, 2013). Dynamic instruction involving scaffolding vocabulary instruction (Jelvolta et al., 2011; Kong & Orosco, 2015) and enhancing vocabulary development (Adamson et al., 2011) improved overall mathematics performance of English-proficient Latino and African American CLD students. Language support methods investigated in the literature included (a) supporting mathematics word problem-solving strategies in students’ native languages or the most proficient languages based on their reading and comprehension levels (Kong & Orosco, 2015; Orosco, 2013; Orosco, 2014a; Orosco, 2014b), (b) providing performance-contingent feedback based on students’ reading and language comprehension levels (Jeltova et al., 2011; Orosco, 2013; Orosco, 2014a; Orosco, 2014b), (c) delivering explicit teaching of academic vocabulary and language during technology-based learning and assessment (Freeman, 2012), (d) teaching vocabulary and symbols used in word problems explicitly (Adamson et al., 2011; Banerjee, 2011), and (e) enhancing relevant vocabulary language required for learning new skills through games (Shumate et al., 2012). For example, Orosco (2013) provided a graduated prompt framework in Spanish, the students’ native language, when teaching word problem-solving procedures. In this study, the interventionist modified mathematics language into four levels of vocabulary and task procedures based on students’ level of mathematics comprehension. Strategy instruction feedback was also provided by means of verbal probes that assessed students’ level of word problem-solving ability in their native language. If a student was on level 1 in terms of mathematics vocabulary, the interventionist modified the math problems using math terms used in everyday conversation. If a student was on level 2 of mathematics vocabulary, terms used to modify the problems included

Math Interventions for CLD Students   141

terms not directly associated with a specific math content area. A student on level 3 received instruction using terms that were directly associated with a specific math content area while a student at level 4 received instruction using math terms. The findings of this study revealed that DI supporting the language of mathematics in the students’ most proficient languages improved word problem-solving performance for all participants compared to baseline period, and their level of performance was maintained and generalized during follow-up sessions.

Explicit Instruction Using Representations Explicit Instruction

Syntheses and meta-analyses of intervention studies in remedial and special education suggest that explicit instruction paired with strategy instruction generates greater outcomes in mathematics learning compared to other instructional approaches (e.g., Browder, Spooner, Ahlgrim-Delzell, Harris, & Wakeman, 2008; Gersten et al., 2009). Explicit instruction involves constructive interactions between students and their teachers, a clear statement of a teaching objective, clear demonstration of the skills to be taught, a defined instructional sequence, data-driven instructional decision making, and opportunities for repeated practices (Steedly, Dragoo, Arafeh, & Luke, 2008). When explicit instruction is delivered, it often follows a defined instructional sequence. First, explicit instruction begins with an advance organizer (i.e., a statement of teaching objectives and connection of the target skills to real-life situations). Next, explicit instruction presents modeling of the skills being taught, and then moves to the stage of guided practice to enhance student learning. Finally, explicit instruction provides students with the opportunity of independent practice (Mercer & Miller, 1991–1994). The literature indicates that explicit instruction in combination with the use of visual representations, technology, vocabulary enhancement, and/or culturally relevant teaching examples promotes mathematics performances of low-achieving or at-risk CLD students, including English proficient students and ELLs (e.g., Cartledge & Kourea, 2008; Utley et al., 2011). Representations

In mathematics instruction, language used to understand and express mathematical ideas includes mathematical vocabulary and mathematical terms as well as mathematic representations. In today’s elementary classrooms, students are expected to use representations to organize, record, and communicate mathematical ideas; select, apply, and translate among mathematical representations to solve problems;

142   Kim

and model and interpret physical, social, and mathematical phenomena (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM], 2000). According to the Standards and Principles for School Mathematics (NCTM, 2000), representation refers “both to process and to product—in other words, to the act of capturing a mathematical concept or relationship in some form and to the form itself ” (p. 66). Forms of representations can include arrays of real objects, drawing diagrams, graphical displays, and symbolic expressions.Therefore, the number three can be represented using an array of three buttons, a drawing of three circles, or as the written symbol “3.” Evidence

The results from the review of mathematics intervention studies for CLD students also revealed that explicit instruction using visual representations improved mathematics learning of low-achieving or at-risk CLD students including ELLs and English-proficient students (Banerjee, 2011; Freeman, 2012; Hindley, 2003; Kim et al., 2015; Lopez, 2010; Shumate et al., 2012). Research with English-proficient Latino and African American students at risk for mathematics difficulties indicates that effective practices with visual representations should involve (a) using a variety of manipulatives (Dillihunt & Tyler, 2006), (b) creating diagrams or using graphic organizers to guide problem-solving procedures (Dillihunt & Tyler, 2006; Zollman, 2012), and/or (c) introducing a graduated sequence of instruction using multi-level representations (i.e., Concrete-Representational-Abstract [C-R-A] level of instruction; Flores, 2010). Representation intervention practices that were effective for Latino ELLs involved (a) enhancing visual representation via manipulatives (Hindley, 2003; Shumate et al., 2012), (b) introducing visual representations through technology (Freeman, 2012; Lopez, 2010), and (c) using diagrams (Banerjee, 2011). In general these results were applicable to all grade levels; however, it should be noted that using both manipulatives and visual drawing cues helped third- and fourth-grade Latino ELLs understand geometry (Garcia, 2004). Research indicates the effectiveness of C-R-A instruction to improve fraction word problem-solving (Kim et al., 2015) with Asian ELLs. For example, Kim and her colleagues (2015) used a C-R-A sequence of instruction to teach fraction word problem-solving to Asian ELLs with mathematics difficulties. The C-R-A instructional sequence incorporates three discrete levels of representations— manipulatives, pictorial representations, and abstract symbolic representations (Steedly et al., 2008). Kim and colleagues (2015) first used concrete manipulatives (sticks and cups) to represent the problem and model the problem-solving procedures when instructing Asian ELL fourth graders. At the representational level, they then demonstrated the problem-solving procedures using pictorial drawings/representations. Finally, at

Math Interventions for CLD Students   143

the abstract level, the teacher used only abstract mathematical algorithms—numbers, notations, and symbols. Findings indicated that all participants reached grade-level mastery on both types of word problems involving fractions addition and subtraction, maintained skills after the intervention ended, and were able to solve near-transfer problems as a function of the C-R-A sequence of instruction.

Culturally Relevant Teaching Examples Analogical Transfer with Culturally Relevant Examples

Analogical transfer is defined as the cognitive skill involving the application of knowledge previously acquired in one situation to a different situation (Singley & Anderson, 1989). It is known as a powerful cognitive mechanism for learning new abstractions, including solving problems (Gentner and Holyoak, 1997). During the process of analogical transfer, familiar situations or knowledge and skills previously acquired, play a role as a learning base to make inferences about novel situations or problems (Catrambone & Holyoak, 1989). Accordingly, selecting meaningful, familiar exemplars (i.e., teaching examples) is critical in teaching new concepts and skills because they can influence the creation of a generalized rule or schema that can be applied to other problems (Catrambone & Holyoak, 1989). CLD students bring their unique set of knowledge structures or learning styles from their cultures and languages to their mathematics classrooms (Chen & Li, 2008). For example, 2/3 reads “two-thirds” in English, which requires using both cardinal and ordinal numbers whereas 2/3 reads “3 분의 2” in Korean, meaning literally two out of three pieces.When students read 2/3 in Korean, they read a whole 3 first and then part 2 later. They process the whole first, then think the part within the frame of the whole. This whole-part thinking order in reading a fraction is different from reading a fraction number in English (i.e., part first, then whole after). The unique understanding of math concepts and skills that students bring to a given mathematics learning task directly impacts how they build mental representations of new problems or schemas (Pratt-Johnson, 2006). In these contexts, using culturally relevant teaching examples is promising in order to enhance CLD students’ understanding of the problem and problem-solution as well as the application of the known solution to new problem situations (Meyer, 2001; Streefland, 1991). Evidence

The results from the review of mathematics intervention studies effective for CLD students also supported the use of culturally relevant teaching examples with low-achieving or at-risk CLD students (Kisker et al., 2012; Moses-Snipes, 2005), including ELLs (Kim et al., 2015; Shumate et al., 2012).

144   Kim

Research involving CLD students with mathematics difficulties suggests that the implementation of African cultural activities related to geometry increased African American students’ achievement in geometry (Moses-Snipes, 2005). Similar results were found when researchers used culturally responsive curriculum integrating Native American everyday solutions to teach geometry, and numbers and operations to this CLD group of students (Kisker et al., 2012). In addition, research with ELLs suggests that culturally relevant examples connected to their daily experiences, pop culture, and their cultural heritage increased middle-school Latino ELLs’ learning and motivation (Shumate et al., 2012). Research with Asian ELL students indicates that explicitly teaching C-R-A instruction using culturally familiar examples improved elementary students’ performances on fraction word problem-solving (Kim et al., 2015). Methods used to integrate culture in teaching examples include using culturespecific everyday experiences or heritage directly linked to mathematical concepts or learning (Kisker et al., 2012; Shumate et al., 2012), and priming student learning in a culturally familiar situation or problem (Kim et al., 2015; Moses-Snipes, 2005). For example, in Alaska Native American (Yup’ik) culture, 20 is a base of counting numbers. When counting numbers, they bundle a set of five sticks, then regroup four sets of five sticks to make 20 (Kisker et al., 2012). In this culture, measuring skills are very important using the body as a unit of measurement (e.g., a hand means number “5”). In addition, in this culture, students learn from experts, not from collaborative discourse.The comprehensive mathematics curriculum for Alaska Native American children that Kisker and his colleagues (2012) developed incorporated these cultural and linguistic features in their instructional activities. For example, counting by ones, fives, and 20s was taught as the base and sub-base numbers. This curriculum used the body as an integral part of the technology of measuring while their everyday measurement languages were translated into mathematics language: the meaning of balance and harmony translated into symmetry, measuring, and proportionality. In addition, instead of employing a collaborative discourse model for learning, this curriculum used an expert-apprentice model where students learned from experts, including using the more expert students to model for other novice students. These approaches were culturally responsive because they aligned with how people within this culture learn. Kisker and his colleagues (2012) used this culturally adapted mathematics curriculum to examine the efficacy of two second-grade modules for Alaska Native American students. One of the modules, “Picking Berries,” was aligned with the skills of representing and measuring. The results showed that the “Picking Berries” module significantly improved students’ mathematics performance. Shumate and her colleagues’ study also used culturally relevant teaching examples with Latino ELLs as a means to increase students’ learning and motivation by connecting the mathematical concepts to participants’ daily experiences, pop

Math Interventions for CLD Students   145

culture, and their cultural heritage. For example, students played the role of Real Estate brokers to sell the homes of Latino celebrities such as Antonio Banderas and then calculated the sales commission and tax for these homes. The findings of this study indicated that the culturally responsive mathematics instruction increased performance of Latino ELLs on daily mathematics quizzes.

Peer-Mediated Learning Peer-Mediated Instruction

Peer-mediated instruction is “an alternative classroom arrangement in which students take an instructional role with classmates or other students” (Hall & Stegila, 2003, p.1). Peer-mediated instruction occurs either in the form of peer-tutoring (e.g., Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies [PALS]) in a peer dyad, or cooperative learning activities in which students share knowledge and skills to learn in groups. In peer-tutoring, students assume the tutor and/or tutee role with highly-structured teaching procedures (e.g., Fuchs et al., 2002). Characteristics of peer-mediated instruction associated with positive outcomes for student learning include: (a) assignment and training of students in peer-mediated instruction, (b) turntaking of roles, (c) teacher’s monitoring strategy implementation within each group or pair, and (d) instructional goals targeting the improvement of academic and social skills for all children (Hall & Stegila, 2003). Involving peers is an alternative instructional format to enhance mathematics engagement and learning for CLD students who may not possess the background knowledge, language skills, or cognitive abilities to learn through traditional mathematics discourse in current standards-based mathematics classrooms (Fuchs et al., 2001). Evidence

Research indicated that peer-mediated instruction was beneficial for improving mathematics achievement for CLD students, including African American students (Fuchs et al., 2001; Fuchs et al., 2002; Gardner et al., 2001), and Latino ELLs (Hindley, 2003). In general, the majority of research with English-proficient CLD students was conducted in a dyadic peer-mediated instructional configuration such as peer-assisted learning strategies (PALS) with African American elementary students with disabilities or at-risk for mathematics failure (Fuchs et al., 2001; Fuchs et al., 2002) and a reciprocal peer-tutoring (e.g., a cooperative learning strategy in which paired students took turns in the roles of tutor and tutee for learning) (Gardner et al., 2001). PALS was implemented as a replacement of a portion of the core instruction on the target skills in general education, whereas reciprocal peertutoring was implemented as an after-school program (Gardner et al., 2001).

146   Kim

Both PALS and reciprocal peer-tutoring engaged CLD student dyads collaboratively in highly structured, individualized tasks, such as the basic mathematics skills of number sense and multiplication facts. Tutors and tutees changed roles during each session, learning how to correct incorrect responses and reinforce appropriate behaviors. Implementation of each dyad was monitored in terms of fidelity by teachers. For example, to implement PALS, teachers first created dyads by following specific procedures. Teachers ranked their students according to mathematical competence, split them using a median, and paired the top students from each half, the next-highest-performing students from each half, and so on. Next, the teachers taught the students a correction procedure. The teachers also taught the CLD students two symbols—one to prompt students to switch roles and another (a smiley face) to prompt students to reward themselves. Within each session, the stronger-performing students played the coaches’ (tutors’) role first; then, the students switched their roles so that the less-performing students became the coaches. Each pair shared PALS tutoring materials, including PALS activity sheets and a number line with number arrays shown below each numeral. In summary, research in the field of mathematics interventions indicates that scaffolding or supporting the academic language of mathematics, explicit instruction using representation techniques, culturally relevant teaching examples, and peermediated instruction are promising approaches to address the needs of CLD students in learning mathematics. The following section describes what school psychologists should consider in planning and implementing practices with CLD students based on the findings discussed in this section.

Implications for Practice As assessors and instructional consultants, school psychologists need to understand what works for improving the mathematics learning and performance of CLD students. The literature reviewed in this chapter revealed a set of evidence-based instructional practices responsive to the unique needs of CLD students: (a) scaffolding or support of the academic language of mathematics; (b) explicit teaching with representation techniques; (c) culturally relevant teaching examples; and (d) peermediated learning. Recommendations are provided in this section to inform the practice of school psychologists when engaging in assessment and instructional consultation with CLD students, including ELLs. The recommendations provided address the consideration of cultural adaptations and intervention effectiveness, selecting appropriate interventions for target students, assessing the language of mathematics, and exploring the mathematics learning of CLD students within a cultural context.

Math Interventions for CLD Students   147

Considering Both Cultural Adaptations and Effectiveness Among the four mathematics instructional strategies that were reviewed in the chapter, there were two evidence-based interventions that were directly related to culturally responsive mathematics teaching for CLD students—scaffolding for academic language and using culturally relevant teaching examples. The other two instructional components found in the literature for CLD students—visual representation and peer-mediation—were not associated with cultural adaptations but are strategies that have strong empirical support as evidence-based mathematics interventions for CLD students. The implication is that culturally responsive mathematics incorporate two key components—cultural adaptations and effective mathematics instruction. Supporting mathematics language and using culturally relevant teaching examples satisfy both aspects of culturally responsive instruction. School psychologists involved in assessment and consultation must focus on both in order to understand students’ functioning and to support mathematics teachers in the context of instructional consultation. For example, if classroom observations or consultee interviews focus on cultural adaptations during classroom instruction without exploring effective instruction, the low performance of CLD students in the classroom may be interpreted as a result of not incorporating cultural aspects into core instruction. Examining both of these components will help school psychologists to support teachers to intervene by adapting mathematics strategies in culturally responsive ways and by using evidence-based strategies that will result in positive learning outcomes.

Selecting Appropriate Interventions for Target Students Current remedial mathematics practices with CLD students are implemented as broad generalizations of findings from research on a limited population of CLD students (e.g., non-ELL Hispanic students). However, it should be noted that the learning needs of a specific CLD subgroup of students may not be appropriately addressed by instruction effective for other subgroups of CLD students. For example, Kisker and her colleagues (2012) examined the efficacy of two second-grade modules of the reform-oriented and culturally-based mathematics curriculum for Alaskan Native American students. One of the modules (“Going to Egg Island”) was designed to teach grouping and place value. The module implementation led to significant gains on mathematics skills for Alaskan Native American students. However, this module should not be considered as effective for all other CLD students until it is validated with the other CLD students.

148   Kim

Additionally, as indicated in Table 8.1, effective instructional strategies for CLD students varied across subgroups. For example, for Latino ELLs, three instructional strategies were supported by research: (a) supporting the academic language of mathematics, (b) explicit instruction using representations, and (c) culturally relevant teaching examples. For English-proficient Latino students, only two strategies are based on evidence: (a) academic language support and (b) explicit instruction using representation. Studies involving African American students supported all four instructional strategies, but the number of studies conducted with this population is limited. Research with Asian ELLs shows that explicit instruction using culturally relevant examples and representation techniques were effective. Given the differences in mathematics interventions shown to be effective among varied mathematics skills and CLD subgroups, school psychologists should be cautious when selecting and recommending mathematics interventions for CLD students when the research available is limited. A promising practice is for school psychologists to work with teacher consultees to choose and adapt interventions that can be implemented using trial teaching with progress-monitoring data collection as a way to establish if the intervention works for groups and/or subgroups of CLD students. Instructional consultants can thus support teachers while systematically varying instructional intensity, duration, and/or grouping format to examine if the instruction works for the target group of CLD students. In addition, interventions can incorporate multiple strategies. As shown in Table 8.1, many studies with CLD students incorporate more than two instructional features to address students’ needs. For example, Shumate and her colleagues (2012) used manipulatives, culturally relevant teaching examples, and other instructional features to instruct CLD students. Recommendations for teachers may include using multiple baseline designs to integrate various strategies during trial teaching. Integrating two strategies may be suitable as when a cultural adaption is integrated with an evidence-based method of instruction.

Assessing the Language of Mathematics The research reviewed in this chapter clearly establishes that learning mathematics and demonstrating that learning in standards-based classrooms calls for various language skills in mathematics (Moschkovich, 2012). Although English-proficient CLD students may understand instructional language, they cannot be successful in the instructional environment without knowledge of mathematics vocabulary or mathematical symbolic language as the research suggests that students with limited fluency in instructional language are potentially at risk for mathematics failure (Wang & Goldschmidt, 1999).The language of mathematics becomes crucial when learning and taking a test, especially when it involves word problem-solving

Math Interventions for CLD Students   149

(Bernardo & Calleja, 2005). Accordingly, school psychologists should incorporate the language of mathematics, including understanding instructional language (e.g., listening and reading comprehension skills), mathematics vocabulary, and mathematics symbols in their screenings and assessments of CLD students to identify areas of strengths and deficits. Curriculum-based assessment methods can be useful in this process as it helps teachers and school psychologists to identify language gaps in the area of mathematics and to develop appropriate instructional recommendations.

Exploring Math Learning within a Cultural Context The research on culturally relevant teaching examples and analogical transfer shows that teaching mathematics within a cultural context is effective because it helps students to situate learning based on their background knowledge. It also helps the teacher to make the learning experience more congruent with the students’ experience and to transfer knowledge to new ways of learning mathematics. The implication for practice is that teachers and school psychologists must enhance their own knowledge base about mathematics learning, taking into consideration the students’ cultural backgrounds and background knowledge. Such a culturally responsive practice then means that we must explore the students’ understanding of mathematical concepts in order to plan for interventions that incorporate such understandings and knowledge. For example, in their mathematics intervention study with Asian ELLs, Kim and her colleagues (2015) observed that one of their student participants rejected using a concrete level of materials at first because, at home, he was instructed to learn mathematics using only his brain. In some Asian cultures, children learn and are encouraged to use counting skills such as counting-by or mental devices to perform math computations prior to, or at the beginning of, learning school mathematics. Using concrete objects to do math is not part of their tradition to teach mathematics to their children. Particularly in the Korean language and culture, numbers are counted using two different numbering systems.The first counting system (i.e., 일/ il/ [one)], 이/yi/ [two], 삼/sam/ [three]) is preferably used for counting money, decimals, fractions, phone numbers, and large numbers.The second counting system (i.e., 하나/hana/ [one], 둘/dul/ [two], 셋/scet/ [three]) is used for counting a manageable number of objects. For the objects to be counted using the first counting system, students are encouraged to use counting strategies and mnemonic devices instead of counting concrete objects. For the objects to be counted using the second counting system, students are encouraged to count or calculate them using “subitizing (the ability to quickly identify the number of items in a small set without counting)” (Clements, 1999) or mental math. In consideration of this

150   Kim

cultural aspect, Kim and her colleagues introduced the concrete materials (i.e., cups and sticks) as a tool for showing the meaning of a fraction number (i.e., figures to represent a fraction number embedded in the story), not as a physical device (opposite to mental math) to assist them in computing fractions.When the student showed understanding of, and interest in, using cups and sticks as a way to represent a fraction number, the student received the concrete level of instruction where cups and sticks were used to execute operations of fraction numbers. This example suggests that knowledge of the students’ cultural backgrounds and cultural context for mathematics can ultimately help teachers and school psychologists to design, implement and evaluate strategies such as culturally relevant teaching examples to meet the specific learning needs of CLD students. Based on the findings of the literature review discussed in the theoretical and research basis section of the chapter, school psychologists are encouraged to address the mathematics learning needs of CLD students by considering cultural adaptations and intervention effectiveness, selecting appropriate interventions for target students, assessing the language of mathematics, and exploring the mathematics learning of CLD students within a cultural context. Recommendations for future training and research are provided in the next section.

Implications for Research and Training Mathematics interventions effective for CLD students involve infusing cultural artifacts into instructional methods and using interventions that have been shown to be effective for CLD students. School psychologists should be trained to improve their understanding of the two main ingredients of culturally responsive mathematics instruction—cultural responsiveness and evidence-based instruction—so that they can consider them in evaluating classroom instruction and consulting with teachers. In addition, school psychology training programs should consider developing preservice and in-service training in the areas of evidence-based mathematics interventions for all students and for CLD students in particular. School psychologists should be trained on assessment methods and procedures that can be used along with culturally responsive mathematics instruction. For example, since culturally responsive mathematics instruction involves various forms of scaffolding to maximize students’ learning experiences, assessment methods used during culturally responsive instruction should be sensitive to changes in mathematics performance due to scaffolding. Dynamic assessment is an assessment model that can be aligned with culturally responsive mathematics instruction. Dynamic assessment can be used, for example, to determine if instructional scaffolding is associated with the changes in student performance because it is an assessment method that focuses on establishing how students respond to various

Math Interventions for CLD Students   151

instructional supports provided during the assessment session while also intervening in order to establish what strategies lead to learning (Orosco, 2014a). Dynamic assessment procedures were used in seven research studies included in this review to assess the effectiveness of mathematics intervention for CLD students, indicating its utility for various areas of mathematics assessments (e.g., Kong & Orosco, 2015; Orosco, 2013). Curriculum-Based Assessment (CBA) is also important in working with CLD students. CBA is a direct assessment of student performance on academic skills that the student is mastering. CBA helps school psychologists to identify CLD students’ difficulties in the mathematics curriculum, set a goal for instruction or treatment, and evaluate the students’ progress in the curriculum (Cohen & Spenciner, 2007). Research in the area of culturally responsive mathematics interventions is clearly needed for CLD students. Future research should be conducted to explore effective mathematics interventions for CLD students from different subgroups, (e.g., U.S.-born or recent immigrants whose primary language is English), including ELLs and ethnic minorities, using rigorous research design and methods. For example, researchers can explore the effects of a language support or scaffolding mathematics intervention for ELLs according to the degree of English language use at home. In addition, there is a need for conducting more research to explore effective mathematics interventions of mathematics skills in a wider range for CLD students. Research with ELLs has been conducted mainly on word problem-solving while studies with fluent English CLD students have focused on basic math skills such as number and operations and geometry. Future research may be conducted with ELLs on geometry, algebra, or probability, which academic language plays an important role in learning and mastery.

Resources Discussion Questions 1. How would you define culturally responsive mathematics instruction for culturally and linguistically diverse learners? 2. Mrs. Rodriguez, a fifth-grade Spanish bilingual teacher, has infused her understanding of Latino culture into her mathematics core instruction for Latino students who recently immigrated to the U.S. It has been effective for some areas of mathematics but not for word problem-solving skills. As an instructional consultant, what questions can you ask Mrs. Rodriguez about the academic language being used in the classroom to teach mathematics?

152   Kim

3. Mrs. Jones is looking for evidence-based mathematics instruction she can possibly use to teach subtraction skills to her third-grade class, primarily African American and non-ELL Hispanic students. What would you recommend to her based on the review of the literature in this chapter?

Professional Organizations American Educational Research Association, Disability Studies in Education Council for Exceptional Children, Division for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Exceptional Learners (DDEL) Center on Instruction Digital Directions International

References Abedi, J. (2004). The No Child Left Behind Act and English language learners: Assessment and accountability issues. Educational Researcher, 3, 4–14. Adamson, K., Maerten-Rivera, J., Secada,W., & Lee, O. (2011). Measurement instruction in the context of scientific investigations with diverse student populations. School Science and Mathematics, 111, 288–299. Aud, S., Wilkinson-Flicker, S., Kristapovich, P., Rathbun, A., Wang, X., and Zhang, J. (2013). The condition of education 2013 (NCES 2013-037). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC. Retrieved from , retrieved October 12, 2016. Banerjee, B. (2011). The effects of using diagramming as a representational technique on high school students’ achievement in solving math word problems. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 71(11-A), 3949. Bernardo, A. B. I., & Calleja M. O. (2005). The effects of stating problems in bilingual students’ first and second languages on solving mathematical word problems. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 166, 117–128. Browder, D. M., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Harris, A. A., & Wakeman, S. Y. (2008). A meta-analysis on teaching mathematics to students with significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children, 74, 407–432. Cardona, C. M. (2002). Adapting instruction to address individual and group educational needs in math. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 2. doi:10.1111/j.1471-3802. 2002.00160. Cartledge, G., & Kourea, L. (2008). Culturally responsive classrooms for culturally diverse students with and at risk for disabilities. Exceptional Children, 74, 351–371. Catrambone, R., & Holyoak, K. J. (1989). Overcoming contextual limitations on problemsolving transfer. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 15, 1147–1156.

Math Interventions for CLD Students   153

Chen, X., & Li,Y. (2008). Language proficiency and mathematics learning. School Science and Mathematics, 108, 90–93. Clements, D. H. (1999). Subitizing: What is it? Why teach it? Teaching Children Mathematics, March, 400–405. Cohen, L. G., & Spenciner, L. J. (2007). Assessment of children & youth with special needs (4th ed) (p. 171). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSSM). (2010). Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers. Dillihunt, M. L., & Tyler, K. M. (2006). Examining the effects of multiple intelligence instruction on math performance. Journal of Urban Learning, Teaching, and Research, 2, 131–150. Finnan-Jones, R. (2007). The impact of visual art instruction on the mathematics achievement of English Language Learners (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Thesis (Accession Number [3279552]). Flores, M. M. (2010). Using the Concrete-Representational-Abstract sequence to teach subtraction with regrouping to students at risk for failure. Remedial & Special Education, 31, 195–207. Flores, M. M., & Kaylor, M. (2007). The effects of a direct instruction program on the fraction performance of middle school students at-risk for failure in mathematics. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 34, 84–94. Freeman, B. (2012). Using digital technologies to redress inequities for English Language Learners in the English speaking mathematics classroom. Computer & Education, 59, 50–62. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Karns, K. (2001). Enhancing kindergarteners’ mathematical development: Effects of peer-assisted learning strategies. The Elementary School Journal, 101, 496–510. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D.,Yazdian, L., & Powell, S. R. (2002). Enhancing first-grade children’s mathematical development with peer-assisted learning strategies. School Psychology Review, 31, 569–583. Garcia, E. P. (2004). Using manipulatives and visual cues with explicit vocabulary enrichment for mathematics instruction with grade three and four low-achievers in bilingual classrooms (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Texas A&M University, College Station, TX. Gardner, R., Cartledge, G., Seidl, B.,Woolsey, L., Schley G., & Utley, C.  A. (2001). Mt. Olivet after-school program: Peer-mediated interventions for at-risk students. Remedial & Special Education, 22, 22–33. Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53, 106–116. Genter, D., & Holyoak, K. J. (1997). Reasoning and learning by analogy. American Psychologist, 52, 32–34. Gersten, R., Chard, D.  J.,  Jayanthi, M., Baker, S. K., Morphy, P., & Flojo, J. (2009). Mathematics instruction for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of instructional components. Review of Educational Research, 79, 1202–1242. Hall,T., & Stegila, A. (2003). Peer mediated instruction and intervention.Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum. Retrieved from , retrieved February 13, 2013.

154   Kim

Herron, J. (2008). Culturally relevant word problems: The effects on second graders’ mathematics achievement (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Thesis (Accession Number [2008-99010-493]). Hindley, L. M. (2003). Reactions of LEP (Spanish) students to four methodological approaches in a 9th grade mathematics class (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Thesis. (Accession Number [3091255]). Jeltova, I., Birney, D., Fredine, N., Jarvin, L., Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2011). Making instruction and assessment responsive to diverse students’ progress: Groupadministered dynamic assessment in teaching mathematics. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44, 381–395. Kena, G., Musu-Gillette, L., Robinson, J., Wang, X., Rathbun, A., Zhang, J., WilkinsonFlicker, S., Barmer, A., and Dunlop Velez, E. (2015). The Condition of Education 2015 (NCES 2015-144). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC. Retrieved from , May 1, 2016. Kim, S. (2016). Mathematics instruction effective for students from culturally, linguistically diverse backgrounds: A research synthesis. Manuscript in preparation. Kim, S., Wang, P., & Michaels, C. A. (2015). Using explicit C-R-A instruction to teach fraction word problem-solving to low-performing Asian English language learners. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 31, 253–278. Kisker, E. E., Lipka, J., Adams, B. L., Richard, A., Andrew-Ihrke, D., Yanez, E. E., & Millard, A. (2012). The potential of a culturally based supplemental mathematics curriculum to improve the mathematics performance of Alaska Native and other students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 43, 75–113. Kong, J., & Orosco, M. J. (2015). Word-problem-solving strategy for minority students at risk for math difficulties. Learning Disability Quarterly. doi:10.1177/0731948715607347. Laborde, C., Conroy, J., De Corte, E., Lee, L., & Pimm, D. (1990). Language and mathematics. In P. Nesher & J. Kilpatrick (Eds.), Mathematics and cognition: A research synthesis by the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 53–69). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Lopez, O. S. (2010). The digital learning classroom: Improving English Language Learners’ academic success in mathematics and reading using interactive whiteboard technology. Computers & Education, 54, 901–915. McAllister, G., & Irvine, J. J. (2000). Cultural competency and multicultural teacher education. Review of Educational Research, 70, 3–24. Mercer, C. D., & Miller, S. P. (1991–1994). The strategic math series. Lawrence, KS: Edge Enterprise. Meyer, M. R. (2001). Representation in realistic mathematics education. In A. A. Cuoco & F. R. Curcio (Eds.), The roles of representation in school mathematics: 2001 NCTM yearbook (pp. 24–34). Reston,VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Moran, A. S., Swanson, H. L., Gerber, M., & Fung, W. (2014). The effects of paraphrasing interventions on problem-solving accuracy for children at risk for math disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 29, 97–105. Moschkovich, J. (2012, January 13–14). Mathematics, the common core, and language: Recommendations for mathematics education for ELs aligned with the common core. Paper presented at the “Understanding Language” conference: Language and Literacy Issues in the

Math Interventions for CLD Students   155

Common Core State Standards and Next Generation Science Standards, San Jose, CA: Stanford University. Moses-Snipes, P. R. (2005). The effects of African Culture on African American students’ achievement on selected geometry topics in the elementary mathematics classroom. The Negro Educational Review, 56, 147–166. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston,VA: Author. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107–110, § 115, Stat. 1425 (2002). Obiakor, F. E., Utley, C. A., Smith, R., & Harris-Obiakor. P. (2002). The comprehensive support model for culturally diverse exceptional learners: Intervention in an age of change. Intervention in School and Clinic, 38, 14–27. Orosco, M. J. (2013). The development of a math strategy in Spanish for Latino English Language Learners at risk for math disabilities. International Journal for Research in Learning Disabilities, 1, 86–108. Orosco, M. J. (2014a). Word problem strategy for Latino English language learners at risk for math disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 37, 45–53. Orosco, M. J. (2014b). A math intervention for third grade Latino English language learners at risk for mathematics disabilities. Exceptionality, 22, 215–225. Orosco, M. J., Swanson, H. L., O’Connor, R. E., & Lussier, C. M. (2013). The effects of dynamic strategic math on English Language Learners’ word problem solving. The Journal of Special Education, 47, 96–107. Pratt-Johnson,Y. (2006). Communicating cross-culturally: What teachers should know. The Internet TESL Journal, 7(2). Available at , retrieved April 23, 2013. Schleppegrell, M. J. (2012). Academic language in teaching and learning: Introduction to the special issue. The Elementary School Journal, 112(3), 410–418. Schleppegrell, M. J., & O’Hallaron, C. L. (2011).Teaching academic language in L2 secondary settings. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 3–18. Shumate, L., Campbell-Whatley, G. D., & Lo, Y. (2012). Infusing culturally responsive instruction to improve mathematics performance of Latino students with specific learning disabilities. Exceptionality, 20, 39–57. Singley, M. K., & Anderson, J. R. (1989). The transfer of cognitive skill. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Steedly, K., Dragoo, K., Arafeh, S., & Luke, S. (2008). Effective mathematics instruction. National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities: Evidence for Education, 3, 1–9. Streefland, L. (1991). Fractions in realistic mathematics education: A paradigm of developmental research. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers Group. Swanson, H. L., Lussier, C. M., & Orosco, M. J. (2015). Cognitive strategies, working memory, and growth in word problem-solving in children with math difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48, 339–358. Terry, N. P., & Irving, M. A. (2010). Cultural and linguistic diversity: Issues in education. In R. P. Colarusso, & C. M. O’Rourke, Special education for ALL teachers (5th ed., pp. 110–131). Lake Forest, CA: Kendall Hunt Publishing Co. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2014). National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1990, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2007,

156   Kim

2009, 2011, and 2013 Mathematics Assessments. Retrieved June 16, 2014, from the Main NAEP Data Explorer . Utley, C. A., Obiakor, F. E., & Bakken, J. P. (2011). Culturally responsive practices for culturally and linguistically diverse students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 9, 5–18. Wang, J., & Goldschmidt, P. (1999). Opportunity to learn, language proficiency, and immigrant status effects on mathematics achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 93, 101–111. Zollman, A. (2012).Write is right: Using graphic organizers to improve student mathematical problem solving. Investigations in Mathematics Learning, 4, 50–60.

9

Counseling Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Questioning (Lgbtqq) Youth of Color Anneliese A. Singh

There has been increasing knowledge about the experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning (LGBTQQ) adolescents in school settings (Singh & Jackson, 2012). There is less specific information, however, about the experiences of LGBTQQ youth of color (YOC), defined in this chapter as LGBTQQ youth of color in their adolescent years, or the counseling approaches that are helpful with this group. In this chapter, statistics about LGBTQQ YOC and definitions related to this group are provided. Then, theoretical and research foundations necessary for counseling practice with LGBTQQ YOC are discussed. Finally, implications for counseling practice and future training and research necessary to meet the needs of LGBTQQ YOC are described.

LGBTQQ YOC and Social Identities To provide affirmative counseling service to LGBTQQ YOC, school psychologists need to understand some basic language, including the social identities subsumed under the LGBTQQ umbrella. These identities generally fall under sexual 157

158   Singh

orientation (i.e., one’s attractions to others), although some prefer to use the term affectional orientation to decrease the emphasis on sexuality and increase the emphasis on the relationship (American Counseling Association [ACA], 2013). “Lesbian,” for instance, refers to a woman who is attracted to other women. “Gay” denotes a man who is attracted to other men. A “bisexual” identity refers to a person who is attracted to men and women.“Questioning” describes a person who is exploring their sexuality and affections. Some words to describe sexual orientation and affectional orientation—such as “queer”—are a topic of debate. Many in the LGBTQQ community, particularly youth, have reclaimed the word to reflect a politicized identity and an understanding of the fluidity of gender and sexuality (Lambda Legal, 2008). Some school psychologists may feel uncomfortable using the word “queer,” as it has historically been used as an epithet. It is important, however, for school psychologists to be able to use this word when young people use it as a salient identity descriptor. There is a rich, evolving, and creative use of language by LGBTQQ YOC for their sexual and affectional orientations. For instance, the word “stud” may be used by African American lesbian youth to describe a masculine gender presentation and gay youth of color may identify as “same gender loving.” Just as there are many identities related to sexual and affectional orientation, there are also the social constructs of sex (i.e., one’s assignment as “male,” “female,” or another sex such as intersex) and gender. These words influence sexual and affectional orientation and also denote identities. “Transgender” or “trans,” for example, may be used by a youth who does not identify with the sex (typically “male” or “female”) they were assigned at birth. Therefore, their gender identity as trans may influence their gender expression in terms of how they dress, behave, and so on. The word “transgender” has often been used as an umbrella term that generally identifies a community, similar to how the word “queer” may be used in replacement of using each of the words “gay,” “lesbian,” “bisexual,” and “questioning” to denote a community. LGBTQQ YOC may use words such as “genderqueer” to describe feelings that they have multiple genders within them that may become expressed according to the time, environment they are in, and feelings they have. A term that has been used more recently is “cisgender,” which refers to the alignment of one’s sex assigned at birth with one’s gender identity and gender expression (for example, a person assigned “male” at birth who identifies as a man in terms of his gender identity and masculine in terms of his gender expression). As complex as these identities and social constructs may seem, the most important goal school psychologists should have is to use the language, pronouns, and names that LGBTQQ YOC use to identify themselves. This is an important component of respectful practice with this group, and presents a critical opportunity for school psychologists to advocate for the same respectful treatment of these youth by their families, peer groups, and school personnel.

Counseling LGBTQQ Youth of Color   159

LGBTQQ YOC School Experiences School psychologists may feel challenged obtaining information about LGBTQQ YOC due to the silence about this group in society. Paceley and Flynn (2012) discussed this silence in relation to the 2010 media coverage of several high profile White male LGBTQQ bullying incidents which occurred with little to no attention to the bullying of LGBTQQ YOC. Although there has also been silence within the counseling scholarship on practice with LGBTQQ YOC, there is some information on their experiences in school settings. The biennial survey conducted by the Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network (GLSEN) found that over 64.5% of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students of color heard anti-LGBTQQ epithets or slurs frequently or often in their schools (Kosciw, Greytak, Palmer, & Boesen, 2013). These students also reported high incidences of hearing sexist (79.9%) and racist (53.1%) epithets frequently or often in school. Most concerning was the lack of intervention the LGBTQQ students of color reported from school faculty and staff, with less than one-fifth indicating that some action was taken. Across races and ethnicities, over 80% of the sample reported being the target of verbal bullying in school due to their sexual orientation, with Asian/Pacific Islander students indicating the lowest levels. Additionally, 55.2% of those sampled reported verbal bullying targeting their gender expression, with Multi-racial, African American and Latino amongst those reporting the highest levels. Also concerning was the levels of physical harassment and violence LGBTQQ students of color reported across racial and ethnic groups (between 5–21% with Multi-racial students reporting the highest rates) in school.These negative experiences in schools were associated with lower grade point averages and school absenteeism. Thus, to understand counseling practice with LGBTQQ YOC school psychologists must have a strong foundational knowledge regarding the intersections of race and ethnicity with gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation (Chun & Singh, 2010; Gutierrez, 2004). Integral to this is awareness and knowledge of how systems of oppression such as racism, sexism, and heterosexism intersect and create obstacles to academic and personal achievement for LGBTQQ students of color (Hunter & Mallon, 2000). For instance, when this group of students experiences these multiple oppressions, there may be an increased risk for school absenteeism and school drop out (Kosciw et al., 2013). Without school and home supports and other necessary resources, LGBTQQ YOC have an increased risk of mental health challenges and threats to their resilience (Chun & Singh, 2010; Gutierrez, 2004).

Social Justice Considerations with LGBTQQ YOC School psychologists may not effectively work with LGBTQQ YOC if they do not have a strong understanding of social justice (Martin-Baro, 1996). Social justice

160   Singh

considerations include acknowledging the various systems of privilege and oppression that influence the wellbeing of LGBTQQ YOC (Singh & Burnes, 2009). Adultism, for example, is the system of privilege and oppression where adults hold more power in decision-making and other areas than young people. Racism is the system where people of color are not granted the unearned advantages, entitlements, and resources that White people are granted. Heterosexism is a system of advantages and disadvantages where straight—that is, heterosexual people—are granted privileges that LGBTQQ people do not have (e.g., marriage rights, adoption rights, family protections, employment nondiscrimination). Transphobia, transprejudice, homophobia, and homoprejudice are also terms that help describe how heterosexism may manifest within institutions such as schools. Words like homophobia and transphobia denote an aspect of fear; therefore, many scholars prefer to use words such as homoprejudice and transprejudice to more clearly identify the system of discrimination and prejudice that is evident in heterosexism (ACA, 2010). Finally, sexism is a systemic oppression where people who identify as women or trans do not hold power in the ways that people who identify as men may have in terms of unearned advantages (Raj, 2002; Walker, 2008). There are several other oppressions LGBTQQ YOC may experience depending on other salient identities and cultural backgrounds they may hold (e.g., disability, migration status, social class, religious, and/or spiritual affiliation). For instance, in some cities LGBTQQ youth may attend LGBTQQ youth centers; however, LGBTQQ YOC may not feel as safe or at home in these settings if they are predominantly White (Singh, 2012). In addition, LGBTQQ YOC may be more subject to police and school surveillance than their White LGBTQQ peers in their school settings (GSA Network, 2010).This increased surveillance and targeting can contribute to school push-out, also termed as the school-to-prison pipeline. Therefore, the multiple identities that LGBTQQ YOC have and the multiple experiences of oppression they are subject to may lead to multiplicative stressors. The next section describes theories and research that can be used to inform school psychologists’ counseling practice with LGBTQQ YOC.

Theoretical and Research Basis There are several counseling theories that school psychologists working with LGBTQQ YOC can draw from in designing counseling practice interventions (ACA, 2000; ACA, 2013; Chun & Singh, 2010). These frameworks do not have to replace traditional theories used in school psychology, but can be used in tandem with other theoretical and research frameworks (Singh, Urbano, Haston, & McMahon, 2010). School psychologists should integrate these frameworks into their

Counseling LGBTQQ Youth of Color   161

assessment and other dimensions of their practice with LGBTQQ YOC to gain a greater understanding of the context of their lives and to increase intervention effectiveness.

Resilience and Strengths-Based Theories Resilience and strengths-based counseling approaches (Chun & Singh, 2010) can be used to understand the capacities LGBTQQ YOC have to “bounce back” from prejudice and discrimination they may face within and outside of their families. Although there are no specific counseling theories related to working with LGBTQQ YOC, school psychologists can integrate resilience and strengthsbased perspectives to develop a holistic understanding of the lives of LGBTQQ YOC. There are multiple opportunities for LGBTQQ YOC to develop resilience, strengths, and competencies in their lives that should be explored in counseling. Resilience researchers have traditionally focused on individual traits, such as hardiness (Hartling, 2004). With LGBTQQ YOC, however, school psychologists should keep in mind that their resilience may be connected to the collectivist values often held by communities of color (Hartling, 2004; Singh, 2012).

Intersectionality Theory When seeking to understand experiences of multiple identities such as the ones that LGBTQQ YOC hold, school psychologists will find intersectionality theory helpful. Intersectionality theory scholars acknowledge there are multiple identities that intersect with larger systems of privilege and oppression (Bowleg, 2008; Brah & Phoenix, 2004; Crenshaw, 2008). From this theoretical perspective, individual identities cannot be separated or understood in isolation from one another (Warner, 2008). For example, when working with a young person who is undocumented, born in Nicaragua, identifies as gay and as a boy, one should understand that each of these identities are continuously intersecting and influencing one another, impacting this young person’s mental health and wellbeing. School psychologists should keep in mind that one should seek to specifically examine the intersections of multiple identities with a purpose, as opposed to merely saying these intersections are important (Brah & Phoenix, 2004; Warner, 2008). School psychologists may use this theory to guide their counseling intake and the counseling process by intentionally exploring the intersections of LGBTQQ YOC identities related to not only presenting issues, but also throughout the course of counseling.

162   Singh

Feminist and Queer Theory Feminist Theory

Other theories that are important to understanding LGBTQQ YOC are feminism and queer theory. Empowerment feminist theory (Worell & Remer, 2003) is helpful since it articulates the connection between individual experiences of oppression and larger systems of oppression. When counseling LGBTQQ YOC, for instance, one should assess how the individual student is experiencing discrimination related to their multiple identities, as well as how discrimination is systematized in institutions (e.g., a queer Latina student who is kicked out of her home for being queer and then becomes homeless, but the shelter she goes to is not LGBTQ-affirming). Queer Theory

Queer theory is often associated with the French philosopher Foucault. There are many components of queer theory, however; the most salient for school psychologists relate to language and societal power and control (Warner, 2004). In terms of language, Foucault and others stimulated a reclaiming of words such as “queer,” as a part of asserting the powerful connection that language has to issues of social justice. Queer theory reminds school psychologists that school systems often have instituted policies articulated in language that do not always best serve LGBTQQ YOC, and school psychologists should be aware of how this restricts their wellbeing and required services. With regard to societal power and control, Foucault described how prisons work in terms of the socialization process to mold compliant minds and bodies (Warner, 2004). As institutions, schools have policies designed so that LGBTQQ YOC and the people who serve them do not question, making heteronormativity (i.e., the valuing of heterosexuals) in schools common (Singh & Jackson, 2012). During counseling, school psychologists should continuously explore the places of disempowerment and empowerment in the lives of LGBTQQ YOC.

Implications for Practice Considering the theoretical and research frameworks described, there are several salient components of ethical and culturally responsive counseling practice with LGBTQQ YOC. This section discusses: (a) self-reflection on one’s gender, sexual orientation, race, and ethnicity; (b) ethical and legal considerations for counseling LGBTQQ YOC; (c) becoming an ally to LGBTQQ YOC; and (d) the role of advocacy with LGBTQQ YOC.

Counseling LGBTQQ Youth of Color   163

Self-Reflection on One’s Gender, Sexual Orientation, Race, and Ethnicity School psychologists must carefully interrogate their own gender, sexual orientation, racial, and ethnic identities as a first step toward providing affirmative counseling to LGBTQQ YOC. A good place to begin these explorations is to ask one’s self, “How did I come to understand my gender, sexual orientation, race, and ethnicity?” This self-reflection should stimulate exploration of the reinforcements, challenges, opportunities, and other experiences that one has had in coming to understand their own identities (ACA, 2010, 2013). If one, for instance, identifies as a straight, cisgender,White woman, this person’s multiple privileges of sexual orientation and race may have provided some protections from the experience of sexism, while simultaneously masking the need to explore one’s own identities. Practitioners’ identities also shape their value systems, which in turn shape how they work with LGBTQQ YOC (ACA, 2013). A person with White privilege may not have ever had to reflect on their race and/or ethnicity, and may bring that lack of exploration into how she or he works with LGBTQQ YOC. On the other hand, a straight person of color or a cisgender gay person of color who is counseling LGBTQQ YOC may make assumptions about a student’s identities based on their own experiences with racism or heterosexism.Therefore, no matter what identities school psychologists share or do not share with the LGBTQQ YOC with whom they work, it is critical to take time to explore the stereotypes and socialization processes that the school psychologist has experienced around gender, sexual orientation, race, and ethnicity in order to identify biases and assumptions that can influence the counseling process. This self-reflection and awareness then paves the way to gaining the knowledge and skills necessary for working with a particular group, as articulated by the multicultural competencies. Such knowledge and skills are also the foundation of ethical and legal considerations embedded in working with LGBTQQ YOC.

Research-Informed Competencies and Guidelines In addition to self-reflection, school psychologists should be aware of the development of competencies when providing counseling to LGBTQQ YOC. The American Psychological Association (APA) (2012) provided guidelines for working with lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients. Further, in 2010 the ACA released training competencies for working with transgender clients, and released competencies for working with lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, questioning, intersex, and ally (LGBQQIA) clients in 2013. The benefits of these competencies and guidelines to school psychologists are several. Reading and being familiar with these documents provides

164   Singh

school psychologists with research in specific areas that is easily understood and can be translated into training and continuing education efforts within school systems. The competencies and guidelines are discussed below as they relate specifically to LGBTQQ YOC. Both sets of ACA competencies summarize the research literature with LGBTQQIA clients across the following eight domains: (1) human growth and development, (2) social and cultural foundations, (3) helping relationships, (4) group work, (5) professional orientation, (6) career and lifestyle development, (7) appraisal, and (8) research. The social and cultural foundations domain of the transgender competencies reads:“B. 8. Acknowledge how classism affects the lives of transgender people through increased rates of homelessness, restricted job opportunities and increased marginalization within the work place, and lack of federal employment protections.”This competency helps school psychologists identify and acknowledge the very real societal barriers that impact transgender youth of color. Also in the social and cultural foundations domain of the transgender competencies is an emphasis on the diversity of experiences and identities transgender people have had across the globe. Competency B. 11 urges counselors to educate themselves and others about the damaging impact of colonization and patriarchy on the traditions, rituals, and rites of passage specific to transgender people across cultures over time (e.g., Hijras of India, Mahu of Hawaii, Kathoey of Thailand,Two-Spirit of Native American/First Nations people). (ACA, 2013, Competency B. 11) This particular competency is especially important for working with transgender youth of color and their communities. Many trans youth may not be aware of the vibrant, dynamic, and culturally diverse histories of their community (Peletz, 2006; Singh, 2017). School psychologists who are educated about these histories can share these cultural backgrounds with youth, school personnel, families, and others as a method of information and empowerment. The ACA competencies for working with lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, questioning, intersex, and ally clients also are directly applicable to the lives of LGBTQQ YOC (ACA, 2013). For instance, Competency B. 4 of the social and cultural domain asserts: Be aware of the social and cultural underpinnings to mental health issues (e.g., high suicide rate of LGBQQ children and adolescents, particularly in response to anti-LGBTQIQA bullying). Also be aware of how anti-Gay bullying affects children and adolescents from all communities, not just LGBTQIQA communities). (ACA, 2013, Competency B. 4)

Counseling LGBTQQ Youth of Color   165

This particular competency reminds school psychologists that issues of racism, adultism, and heterosexism are often multiplicative in the lives of LGBTQQ YOC. For example, there are bullying policies in schools that often do not include sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression. Therefore, LGBTQQ YOC may not have many of the protections they need within the school system. At the same time, some schools operate a “zero tolerance” bullying policy. Researchers have suggested that these types of policies result in disparities between White students and students of color being expelled (American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force, 2008; Robbins, 2005). Additionally the APA (2012) Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual (LGB) Clients, which are informed by the research literature with LGBTQQ YOC, are divided into six domains: (1) attitudes towards homosexuality and bisexuality, (2) relationships and families, (3) issues of diversity, (4) economic and workplace issues, (5) education and training, and (6) research. Guideline 11 refers to culturally diverse LGBTQQ people and notes that:  “Psychologists strive to recognize the challenges related to multiple and often conflicting norms, values, and beliefs faced by lesbian, gay, and bisexual members of racial and ethnic minority groups” (p. 20).This guideline highlights the tensions that sometimes exist between the multiple identities that LGBTQQ YOC have. For example, school psychologists should be aware that LGBTQQ YOC may face conflicting messages regarding religion and spirituality and sexual orientation and/or gender identity and gender expression.

Ethical and Legal Considerations for Counseling LGBTQQ YOC Although research consistently demonstrates the challenges LGBTQQ YOC face in schools, it is also disturbing that research suggests school personnel do not consistently respond to issues of heterosexism and racism in schools (Kosciw et al., 2013). School psychologists, however, should be aware that the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) (2006) issued a position statement on LGBTQQ youth advocating for school psychologists’ active role in creating safe schools, establishing and enforcing non-discrimination policies, educating students and staff about LGBTQQ students, engaging in direct intervention with and support to LGBTQQ students who are harassed, and promoting affirmative LGBTQQ attitudes with families. Each of these roles for a school psychologist should be undertaken with the NASP Code of Ethics (2010) in mind, especially the tenets of do no harm and beneficence. A major ethical counseling issue that may arise when providing counseling to LGBTQQ YOC in schools is the question of whether one can “change” one’s

166   Singh

sexual orientation and/or gender identity and gender expression. There has been much written about this issue, and there is currently no significant evidence that conversion therapy or reparative therapy provides positive outcomes for culturally diverse LGBTQQ clients (Bieschke, Paul, & Blasko, 2007). Sometimes these efforts are called “sexual orientation change efforts” (SOCE) (APA, 2009). Regardless of the term used, school psychologists should be prepared to discuss with family members that these change efforts across the lifespan are not empirically supported and may be life-threatening (American Counseling Association, 2012; Bieschke, Paul, & Blasko, 2007). Importantly, major professional organizations such as the ACA and APA clearly articulate the benefits of LGBTQQ affirmative counseling practice. It is necessary, however, to not merely share these facts with LGBTQQ YOC and their families, but to also ensure other school personnel and LGBTQQ YOC peer groups have this information as well. Often these concerns may emerge when working with a LGBTQQ YOC whose family, and/or the youth, ascribes to a religious and/or spiritual affiliation that is anti LGBTQQ in its belief system. School psychologists, therefore, should be prepared to explore issues of religion/ spirituality, in addition to race/ethnicity, gender identity, and sexual orientation, as well as be prepared to provide religious/spiritual affiliation resources that are LGBTQQ affirming. There are multiple legal implications and resources school psychologists can draw upon to support LGBTQQ YOC. Space precludes discussing these in detail, so the reader is referred to GLSEN’s (2007) Dealing with Legal Matters Surrounding Students’ Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity.

Becoming an Ally to LGBTQQ YOC A central role for school psychologists to maintain when counseling LGBTQQ YOC is that of ally. Because of the multiple marginalizations this group faces, youth may not feel comfortable or supported in sharing some of their experiences (Paceley & Flynn, 2012). Being an ally in counseling practice translates to being able to consistently assess, explore, and collaboratively identify the specific ways that heterosexism, racism, and adultism have impacted LGBTQQ YOC lives, as well as being able to do the same with the resilience, strengths, and competencies they have developed to navigate these oppressions. Certainly, this may be the first time a LGBTQQ YOC has been asked to explore these issues, so it is important to ensure that explorations are developmentally appropriate and fit the counseling goals of the client. Being an ally also translates to refraining from assumptions that LGBTQQ YOC presenting issues are only related to their gender identity, sexual orientation, and/or race/ethnicity. School psychologists should also encourage other school personnel, family members, and peers from making similar assumptions or stereotyping.

Counseling LGBTQQ Youth of Color   167

LGBTQQ YOC may not know anyone else that “looks like” them or have similar interests or dreams. Providing strong ally-ship, therefore, also entails connecting these youth with current public and historical figures of LGBTQQ people of color, and letting them know about the dynamic and vibrant LGBTQQ people of color communities and organizations that exist. Having information about websites, books, and other media related to LGBTQQ people of color is important, and sometimes difficult to find (see Resources). Being a strong and effective ally also entails understanding that LGBTQQ YOC development around their multiple identities may or may not entail “coming out” to their family members, friends, school personnel, or others in their lives. There has been recent scholarship questioning whether the “coming out” process for LGBTQQ people is culturally responsive or whether it is a process more reflective of White communities (Miller, 2009; 2011). School psychologists, therefore, should be able to discuss these issues with complexity with LGBTQQ   YOC so they feel validated and supported. Ultimately, a strong ally to LGBTQQ   YOC reminds students that not only is there nothing “wrong” with their race/ethnicity, gender identity, and sexual orientation, but a strong ally is adamant about providing a safe space for these students to talk about their lives, hopes, and dreams.

The Role of Advocacy with LGBTQQ YOC There are two goals school psychologists should have when counseling LGBTQQ YOC. First, school psychologists should be able to advocate for this group (Singh, 2012). Second, school psychologists should be able to teach LGBTQQ youth selfadvocacy skills (Chun & Singh, 2010). To meet the first goal, school psychologists should read a school’s handbook and non-discrimination policy. If there are not enumerated protections for sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression, and race/ethnicity, this is a place to advocate for more inclusive policies. Next, an assessment of the school climate related to bullying and harassment experiences for LGBTQQ YOC is necessary. Conducting these assessments via qualitative interviews with students and school personnel may be helpful in terms of using data to advocate with administrators for policies that develop safer school environments for LGBTQQ YOC. In terms of teaching self-advocacy skills to LGBTQQ YOC, school psychologists should provide information about school policies and ethical and legal resources LGBTQQ YOC should be aware of while they are in a specific school. Showing students how to access these documents online and share them with their family and peer groups is also important. Because LGBTQQ YOC may be accessing information about their sexual orientation, gender identity, and/or race/ethnicity online, teaching students how to safely navigate the Internet and social networking

168   Singh

sites is also critical. Finally, engaging in role-plays that explore real life situations that LGBTQQ   YOC may be experiencing is a helpful way to bring alive these issues in counseling. Modeling how to respond to teachers and other school personnel, as well as peers and family members, can show LGBTQQ   YOC specifically how to advocate for themselves in these interactions.

Implications for Future Training and Research In this last section of the chapter, it is important to return to a point made earlier in the chapter: there remains an astounding silence on the lives of LGBTQQ YOC related to counseling approaches. Because of this silence, there are few counseling approaches that have been studied to provide effective counseling with LGBTQQ   YOC. Yet, school psychologists will increasingly be called to work with LGBTQQ   YOC due to the multiple marginalizations they experience. This silence has several implications for future training and research for school psychologists engaging in counseling. First, school psychologists can provide leadership in remedying this silence through engaging in research (qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method) on the experiences of LGBTQQ   YOC lives, and their experiences and needs in counseling. Second, school psychology professors and students can provide and engage in trainings that develop self-awareness about gender identity, sexual orientation, and race/ethnicity and how these identities overlap and intersect in the lives of LGBTQQ   YOC.Third, school psychologists can develop a “toolbox” that contains brochures about LGBTQQ   YOC and how to support them, as well as having a list of online resources so they may readily be able to share these resources when counseling LGBTQQ   YOC, school personnel, and family members about LGBTQQ   YOC and the ethical and legal issues related to supporting their resilience and personal and academic achievement in schools. Fourth, school psychologists should participate and maintain membership in professional organizations that support LGBTQQ   YOC in order to stay current on the research and counseling best practices in the field for affirming this group. Fifth, school psychologists should ensure they have accountability networks of supervision and consultation that they may draw upon when feeling challenged in terms of providing support to LGBTQQ   YOC and their families. Finally, through embracing an ecological perspective and advocacy stance to research and practice, school psychologists should continuously seek to reduce and ultimately end issues of racism and heterosexism in schools.

Counseling LGBTQQ Youth of Color   169

Resources Discussion Questions 1. What are the major theoretical frameworks the author discusses that are critical for school psychologists to be aware of to provide culturally responsive practice to LGBTQQ   YOC? Give an overview of each theory. 2. Describe the major components of affirmative psychological practice in schools with LGBTQQ   YOC. In discussing this question, integrate attention to the ACA competencies and APA guidelines in working with LGBTQQ   YOC. 3. Discuss the role of advocacy when working with LGBTQQ YOC. What are the challenges and opportunities to engage in advocacy with LGBTQQ   YOC in school settings?

Professional Organizations Association for LGBT Issues in Counseling (ACA division) Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) GSA Network Society for the Psychological Study of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Issues (APA division)

Additional Readings Just the Facts about Sexual Orientation and Youth: A Primer for Principals, Educators, and School Personnel This document describes the legal and ethical obligations schools have to keep LGBTQQ people safe, as well as providing basic terminology and understandings of LGBTQQ youth. Although there is some emphasis on the lives of LGBTQQ YOC, the document is a helpful basic resource on education on common challenges this group may face. Put This on The Map: Reteaching Gender and Sexuality This DVD and series of YouTube clips was written, produced, and distributed by LGBTQQ YOC youth to affirm multiple and evolving identities for LGBTQQ YOC. .

References American Counseling Association Competencies for Counseling with Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Queer, Questioning, Intersex, and Ally Individuals. (2013). Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 7(22), 2–43. doi:10.1080/15538605.2013.755444.

170   Singh

American Counseling Association Competencies for Counseling with Transgender Clients. (2010). Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 4(3), 135–159. doi:10.1080/15538605. 2010.524839. American Psychological Association. (2009). Report of the American Psychological Association Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. American Psychological Association. (2012). Guidelines for psychological practice with lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients. American Psychologist, 67(1), 10–42. American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force. (2008). Are zero tolerance policies effective in the schools? An evidentiary review and recommendations. American Psychologist, 63(9), 852–862. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.63.9.852. Bieschke, K. J., Paul, P., & Blasko, K. A. (2007). Review of empirical research focused on the experience of lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients in counseling and psychotherapy. In K. J. Bieschke, R. M. Perez, & K. A. DeBord (Eds.), Handbook of counseling and psychotherapy with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender clients (2nd ed., pp. 293–315). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Bowleg, L. (2008). When Black + lesbian + woman ≠ Black lesbian woman: The methodological challenges of qualitative and quantitative intersectionality research. Sex Roles, 59, 312–25. doi:2008-11948-00210.1007/s11199-008-9400-z. Brah, A., & Phoenix, A. (2004) Ain’t I a woman? Revisiting intersectionality. Journal of International Women’s Studies, 5(3), 75–86. Chun, K. Y. S., & Singh, A. A. (2010). The Bisexual Youth of Color Intersecting Identities Development Model: A contextual approach to understanding multiple marginalization experiences. Journal of Bisexuality, 10(4), 429–451. doi:10.1080/15299716.2010. 521059. Crenshaw, K. (2008). Intersectionality as a buzzword: A sociology of science perspective on what makes a feminist theory successful. Feminist Theory, 9(1), 67–85. GLSEN. (2007). Dealing with legal matters surrounding students’ sexual orientation and gender identity. Retrieved from . GSA Network. (n.d.). The school to prison pipeline and the pathways for LGBT youth. Retrieved from . Gutierrez, N. (2004). Resisting fragmentation, living whole: Four female transgender students of color speak about school. In Y. C. Padilla (Ed.), Gay and lesbian rights organizing: Community-based strategies. Binghamton, NY: Harrington Park Press/The Haworth Press. Hartling, L. M. (2004). Fostering resilience throughout our lives: New relational possibilities. In D. Comstock (Ed.), Diversity in development: Critical contexts that shape our lives and relationships. Pacific Grove, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth Hunter, J., & Mallon, G. P. (2000). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual adolescent development: Dancing with your feet tied together. In B. Greene & G. L. Croom (Eds.), Education, research, and practice in lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered psychology: A resource manual (pp. 226–243). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kosciw, J. G., Greytak, E. A., Palmer, N. A., & Boesen, M. A. (2013). The 2013 national school climate survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth in our nation’s schools. New York, NY: GLSEN. Lambda Legal. (2008). Bending the mold: An action toolkit for transgender youth. Retrieved from . Martin-Baro, I. (1996). Writings for a liberation psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Counseling LGBTQQ Youth of Color   171

Miller, S. J. (2011).African-American lesbian identity management and identity development in the context of family and community. Journal of Homosexuality, 58(4), 547–563. doi:1 0.1080/00918369.2011.556937. Miller, S. J. (2009). Reframing the power of lesbian daughters’ relationships with mothers through Black feminist thought. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services: Issues in Practice, Policy & Research, 21(2–3), 206–218. doi:10.1080/10538720902772105. National Association of School Psychologists. (2006). NASP position statement on gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and questioning (GLBTQ) youth (formerly sexual minority youth). Retrieved from . National Association of School Psychologists. (2010). Principles for professional ethics. Retrieved from . Paceley, M. S., & Flynn, K. (2012). Media representations of bullying toward queer youth: Gender, race, and age discrepancies. Journal of LGBT Youth, 9(4), 340–356. doi:10.1080/ 19361653.2012.74187. Peletz, M. G. (2006). Transgenderism and gender pluralism in Southeast Asia since early modern times. Current Anthropology, 47, 2, 309–325. Raj, R. (2002).Toward a transpositive therapeutic model: Developing clinical sensitivity and cultural competence in the effective support of transsexual and transgendered clients. International Journal of Transgenderism, 6, 2. Robbins, C. G. (2005). Zero tolerance and the politics of racial injustice. Journal of Negro Education, 74(1), 2–17. Singh, A. A. (2012). Transgender youth of color and resilience: Negotiating oppression, finding support. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, March, 1–13. doi:10.1007/ s11199-012-0149-z. Singh,  A. A. (2017, in press). Trans liberation is for everybody: A call to the field of Psychology. American Psychologist. Singh, A. A., & Burnes,T. R. (2009). Creating developmentally-appropriate, safe counseling environments for transgender youth: The critical role of school counselors. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 3(3–4), 215–234. doi:10.1080/15538600903379457. Singh, A. A., & Jackson, K. (2012). Queer and transgender youth: Education and liberation in our schools. In T. Quinn & E. R. Meiners (Eds.), Sexualities in education: A reader. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing. Singh, A. A., Urbano, A., Haston, M., & McMahon, E. (2010). School counselors’ strategies for social justice change: A grounded theory of what works in the real world. Professional School Counseling, 13, 135–145. doi:10.5330/PSC.n.2010-13.135. Walker, M. (2008). Power and effectiveness: Envisioning an alternate paradigm. Women & Therapy, 31, (2/3/4), 129–144. doi:10.1080/02703140802146266. Warner, D. N. (2004). Towards a queer research methodology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 1, 321–337. doi:10.1191/1478088704qp021oa. Warner, L. R. (2008). A best practices guide to intersectional approaches in psychological research. Sex Roles, 59, 454–463. doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9504-5. Worell, J., & Remer, P. (2003). Feminist perspectives in therapy: Empowering diverse women (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

10

Cultural Adaptation of a School-Based Depression Prevention Program for Adolescents in Puerto Rico Emily Sáez-Santiago, Natalia Rodríguez-Hernández, Angélica Núñez-Méndez, and Guillermo Bernal

Note:  This work was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health (K23MH087735).

The population of the United States is ethnically diverse and a significant portion is of Latino/a background. According to the estimates of the U.S. Census, 17% of the population in the country identified as Hispanics or Latinos/as (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013). Hispanics or Latinos/as in the U.S. have significantly increased during the past decade and their numbers are projected to continue rising in the upcoming years.The estimate is that Latinos/as will be 28% of the total population by 2050 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013). The social and demographic profile of a population must be considered when providing mental health services for diverse ethnocultural groups in the U.S. as it is critical to take into account clients’ values and norms when delivering mental health interventions. The need for mental health providers to attend to cultural aspects when providing psychological interventions has been discussed in the 172

Cultural Adaptation of Prevention Program   173

literature for nearly three decades (Bernal & Domenech Rodríguez, 2012). Today, there is still a need for culturally-centered psychological interventions because there are a limited number of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) that are informed by culturally responsive considerations and procedures. Considering the culture and context of a particular ethnic group in a thoughtful and methodical way is imperative when implementing psychosocial interventions to provide the best interventions possible and, thus, increase their potential beneficial outcomes. The use of guidelines is helpful when providing culturally informed or adapted interventions.This chapter describes the EcologicalValidity Framework developed by Bernal and collaborators (1995, 2006) as an example of a conceptual frame to guide a cultural adaptation of EBIs. The discussion also focuses on describing how that framework was used to develop a prevention program for adolescents with depression in Puerto Rico. Implications for practice, research, and teaching are explored.

Theoretical and Research Basis Cultural adaptation refers to the “systematic modification of an evidence-based treatment or intervention protocol to consider language, culture, and context in such a way that it is compatible with the client’s cultural patterns, meanings and values” (Bernal, Jiménez-Chafey & Domenech Rodríguez, 2009, p. 361). The field of cultural adaptation highlights the use of the best available research, and considers culture and context in a thoughtful, documented, and systematic way (Bernal & Domenech Rodríguez, 2012).The growing need for cultural adaptation of EBIs is the result of the diversification of the U.S. population and the increasing demand for EBIs (La Roche & Christopher, 2008). Cultural adaptations of EBIs are necessary because, as the U.S. Surgeon General stated, culture influences manifestations of mental health, coping strategies, family and community support, willingness to seek treatment, diagnoses and service delivery (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2001). Several models, frameworks, and guidelines have been developed to conduct cultural adaptations of evidence-based psychological interventions. Domenech Rodríguez and Bernal (2012a) listed and summarized some of these models: “Multidimensional Model for Understanding Culturally Responsive Psychotherapies” (Koss-Chioino & Vargas, 1992); “Ecological Validity Framework” (Bernal, Bonilla, & Bellido, 1995; Bernal & Sáez-Santiago, 2006); “Cultural Accommodation Model” (Leong & Lee, 2006);“Cultural Sensitivity Framework” (Resnicow, Soler, Braithwaite, Ahluwalia, and Butler, 2002); “Cultural Adaptation Process Model” (DomenechRodríguez & Wielding, 2004);“Hybrid Prevention Program Model” (Castro, Barrera, & Martínez, 2004); “Selective and Directed Treatment Adaptation Framework” (Lau, 2006); “Heuristic Framework” (Barrera & Castro, 2006); “Culturally Specific

174   Sáez-Santiago et al.

Prevention” (Whitbeck, 2006);“Integrated Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approach to Adapting Psychotherapy” (Hwang, 2009); and “Adaptation for International Transport” (Kumpfer, Pinyuchon, Teixeira de Melo, & Whiteside, 2008). According to Domenech Rodríguez and Bernal (2012a), many of these frameworks share several similarities as they: (a) focus on ecological validity, (b) emphasize the need to be informed by stakeholders and research findings, (c) modify the process and content of interventions to increase engagement, acceptability and relevance, (d) focus on improved outcomes for the target population, (e) recognize the characteristics of providers as essential for intervention success, (f) use multiple and flexible methods of observation to engage in the process of cultural adaptations, and (g) address issues of fidelity and fit. Evidence is growing in support of the practice of cultural adaptations. Recent meta-analyses present evidence that culturally-adapted psychological treatments were more effective than non-adapted interventions. Smith, Domenech Rodríguez and Bernal (2011) found a medium average effect size (d = 0.46) in a meta-analysis with 65 studies that evaluated culturally-adapted interventions for Asian Americans (39%), Hispanic/Latinos (32%), African Americans (20%) and Native Americans (4%).The meta-analysis showed that the interventions had larger effect sizes (a) with participants older than 35 years of age than interventions with children, adolescents and young adults, and (b) when delivered to a specific cultural group than interventions delivered to mixed ethnocultural groups. In addition, Smith and collaborators found that interventions were more effective when more cultural elements were integrated to the adaptations. Benish, Quintana and Wampold (2011) found that culturally-adapted psychotherapies were more effective than unadapted psychotherapy (d = 0.32); they also reported that the only moderator of superior outcomes in cultural adapted interventions was the adaptation of the illness myth, which refers to the client explanatory model of illness that is influenced by culture, context, and individual experiences. Another meta-analysis that included only culturally-adapted interventions for depression and anxiety in adults (n = 9 studies) found a large effect size of 1.06 (van Loon, van Schaik, Dekker, & Beekman, 2013). Thus, the evidence from meta-analyses suggests that cultural adaptations of treatments have beneficial effects on outcomes.

Evidence-Based Interventions for Depression: The Latino/a Context Cultural adaptations of treatments have been shown to be effective for mental health issues such as depression, anxiety, ADHD, and disruptive disorders in African American and Latino youth (Miranda, Bernal, Lau, Kohn, Hwang & LaFromboise, 2005). Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) is one of the most extensively researched

Cultural Adaptation of Prevention Program   175

forms of psychotherapy, and studies suggest that it is highly effective for adolescent depression (Butler, Chapman, Forman & Beck, 2006). However, there were only two clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of CBT that included a sufficient number of Latino adolescents (i.e., Rosselló & Bernal, 1999; Rosselló, Bernal & RiveraMedina, 2008).These two clinical trials were conducted in Puerto Rico.The studies evaluated the efficacy of cognitive-behavioral therapy and interpersonal therapy for the treatment of depression in adolescents. Although both treatment modalities were successful in reducing depressive symptomatology, CBT was the most efficacious modality for the treatment of depression with a group of Puerto Rican adolescents. In comparison to treatment studies, relatively few experimental trials of prevention programs for depression in adolescents have been conducted and only one included a considerable sample size of Latinos/as (e.g., Cardemil, Reivich, & Seligman, 2002). Interestingly, a meta-analytic review for depression prevention programs for children and adolescents conducted by Stice, Shaw, Bohon, Marti, and Rohde (2009) found that prevention programs were more effective in samples with more ethnic minority participants. However, only two prevention programs targeting depression in Latino/a adolescents have been published (i.e., Cardemil, Reivich & Seligman, 2002; Cardemil, Reivich, Beevers, Seligman & James, 2007; Gómez Maquet, López Bustamante, & Jiménez Ramírez, 2010). In one of the studies, Cardemil, Reivich and Seligman implemented and evaluated a cognitive-behavioral oriented intervention as a selective intervention for low-income middle school Latinos/as living in the United States. Findings showed that participants in the prevention program reported fewer depressive symptoms, less negative cognitions, fewer hopeless thoughts, and higher self-esteem than the Latino/a children in the control group. The second study evaluated a universal cognitive-behavioral intervention in Colombia.The results of the intervention indicated that adolescents successfully modified negative thoughts (Gómez Maquet, López Bustamente, & Jiménez Ramírez, 2010). More recently, Sáez-Santiago, Rodríguez Ocasio, and Rodríguez Hernández (2013) evaluated the implementation of the Estrategias para Mantener un Ánimo Saludable (Strategies to Maintain a Healthy Mood; EMAS from its Spanish acronym) as a universal school-based prevention program for depression in adolescents in Puerto Rico. The discussion that follows describes how the Ecological Validity Framework was used in the process of adapting EMAS for adolescents with depression in Puerto Rico (Bernal, Bonilla, Bellido, 1995).

The Development and Adaptation of EMAS Considering the need for developing and implementing culturally appropriate psychosocial interventions for Latinos/as, Sáez-Santiago and collaborators (2013)

176   Sáez-Santiago et al.

developed, implemented, and tested the EMAS prevention program in Puerto Rico.The EMAS program is a cognitive-behavioral intervention aimed at reducing risk factors while strengthening the protective factors that may prevent the development of depression among adolescents. This is a manualized intervention that was adapted from the Manual de Prevención de la Depresión: Cómo Fomentar un Ánimo Saludable (Manual of Depression Prevention: How to Promote a Healthy Mood) that was developed by Rosselló and collaborators in Puerto Rico (Rosselló, Jiménez-Chafey, Sáez-Santiago, Borrero, De Jesús, & Alvárez, 2006). The current refined EMAS manual consists of 14 sessions divided into two introductory sessions, four cognitive sessions, three behavioral sessions, four interpersonal sessions, and one closing session. The first EMAS session is dedicated to the discussion of the objectives and structure of the program as well as the rules for the participation in the group. Session two is also an introductory session with the purposes of getting the group members to know each other better, and enhancing the identification and verbalization of their emotions. Session three focuses on strengthening the adolescents’ self-esteem through the self-identification of their uniqueness and assets. The fourth session promotes self-acceptance and reducing adolescents’ tendencies to compare themselves with mass media personalities, challenging the standards of beauty and the idea of perfectionism.The fifth session emphasizes the identification of positive and negative thoughts, and understanding the relationship between mood and behavior. Session six encourages the adolescents to control their thoughts and mood to increase positive thoughts and to decrease negative thoughts. Session seven aims to identify emotions and thoughts generated by challenging moments in our lives, and learning how our perceptions can impact their meaning and significance. In session eight the adolescents evaluate their repertoire of strategies to confront stressful life events and learn positive strategies to deal with stress, including relaxation techniques. The ninth session is devoted to goal setting and teaching the importance of having clear, specific, and realistic goals. The tenth session discusses the relationship between social skills and mood, highlighting communication styles and assertiveness. Session eleven emphasizes the importance of both giving and receiving support from others. Session twelve focuses on understanding family dynamics by pointing out the roles of family members and how to deal with family conflict, particularly with parents. Session thirteen provides more practice to help adolescents identify their own emotions and signs of emotions in others; common misconceptions about anger are also discussed along with effective strategies on anger management.The last session brings closure to the intervention as learned material is revisited and summarized. Currently, the program has been implemented in public middle schools as a universal prevention intervention facilitated by teachers. Schools are ideal contexts to identify and address mental health needs in youth (National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, 2009). A prevention program for depression such as

Cultural Adaptation of Prevention Program   177

EMAS could be easily integrated as part of the middle schools curricula and thus has the potential to impact a greater number of students. EMAS was implemented during school hours once a week to seventh grade students during a class period spanning approximately 50 to 60 minutes. Teachers who served as facilitators received an average of 12 hours of training before the EMAS implementation.

The Ecological Validity Framework As discussed earlier, the development, refinement and implementation of EMAS were guided by the Ecological Validity Framework developed by Bernal and collaborators (Bernal, Bonilla, & Bellido, 1995; Bernal & Sáez-Santiago, 2006; SáezSantiago, Bernal, Reyes, & Bonilla-Silva, 2012), which aims to assure the congruency between the clients’ ethnocultural and linguistic contexts with cultural elements embedded within the intervention (Domenech Rodríguez & Bernal, 2012a).This framework considers eight cultural centering elements when adapting interventions: (a) language, (b) persons, (c) metaphors, (d) content, (e) concepts, (f) goals, (g) methods, and (h) context. The “language” dimension refers to the use of the participants’ native language or the language of their preference. The language used in an intervention must be culturally appropriate and syntonic, taking into consideration differences in inner city, regional, or sub-cultural groups. Thus, when adapting an intervention from a different language, more than the mere technical translation is required. This dimension also includes non-verbal language such as mannerisms and verbal styles that describe the emotional expression on the ethnocultural group. The “persons” dimension pays attention to the client–interventionist relationship during the intervention, emphasizing the role of ethnic and racial similarities and differences between them.These issues related to cultural similarities and differences should be acknowledged and discussed throughout the intervention to avoid misunderstandings. “Metaphors” are the incorporation of symbols and concepts that are shared by a particular ethnocultural group such as dichos (sayings and idioms). Cultural symbols can also be integrated in the form of objects or ornaments in the intervention room. “Content” means that the interventionist possesses knowledge of the values, customs, and traditions shared by the ethnocultural group; thus, interventionists must have knowledge about the clients’ cultural backgrounds. “Concepts” involve evaluating the theoretical model’s constructs of the intervention to ensure that they are in consonance between culture and context. For example, the concept of assertiveness in EMAS is linked to the value of respect for others, particularly to parents, because respect for parents is a central value for Latinos/as. The “goals” of the intervention must be established in accordance with the clients’ cultural values, norms, and traditions.The “methods” dimension requires the use of procedures that

178   Sáez-Santiago et al.

are congruent with the participants’ culture.“Context” considers the clients’ broader social, economic, and political contexts. Important aspects to pay attention to when working with Latino populations in the U.S. include the history of migration, acculturative stress, the clients’ relationship with the country of origin, and the availability of social supports. As stated earlier, the Ecological Validity Framework is one of several available frameworks to guide the development or adaptation of an intervention taking into account important elements of culture and context.This framework was one of the first developed when little work was available for the development and research of culturally informed psychological treatments (Bernal, Bonilla & Bellido, 1995). Since then, the framework has guided the development and adaptation of several interventions in Puerto Rico and in the United States. The Ecological Validity Framework was also applied during the development of EMAS protocol and its implementation at public middle schools in Puerto Rico.

Implications for Practice Engaging in the adaptation of culturally responsive interventions implies that interventionists must understand the process of adaptation. Implications for the intervention adaptation are discussed within the context of the development of the EMAS. Cultural and systemic issues are addressed in the context of implementing EMAS within schools in Puerto Rico.

The Process of Cultural Adaptation: EMAS The current EMAS was the result of three manual revisions, all of them following the elements of the Ecological Validity Framework (Bernal, Bonilla & Bellido, 1995) in order to make the intervention more suitable to the public school context of Puerto Rico. The section that follows describes the content for all the manual versions and adaptations made to increase the participants’ engagement, and consequently, the intervention’s effectiveness. Examples of how each of the eight dimensions of the adaptation framework was applied to the intervention implementation process are discussed and presented in Table 10.1. First, the language of the manuals is Spanish and its implementation incorporated idioms particular to Puerto Rico, including metaphors, content, concepts, and methods congruent with Puerto Rican culture. Particular attention was given to the use of age-appropriate language in the participants’ manual to ensure understanding for all youth. Concerning the content, in addition to incorporating the literature on adolescent depression and the available prevention interventions for the population, EMAS

Cultural Adaptation of Prevention Program   179

Dimension

Description

Example of how dimension was applied in EMAS

Language

Language, idioms and words used need to be completely understood for participants Consideration of ethnic and racial similarities in the client-provider dyad Attention to the symbols and concepts shared by the cultural group of the client Knowledge about cultural values, norms, and traditions of the clients Theoretical model used to conceptualize the presenting issue should be consonant with the client’s culture

Intervention was delivered in the native language (Spanish) and using ageappropriate wording Facilitators were Puerto Rican teachers at the participants’ schools

Persons Metaphors Content Concepts

Goals Methods Context

Intervention goals should reflect the client’s specific values, customs and traditions Procedures to achieve goals should be congruent with the clients’ culture Consideration should be given to the clients’ social, economic, and political contexts

Use of the biography of some local and Latin artists in group activities and discussions Inclusion of a family cohesion and acceptance session highlighting the impact of family relationships on mood Concepts were explained in order to be congruent with Puerto Rican culture. For example, the concept of assertiveness emphasized the value of respect to others, particularly to the parents Goals were congruent with school curriculum Integration of the program to the school curriculum Intervention was delivered at the participants’ schools using resources already available at the schools

TABLE 10.1  Ecological Validity Framework Dimensions and application to EMAS Source: Sáez-Santiago, Bernal, Reyes, & Bonilla-Silva (2012).

integrated mediators and strategies that have been found to be related to lower levels of depression in Puerto Rican adolescents. Revising and incorporating scientific knowledge obtained from depression studies in Puerto Rico ensured that the content and concepts of the intervention were congruent with Latinos/as living in Puerto Rico. For example, given that two randomized clinical trials showed that culturally-adapted cognitive-behavioral therapy is efficacious when treating depression in adolescents of Puerto Rico (Rosselló & Bernal, 1999; Rosselló, Bernal & Rivera-Medina, 2008), the theoretical framework selected for the prevention program was, precisely, cognitive-behavioral theory.

Adaptations of EMAS for the School Setting The refinement of the EMAS program required several modifications in order to make its implementation feasible to public middle school context in Puerto Rico. Weissberg, Kumpfer and Seligman (2003) indicated that an effective prevention

180   Sáez-Santiago et al.

program has to involve the community where the program would be conducted. In the case of a school-based prevention program, the best way to meet this criterion was by incorporating school personnel (e.g., social workers, counselors, school psychologists, teachers, and/or directors) in all phases of the development and implementation of the intervention. Given that the public schools in Puerto Rico do not have school psychologists and the school social workers and counselors are overworked, EMAS was delivered by teachers who were trained to follow the cognitive-behavioral strategies and implement the program with their seventhgrade students. This was a significant component related to methods, which was used to adjust the intervention to the school context. An important advantage of training school personnel to implement this prevention program was that the interventionists (i.e., the teachers) were school personnel and thus could continue the program implementation. All modifications of the first revision of the manual were made by a clinical psychologist in consultation with a school expert who was a retired professor of education with ample knowledge in curriculum and the middle public schools in Puerto Rico, and the director of the academic health program of the Department of Education in Puerto Rico.These consultants did not suggest any content changes to the manual but both agreed that the manual content had an excellent fit with the middle school’s curriculum. However, critical recommendations were made with regard to making methods more feasible. The major alteration of the intervention was reducing the number of sessions in order to increase the likelihood of completing the intervention in one academic semester, which averages 20 weeks. Consistent with the school period, all sessions were approximately 50–60 minutes long. The name of the program was also changed, eliminating the reference to the prevention of depression and focusing on strategies to maintain a positive mood. This change in name eliminated any reference to pathology and focused on the promotion of mental health, which avoided possible stigmatization in schools. In addition, providing the intervention to all the students in the schools created a universal context that also helped to reduce potential problems related to labeling and stigmatization when recruiting (Essau, 2004). Universal prevention programs are helpful to adolescents by providing tools to improve cognitive, emotional, and social skills and therefore reducing the likelihood of the onset of depression (Essau, 2004). Moreover, adolescents with more highly developed skills in specific areas can serve as role models for their peers in the program (Lowry-Webster et al., 2001). Le, Muñoz, Ippen and Stoddard (2003) indicated that a universal prevention program should be used when the following conditions are present: (a) the specific problem is widespread, (b) the problem is increasing, (c) the increase appears to be related to changes in lifestyles or behavior, and (d) screening procedures fail to identify many of the individuals who eventually develop the problem. Le et al. (2003) concluded that all these conditions apply

Cultural Adaptation of Prevention Program   181

to depression; thus, universal programs should be implemented to prevent the development of depression. As a second step in the intervention adaptation process, the revised version of the manual was implemented in a small pilot study in which a health class teacher facilitated the intervention in two of her seventh-grade classrooms. The program was integrated into the curriculum of the health class in weekly sessions.The decision to integrate the EMAS program to an existing health class at school was another strategy designed to increase the program feasibility and potential sustainability, and to assure that the implementation methods were congruent with the school context, particularly with its academic curriculum. After each session Emily Sáez-Santiago, the first author of this chapter, and a research assistant (i.e., a doctoral student of clinical psychology) met with the teacher to discuss each session and make plans to consider the appropriate methods and metaphors for the next session. The teacher was asked to document specific cultural and developmental aspects after each session. This teacher gave valuable feedback that resulted in additional content modifications to the manuals as well as to the methods. The teacher suggested the addition of a workbook for the students to include only the practice exercises. This manual was kept in the classroom to facilitate in class activities. This workbook was created and later adopted by some of the teachers who implemented the intervention. After the two seventh-grade classrooms completed the EMAS program, several focus groups were conducted with 36 adolescents who participated in the program with the purpose of receiving feedback on the intervention.The feedback obtained via the focus groups showed great satisfaction with the program in general and with the specific activities (Sáez-Santiago, Rodríguez & Rodríguez, 2013). A recommendation from the focus groups was to add more dynamic activities as well as activities to promote group interaction and cohesion. Adolescents’ suggestions led to further changes to the manual incorporating different methods for more practical and active exercises, such as role-playing and guessing games. Other content modification included the addition of more culturally relevant, contemporary, and age appropriate examples to the session on negative life events.This session included examples of personalities that experienced negative life events before becoming successful and famous. More contemporary and local role models, such as Barack Obama, Colombian singer Shakira, and Puerto Rican singer Tego Calderón were added to the list of personalities. Some of the challenges of cultural adaptation included the conceptualization of culture in the design of an adapted EBI to a specific group, the cultural competence of the interventionists, and the extension of an appropriate adaptation without entirely altering an intervention. Critics point out that cultural adaptations of EBI compromise the fidelity and effectiveness of interventions (Castro, Barrera, & Martínez, 2004). Clearly the challenge is to arrive at a balance between fidelity and

182   Sáez-Santiago et al.

fit so as to not compromise fidelity and to ensure an optimal cultural fit to the target population. After all the refinements were made to the manuals, the EMAS Program was tested in a pilot study in which four schools implemented the preventive intervention and another four schools served as comparison. The pilot study had two main aims: (a) to evaluate the feasibility of delivering the EMAS program to seventh grade adolescents in public schools within the metropolitan area of San Juan in Puerto Rico, and (b) to evaluate the impact of EMAS on symptoms of depression and its mediators. Results of this study showed that the refined and adapted EMAS program was well-accepted by the adolescents (Sáez-Santiago, Rodríguez, & Rodríguez, 2013). Over 80% of the participants described the EMAS program as excellent or good, felt that their participation in the program helped them improve their mood and manage their problems more effectively, and reported that they would recommend the program to other students at school. Additionally, teachers facilitated the EMAS Program with good adherence. Overall, the teachers’ adherence to the intervention was 86% throughout all sessions. In summary, our findings suggest that the EMAS program was successfully implemented in public middle schools with teachers participating as intervention facilitators. EMAS was well accepted by students and was successfully facilitated by teachers with diverse academic backgrounds and with appropriate training at public schools in Puerto Rico. In the case of Puerto Rico, where mental health professionals are scarce in public schools, the best way to proceed was by training school teachers to deliver the intervention. However, EMAS can also be adequately facilitated by school mental health professionals such as school psychologists, social workers or school counselors. Perhaps the most relevant contribution of this work to the discipline is the development of a culturallycentered preventive intervention for adolescents living in Puerto Rico that, with some additional adjustment, could be used with other Latino populations and other ethnocultural groups. In addition, because the EMAS program was delivered as a universal intervention, it could impact a large number of adolescents in schools. The EMAS program has the potential to both promote optimum mental health in Latino students who are not at risk as well as to prevent depression in those who might be at risk. The good fidelity and fit of EMAS at public schools in Puerto Rico is surely the result of developing a culturally competent intervention guided by the Ecological Validity Framework (Bernal, Bonilla, & Bellido, 1995; Bernal & Sáez-Santiago, 2006). Although this particular framework was used to conduct a cultural adaptation or development, as mentioned earlier, there are other frameworks with similar concepts that can guide the process of making an intervention the best fit for a particular ethnocultural group. Domenech Rodríguez and Bernal (2012b), after reviewing all the models, provided the following guidelines for cultural adaptations: (a) involve

Cultural Adaptation of Prevention Program   183

the target population, (b) involve treatment providers who are knowledgeable about the target population, (c) plan the adaptation of the treatment or intervention, (d) conduct a preliminary pilot study on the acceptability and feasibility of the treatment intervention, (e) conduct reviews of the literature on issues, themes, and constructs with the barriers to treatment with the particular population, and (f) consider specific details of delivery. The EMAS adaptation follows each one of these guidelines: (a) school experts were involved during the refinement and the implementation of the intervention, (b) school teachers who knew the adolescents well were trained to facilitate the intervention, (c) the intervention was meticulously planned with the school personnel and experts, (d) a pilot study on the acceptability and feasibility of the intervention was conducted, (e) the design of the intervention included the review of existing literature on prevention of depression in adolescents, school-based interventions and training teachers to facilitate mental health interventions, and (f) specific aspects of the school context such as the lack of psychologists at schools and length of intervention were considered in the delivery. Again, these are essential elements to put into practice when engaging in cultural adaptations of interventions.

Implications for Research and Training Given the diverse, multicultural and multilingual background of students in U.S. schools, school psychologists, researchers, and educators are called to be wellinformed about different ethnocultural groups and how to conduct culturallycentered interventions, research, and training. In order to achieve that goal, school psychologists need to develop multicultural competence. Stanley Sue (1987) writes eloquently on the notion of developing cultural competence as a process of developing skills in multicultural communities. In Sue’s article, titled “In Search of Cultural Competence,” it is clear that this is not something one can actually fully attain but that it is something one is always searching for and in the process of attaining. According to Sue, cultural competence entails three essential elements: scientific mindedness, dynamic sizing, and cultural specific elements that include knowledge and skills. The first component is a hypothesis-testing approach that school psychologists should use to collect information about the students they work with in school settings via needs assessment or systemic evaluation practices. The second component, dynamic sizing, is a process whereby we can generate questions to avoid stereotyping and attempt to understand if cultural processes are relevant. The issue here is to determine if a cultural element may be operating in relationship to the student or in the student–teacher interactions. This is a process that requires flexibility and entails checking against stereotypes. As Sue writes: “. . .the ability to dynamically size—to appropriately categorize experience—is

184   Sáez-Santiago et al.

important” (p. 446). The third component is the expertise or skills that school psychologists have regarding culturally specific groups. This means knowledge of a cultural content that is constantly changing and skills in working with the culturally and linguistically diverse. This is congruent with the Model for Comprehensive and Integrated School Psychological Services developed by the National Association of School Psychologists (2010). The eighth domain of the NASP model indicates that school psychologists should have knowledge of individual differences, including factors related to culture and context as well as knowledge in “evidence-based strategies to enhance services and address potential influences related to diversity service delivery” (p. 5). The Guidelines on Multicultural Education, Training, Research, Practice and Organizational Change for Psychologists of the American Psychological Association (APA, 2003) presents six guidelines to achieve the required cultural competency. One of these focuses on education and states that: “As educators, psychologists are encouraged to employ the constructs of multiculturalism and diversity in psychological education” (p. 386). This guideline requires that the actual education process in psychology integrates a cultural-centered approach in which students, as future clinicians, are exposed to unbiased classroom environments. Educators, such as a school psychology faculty, must serve as role models for their students or future culturally competent professionals. Cultural considerations must be present in all undergraduate and graduate psychology courses and not only in those courses that focus on multiculturalism and diversity. In general, training programs in psychology have to prepare culturally competent practitioners and capable professionals for adapting evidence-based interventions for particular ethnocultural groups. Regarding research, there are some EBIs for diverse ethnocultural groups but they are not enough. There is still a need for more participation of diverse ethnocultural groups in intervention research. The demographic profile of the U.S. population is not represented in clinical trials of psychological interventions. It is imperative to include diverse ethnocultural groups in clinical research. In order to achieve that goal of including a larger sample of diverse groups, researchers need to implement and evaluate strategies to overcome barriers to recruit and engage minority ethnic groups in research. For example, some Latino/a immigrants may prefer to participate in interventions delivered in Spanish and to respond to assessment protocols in their native language. The same is applicable to other ethnocultural groups in the U.S. from non-English-speaking countries.The implementation of culturally adapted interventions will certainly reduce those obstacles and increase the acceptability of the interventions and, as consequence, their effectiveness. Although there are some meta-analyses showing that culturally adapted interventions have better effect sizes that the non-adapted interventions, there is still a

Cultural Adaptation of Prevention Program   185

lack of studies on mediators of change. A current challenge for cultural adaptation research is to evaluate why change occurs, how it happens, and under what conditions (Bernal & Sáez-Santiago, 2006). In other words, it is necessary to examine what factors play a part, and how those factors contribute to positive outcomes after participation, in culturally adapted interventions. As Domenech Rodríguez and Bernal (2012b) stated: “the future of cultural adaptations may well be determined by studies that examine how culture intersects with each of these sets of factors [referring to common factors of change]” (p. 278).

Conclusion As Roosa, Dumka, Gonzales, and Knight (2002) point out, psychosocial interventions cannot rely on a “one size fits all” approach.Thus, the implementation of EBIs requires making relevant modifications to adjust interventions to specific cultural groups and contexts. This chapter described how to use one of the available frameworks to conduct cultural adaptations. The EMAS program illustrated how to culturally develop and adapt an intervention following essential research steps for developing, implementing, and testing a culturally competent preventive intervention for depression in adolescents within school settings. As stated earlier, EMAS could be adjusted and implemented with other Latinos/as and other ethnocultural groups but, in addition, this work can be used as a guide for the development or adaptation of other school-based mental health interventions.

Resources Discussion Questions 1. Why are cultural adaptations of psychosocial interventions needed in the U.S.? 2. What are some challenges when adapting treatment and preventive programs to address cultural differences? 3. What are essential elements when conducting cultural adaptations?

Additional Resource Cultural Adaptation of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Puerto Rican Youth. Part of the National Registry of Evidence-based Programs and Practices of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)

186   Sáez-Santiago et al.

Additional Readings Bernal, G. & Sáez-Santiago, E. (2006). Culturally centered psychosocial interventions. Journal of Community Psychology, 34, 121–131. doi:10.1002/jcop.20096. The authors discuss the Ecological Validity Framework (Bernal, Bonilla & Bellido, 1995), which has been shown effective to conduct appropriate psychosocial interventions with Latinos/as, and can be implemented with other ethnocultural groups. This article discusses the eight elements: language, people, metaphors, content, concepts, goals, methods, and context and presents important considerations when adapting a psychological intervention.The authors conclude that it is necessary to consider the culture and context of ethnic minorities in interventions, a population that is growing rapidly in the United States.The Ecological Framework was used as a conceptual framework for the development and adaptation of the EMAS program to prevent depression in Puerto Rican adolescents, as described in this chapter. Sáez-Santiago, E., Bernal, G., Reyes, M., & Bonilla, K. (2012). Development and cultural adaptation of the Taller de Educación Psicológica para Padres y Madres: A psychoeducational intervention for parents of Latino adolescents with depression. In G. Bernal & M. Domenech Rodríguez (Eds.) Cultural adaptation:Tools for evidence-based practice with diverse populations (pp. 91–112). Washington, DC: APA Press. The authors describe the development, adaptation and implementation of a psychoeducational intervention for Latino parents of adolescents with depression in cognitivebehavioral individual therapy using the Ecological Validity Framework (Bernal, Bonilla & Bellido, 1995). This chapter illustrates in detail how the framework was applied considering Latino cultural values to maintain close relationships with immediate and extended family (familismo). Upon completion of the intervention, parents expressed satisfaction and reported a positive impact on reducing symptoms of adolescent depression and family interactions. The authors conclude that the intervention was sensitive to the needs and characteristics of Puerto Rican parents and some Dominicans, and can be implemented with other ethnic groups. This chapter is useful as a guideline to conduct a culturally-centered development, adaptation and testing of an intervention following different research stages (from focus groups to a randomized controlled trial).

References American Psychological Association (2003). Guidelines on multicultural education, training, research, practice and organizational change for psychologists. American Psychologist, 58, 377–402. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.58.5.377. Barrera, M. & Castro, F. G. (2006). A heuristic framework for the cultural adaptation of interventions. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 13, 311–316. doi:101111/j.1468-2850. 2006.00043.x. Benish, S. G., Quintana, S. M., & Wampold, B. E. (2011). Culturally adapted psychotherapy and the legitimacy of myth: A direct comparison meta-analyses. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58, 279–289. doi:10.1037/a0023626.

Cultural Adaptation of Prevention Program   187

Bernal, G., Bonilla, J., & Bellido, C. (1995). Ecological validity and cultural sensitivity for outcome research: Issues for the cultural adaptation and development of psychosocial treatments with Hispanics. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 23(1), 67–82. Bernal, G. & Domenech Rodríguez, M. (2012). Cultural adaptations in context: Psychotherapy as a historical account of adaptations. In G. Bernal & M. Domenech (Eds.), Cultural adaptations:Tools for evidence-based practice with diverse populations (pp. 3–22). Washington, DC: APA Press. doi:10.1037/13752-000. Bernal, G., Jiménez-Chafey, M. I., & Domenech Rodríguez, M. (2009). Cultural adaptation of treatments: A resource for considering culture in evidence-based practice. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40(4), 361. Bernal, G. & Sáez-Santiago, E. (2006). Culturally centered psychosocial interventions. Journal of Community Psychology, 34, 121–131. doi:10.1002/jcop.20096. Butler, A., Chapman, J., Forman, E. & Beck, A. N. (2006). The empirical status of cognitive behavioral therapy: A review of meta-analyses. Clinical Psychology Review, 26, 17–31. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2005.07.003. Cardemil, E., Reivich, K. & Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). The prevention of depressive symptoms in low-income minority middle school students. Prevention & Treatment, 5(8), 1–31. Cardemil, E., Reivich, K., Beevers, C., Seligman, M. E. P. & James, J. (2007).The prevention of depressive symptoms in low-income children: Two year follow-up. Behavior Research and Therapy, 45, 313–327. doi:org/10.1016/j.brat.2006.03.010. Castro, F. G., Barrera, M., & Martínez, C. R. (2004). The cultural adaptation of prevention interventions: Resolving tensions between fidelity and fit. Prevention Science, 5, 41–45. doi:10.1023/B:PREV.0000013980.12412.cd. Domenech Rodríguez, M. & Bernal, G. (2012a). Conceptual frameworks of cultural adaptation. In G. Bernal & M. Domenech Rodríguez (Eds.), Cultural adaptations:Tools for evidence-based practice with diverse populations (pp. 23–45). Washington, DC: APA Press. doi:10.1037/13752-000. Domenech Rodríguez, M. & Bernal, G. (2012b). Bridging the gap between research and practice in a multicultural world. In G. Bernal & M. Domenech Rodríguez (Eds.), Cultural adaptations: Tools for evidence-based practice with diverse populations (pp. 265–287). Washington, DC: APA Press. doi:10.1037/13752-000. Domenech Rodríguez, M., & Wielding, E. (2004). Developing culturally appropriate, evidence-based treatments for interventions with ethnic minority populations. In M. Rastogi & E. Wielding (Eds.), Voices of color: First-person accounts of ethnic minority therapists (pp. 313–333). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Essau, C. A. (2004). Primary prevention of depression. In D. J. A. Dozois & K. S. Dobson (Eds.), The prevention of anxiety and depression. Theory, research and practice (pp. 1–6). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Gómez Maquet, Y., López Bustamante, P. L., & Jiménez Ramírez, G. (2010). Efectividad del protocolo EDUPEC-Educación en la cadena Pensamiento-Emoción-Conducta en adolescentes escolarizados. [Effectiveness of the Protocol EDUPEC-Education in the Thoughts-Emotion-Behavior chain in adolescents at schools]. Revista Iberoamericana de Psicología, Ciencia y Tecnología, 3(1), 91–98. Hwang, W. C. (2009). The Formative Method for Adapting Psychotherapy (FMAP): A community-based developmental approach to culturally adapting therapy. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40, 369–377.

188   Sáez-Santiago et al.

Koss-Chioino, J. D., & Vargas, L. A. (1992). Through the cultural looking glass: A model for understanding culturally responsive psychotherapies. In L. A.Vargas & J. D. Koss-Chioino (Eds.), Working with culture (pp. 1–22). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Kumpfer, K. L, Pinyuchon, M., Teixeira de Melo, A., & Whiteside, H. O. (2008). Cultural adaptation process for international dissemination of the Strengthening Families Program. Evaluation & the Health Professions, 31, 226–239. doi:10.1177/0163278708315926. La Roche, M., & Christopher, M. S. (2008). Culture and empirically supported treatments: On the road to a collision? Culture & Psychology, 14(3), 333–356. Lau, A. S. (2006). Making the case for selective and directed cultural adaptations of evidencebased treatments: Examples from parent training. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 13(4), 295–310. Le, H., Muñoz, R. F., Ippen, C. G., & Stoddard, J. L. (2003). Treatment is not enough: We must prevent major depression in women. Prevention & Treatment, 6. doi:10.1037/ 1522-3736.6.1.610a. Leong, F. T. L. & Lee, S. (2006). A cultural accommodation model of psychotherapy: Illustrated with the case of Asian Americans. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice and Training, 43, 410–423. doi:10.1016/S0962-1849(96)80012-6. Lowry-Webster, H. M., Barrett, P. M., & Dadds, M. R. (2001). A universal prevention trial of anxiety and depressive symptomatology in childhood: Preliminary data from an Australian study. Behaviour Change, 18(1), 36–50. Miranda, J., Bernal, G., Lau, A. S., Kohn, L., Hwang, W. C., & LaFromboise, T. (2005). State of the science on psychosocial interventions for ethnic minorities. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 1, 113–142. National Association of School Psychologists. (2010). Model for Comprehensive and Integrated School Psychological Services, NASP Practice Model Overview. [Brochure]. Bethesda, MD: Author. . National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. (2009). Preventing mental, emotional, and behavioral disorders among young people: Progress and possibilities (M. E. O’Collen, T. Boat, & K. E. Warner, Eds.), Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Resnicow, K., Soler, R., Braithwaite, R. L., Ahluwalia, J. S., & Butler, J. A. (2002). Cultural sensitivity in substance use prevention: Bridging the gap between research and practice in community-based substance abuse prevention. Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 271–290. Roosa, M. W., Dumka, L. E., Gonzales, N. A., & Knight, G. P. (2002). Cultural/ethnic issues and the prevention scientist in the 21st century. Prevention & Treatment, 5(1). Rosselló, J. & Bernal, G. (1999). The efficacy of cognitive behavioral and interpersonal treatments for depressed Puerto Rican adolescents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 734–745. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.67.5.734. Rosselló, J., Bernal, G., & Rivera-Medina, C. (2008). Individual and group CBT and IPT Puerto Rican adolescent with depressive symptoms. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 14, 234–245. doi:10.1037/1099-9809.14.3.234. Rosselló, J., Jiménez-Chafey, M. I., Sáez-Santiago, E., Borrero, N., & De Jesús Alvárez, P. (2006). “Manual de Prevención de Depresión: Cómo Fomentar un Estado de Animo Saludable” [Manual of Depression Prevention: How to Promote a Healthy Mood]. (Unpublished manuscript. University of Puerto Rico, Río Piedras, Puerto Rico). Sáez-Santiago, E., Bernal, G., Reyes, M., & Bonilla-Silva, K. (2012). Development and cultural adaptation of the Taller de Educación Psicológica para Padres y Madres:

Cultural Adaptation of Prevention Program   189

A psychoeducational intervention for parents of Latino adolescents with depression. In G. Bernal & M. Domenech Rodríguez (Eds.), Cultural adaptations:Tools for evidence-based practice with diverse populations (pp. 91–112). Washington, DC: APA Press. Sáez-Santiago, E., Rodríguez Ocasio, G., & Rodríguez Hernández, N. (2013). Aceptación al programa Estrategias para Mantener un ánimo Saludable (EMAS): Un programa de prevención de la depresión para Adolescentes. [Acceptance to the Estrategias para Mantener un ánimo Saludable (EMAS) program: A depression prevention program for adolescents.] Interamerican Journal of Psychology, 47(2), 9–17. Smith, T. B., Domenech Rodríguez, M., & Bernal, G. (2011). Culture. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 67, 166–175. doi:10.1016/S0193-3973(99)80043-4. Stice, E., Shaw, H., Bohon, C., Marti, N. & Rohde, P. (2009). A meta-analytic review of depression prevention programs for children and adolescents: Factors that predict magnitude of intervention effects. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77(3), 486–503. Sue, S., & Zane, N. (1987). The role of culture and cultural techniques in psychotherapy: A critique and reformulation. American Psychologist, 42, 37–45. U.S. Census Bureau. (2013). , retrieved October 13, 2016. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2001). Mental Health: Culture, race, and ethnicity. A supplement to mental health: A report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: Author. van Loon, A., van Schaik, A., Dekker, J., & Beekman, A. (2013). Bridging the gap for ethnic minority adult outpatients with depression and anxiety disorders by culturally adapted treatments. Journal of Affective Disorders, 147(1), 9–16. Weissberg, R. P., Kumpfer, K. L., Seligman, M. E. P. (2003). Prevention that works for children and youth. American Psychologist, 58, 425–432. doi:10.1037/0003-066X. 58.6-7.425. Whitbeck, L. B. (2006). Some guiding assumptions and a theoretical model for developing culturally specific preventions with Native American people. Journal of Community Psychology, 34, 183–192. doi:10.1002/jcop.20094.

Part IV

Data-based Decision Making

11

Assessment of English Language Learners Graciela Elizalde-Utnick and Patricio A. Romero

Approximately 4.4 million students in U.S. public schools are designated as English language learners (ELLs; Kena et al., 2014). ELLs are students who are in the process of learning English as a second language, or possibly a second or third language (Klingner, Hoover, & Baca, 2008).They represent a heterogeneous group that varies greatly in terms of their English proficiency and abilities across listening, speaking, reading, and writing domains. ELLs’ acquisition of English is an arduous process that adds to the academic challenge of learning (Abedi, 2011). One of the major challenges faced in schools is that ELLs are often overrepresented in special education (Sullivan, Artiles, & Hernandez-Saca, 2015). One commonly cited reason for the inappropriate placement of ELLs in special education is that school personnel are unaware of the variables affecting their performance, such as sociocultural and linguistic factors, typical second language acquisition processes, and the limitations of many assessment instruments for this student population (Rhodes, Ochoa, & Ortiz, 2005). Another factor that is discussed as contributing to ELLs’ overrepresentation in special education has to do with the assessment process itself as assessors often fail to recognize the impact of these variables on ELLs’ learning and social-emotional development (Rhodes et al., 2005). A third equally important reason for the overrepresentation of ELLs in special education programs is the inappropriate interpretation of assessment results, subsequently leading to misclassifications and inappropriate placements in special education (Sullivan et al., 2015). This chapter focuses on the assessment of ELLs. It reviews assessment issues and considerations and provides a framework for integrating nondiscriminatory, 193

194   Elizalde-Utnick and Romero

nonbiased, and ecological approaches within the assessment process. The chapter concludes with a discussion of implications for future practice, training, and research.

Theoretical and Research Basis Three overarching and interrelated frameworks that are used in the assessment of ELLs are nondiscriminatory, nonbiased, and ecological assessment.These frameworks provide school psychologists and other assessors with methods and procedures for gathering valid results. Moreover, they ensure that the assessment process does not begin or end with the sole use of normative standardized tests. Instead, they provide school psychologists with comprehensive approaches to assess all students, including ELLs. Nondiscriminatory assessment has been referred to as an evaluative process that ensures that every individual, regardless of race or culture, is assessed in a socially just manner (Ortiz, 2014). Ortiz describes nondiscriminatory assessment as a systematic framework that includes a broad range of methods and procedures to assess students’ opportunities for learning in the context of cultural and language factors. Conducting a comprehensive nondiscriminatory evaluation requires examiners who are knowledgeable about and familiar with the examinees’ cultural backgrounds, have the prerequisite training and education in nondiscriminatory assessment, including knowledge about how culture and language differences affect test performance, and are proficient in all domains of the examinee’s language (Rhodes et al., 2005). Nondiscriminatory assessment practices also incorporate nonbiased assessment methods emphasizing that there are no assessment tools that can adequately assess individuals from all cultures or language groups, and that it is not possible to eliminate all bias from a test (Ortiz, 2014). Nonbiased assessment methods also minimize potential sources of bias.Van de Vijver and Tanzer (2004) describe three specific potential sources of bias when assessing ELLs: (a) construct bias, (b) item bias, and (c) method bias. Construct bias refers to the amount of overlap in the definition of a construct (i.e., intelligence) among different cultures. Researchers argue that the construct of intelligence in Western societies focuses mainly on reasoning, memory, and acquired knowledge, whereas other cultures have a stronger emphasis on the social aspects of intelligence (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2001). As such, a test that has been conceptualized in one culture can be biased for another cultural group. The second type of bias is item bias, which refers to poor item translations and items that are culture specific. Choosing assessment tools for ELLs involves carefully considering the constructs that specific assessment tools measure and the items reflected in those tools in the context of each individual student’s background.

Assessment of ELLs   195

Results obtained via test translations should be viewed with caution and should not be considered as valid measures of ELLs’ abilities (Lopez, 2014). The third type of bias is method bias, which has three distinct components: sample bias, instrument bias, and test administration bias. Sample bias refers to the assumption examiners can make that the students they assess are comparable to those in the standardization sample (van de Vijver & Tanzer, 2004). School psychologists need to question the validity of the tests that they administer to ELLs as those students are typically left out of standardization samples.There is also the issue of major cultural differences between ELLs and students in the standardization sample, which renders results questionable. Instrument bias is embedded in the very definition of intelligence, because assessment instruments reflect the culture, values, beliefs, and ideals of the society where the tests were developed and the people who developed them (García & Náñez, 2011). Instrument bias can result in required responses to procedures that are unfamiliar to ELLs. For instance, Western societies place a strong emphasis on individuals’ ability to articulate well, including the number and level of vocabulary words used in a given utterance. These key concepts are reflected in the various intelligence tests and theories that school psychologists utilize when conducting psychoeducational assessments emphasizing skills such as defining vocabulary words. ELLs with little or no educational background, for example, may not be familiar with the experience of being assessed and may not demonstrate adequate skills in engaging in tasks such as defining words or concepts. The third aspect of method bias refers to the administration of tests. The cultural and linguistic competencies of examiners are fundamental aspects when conducting nondiscriminatory assessments. For example, Pontón (2001) suggests that bilingual school psychologists should undergo a thorough examination of their own levels of language proficiency as high levels of proficiency are imperative to conduct evaluations in English and other languages. Presently, only New York and Illinois require school psychologists to take exams to demonstrate their language proficiency in English and the language other than English in order to be credentialed as bilingual school psychologists (Sotelo-Dynega, Geddes, Luhrs, & Teague, 2009).The potential for administration bias exists if school psychologists providing bilingual assessments do not demonstrate adequate levels of proficiency in those languages. In addition to the nondiscriminatory and nonbiased assessment frameworks, the ecological model provides a comprehensive approach to examine the ecologies within which students interact such as their families, schools, and neighborhoods. When framing an ecological assessment, this model postulates that an individual is influenced by, and functions within, the complex interplay of five nested levels: (a) microsystem; (b) mesosystem; (c) exosystem; (d) macrosystem; and (e) chronosystem (Bronfenbrenner, 1977). The microsystem includes the activities and interactions in the students’ immediate surroundings, such as family, friends, and school.

196   Elizalde-Utnick and Romero

The mesosytem refers to the relationships among the entities involved in the students’ microsystem (e.g., the parents’ interactions with teachers). The third system, the exosystem, includes the social institutions that affect children indirectly, such as the parents’ work settings and school policies.The macrosystem includes the broader cultural values, laws and governmental resources. The fifth system is the chronosystem, which includes the changes that occur during a student’s life, both personally (e.g., the birth of a sibling) and culturally (e.g., war). These levels interact with and influence each other and shape individuals’ development and adaptation. An ecological model of assessment implies that examiners collect data in order to understand how the student is influenced by each of those levels and plan interventions that examine how to manage and change ecologies impacting students’ functioning.The ecological model of assessment, along with the nondiscriminatory and nonbiased assessment models, provide the needed frameworks to guide practice as school psychologists and other evaluators face the many challenges of assessing ELLs.

Current Assessment Practices in School Psychology Current research in the field of nondiscriminatory assessment has examined the common practices of school psychologists in the process of determining eligibility for special education for ELLs.Wilkinson and colleagues (2006) reviewed assessment procedures during the pre-referral stage and found that there were insufficient amounts of information gathered pertaining to the students’ cultural, economic, and environmental backgrounds. Such a lack of information hindered the multidisciplinary team’s ability to appropriately examine whether these factors were the primary reason for the students’ low academic performance. Moreover, language proficiency assessments were not often performed to gather information about the students’ language skills. Other poor practices exhibited by the school psychologists included poor translations of tests and mismatches between the dominant languages of the students and the languages of the assessment. Figueroa and Newsome (2006) reported that the school psychologists surveyed in their study deemed that neither language nor cultural background issues played primary roles in the students’ academic difficulties, despite the fact that 68% of the students were not tested in their native languages nor was language proficiency assessed. These findings, along with the findings of Wilkinson and colleagues (2006) suggest that school psychologists sometimes engage in poor practices when evaluating ELLs, thereby increasing the likelihood of these students being inappropriately placed in special education. O’Bryon and Rogers (2010) investigated recent practices among bilingual school psychologists when evaluating ELLs. The researchers found that over 80%

Assessment of ELLs   197

of respondents reported assessing acculturation.They also reported that 58% of the bilingual school psychologists who responded to the survey completed comprehensive language proficiency evaluations by assessing the following four areas: (a) native language and English use in the ELL’s home; (b) native language and English skills in interpersonal and academic settings; (c) expressive and receptive English language skills; and (d) oral, reading, and/or writing skills in the native language and English. In their examination of how training predicted best practices when working with ELLs, O’Bryon and Rogers found that the respondents deemed continuing education as a significant predictor of their assessment of acculturation and language proficiency.

Assessment of Acculturation The acculturation process is complex for newly immigrated families, especially children and adolescents, as they experience “the dual process of cultural and psychological change that takes place as a result of contact between two or more cultural groups and their individual members” (Berry, 2005, p. 298).The process of acculturation involves a number of possible strategies, including assimilation (i.e., adapting or assimilating to the hosts’ culture), integration (i.e., integrating both the native and host culture), separation (i.e., identifying with the native culture and actively rejecting the host culture), and marginalization (i.e., demonstrating a lack of identification with native or host culture). For many ELLs, their acculturation strategies will fall along a continuum from assimilation to separation, with many preferring to integrate (i.e., for a review of the literature on acculturation strategies see Berry, 2005). The assessment of acculturation should help school psychologists to understand what acculturation strategies students are utilizing and how those strategies are helping ELLs to cope with acculturation demands in a variety of settings (e.g., interacting with peers, classroom expectations, parent and family expectations at home). Understanding the stages of acculturation is also important in the assessment process. Individuals undergo four successive stages of acculturation as they enter school and society: (a) honeymoon phase; (b) observation stage; (c) increasing participation stage; and (d) mental isolation stage (Romero & Branscome, 2014). The honeymoon phase consists of an initial awareness, even anticipation, of changes to come with the possibility of moving to a new environment or setting. During the observation stage, individuals are first exposed to the new culture; they learn about cultural encounters and situations via observations.The increasing participation stage involves beginning to interact with the host environment and being challenged by different expectations. During the mental isolation stage, individuals may begin to feel homesick, which can result in withdrawal from the host culture.

198   Elizalde-Utnick and Romero

This process of acculturation may continue in a repetitive cycle for some time without full adjustment, particularly for students whose families may move frequently, such as migrant and seasonal workers. For students and families who return to their place of origin (i.e., they move back to their native country after spending some time in the host culture) there may be an additional phase of acculturation, usually referred to as the re-entry phase. The acculturation cycle may be repeated as these students depart and re-enter their native cultures. As students move through stages of acculturation they can experience culture shock, acculturation stress, anxiety, withdrawal, distractibility, and fatigue. Assessment results that point to those stressors will guide school psychologists towards acculturation strategies that support ELLs and their families. In general, the assessment of acculturation can shed light on how students are negotiating the acculturation process, but there are several major challenges surrounding the measurement of acculturation (Romero & Branscome, 2014). Acculturation tools are mostly used for research purposes, often as indicators of acculturation in population studies, and typically only include variables related to immigration status, length of residence, and language of interview. These measures are quick and convenient, often correlating with other acculturation tools. However, because these tools do not measure critical factors that directly capture acculturative change such as attitudes, beliefs and values, the information provided may be of limited use for practicing school psychologists (Kim & Abreu, 2001). Another challenge is that many acculturation scales measure acculturation in ways that are unidimensional (Collier, Brice, & Oades-Sese, 2007). Unidimensional tools examine acculturation as a linear continuum from unacculturated to acculturated—as individuals lose aspects of their original culture, they gain more of the host culture. Typically, unidimensional instruments imply preferences for the majority culture, potentially obscuring the role of protective factors that acculturation to the native culture may afford (i.e., the continuation of social supports from members of the native culture). Bidimensional instruments consist of two separate scales that measure acculturative change in each culture. These tools include questions about a range of attitudes, beliefs and behaviors, but produce separate scores for the culture of origin and the new culture while ignoring the fact that acculturation is a fluid process that exists within a continuum (e.g., students integrate both cultures in their beliefs and values). Multidimensional instruments attempt to capture the acculturation process in more complex ways by examining multiple dimensions of acculturation and a continuum of cultural involvement (e.g., cultural involvement to marginality). While multidimensional instruments are preferred, they are typically unavailable, particularly for the assessment of children and adolescents. Recommendations regarding the assessment of acculturation are provided later in this chapter.

Assessment of ELLs   199

The following section focuses on language proficiency assessment, another important aspect of assessing ELLs.

Assessment of Language Proficiency Determining ELLs’ level of proficiency in each of the languages is at the core of the assessment process (Abedi, 2011). It is critical to understanding whether ELLs’ learning difficulties are due to a learning disability and/or a function of the second language acquisition process (Klingner et al., 2008). Administering language proficiency assessments helps school psychologists to determine the degree to which language proficiency in both the native and second languages influences test performance on cognitive and achievement measures, and if the students’ current classroom settings and instruction are appropriate given their language abilities. When assessing ELLs’ language proficiency, the method that the school psychologist selects can impact the results obtained. MacSwan and Rolstad (2006) investigated the relationship between proficiency level and type of assessment performed and found that the ELLs in their study appeared low in proficiency due to the language proficiency assessment performed. They noted that the use of standardized language proficiency measures, which assess discrete language skills (i.e., rule-governed aspects of language, such as phonemic awareness, phonics, grammar, and receptive and expressive vocabulary), underestimated the full range of skills possessed by the ELLs. In contrast, the use of more integrated approaches that analyze natural language samples was found to more accurately represent the ELLs’ language abilities (MacSwan & Rolstad, 2006). In addition to carefully selecting language proficiency assessment tools, it is important for school psychologists assessing ELLs to understand the process of second language acquisition and to gather relevant background information (Rhodes et al., 2005). Level of proficiency attained in the first language at the time that English is introduced may directly affect how easily and efficiently English will be learned (Shin, 2013). A number of other variables influence second language acquisition including sociocultural background, level of acculturation, age at the time of learning the second language, level of motivation, history of education in the first language, quality of instruction in the first and second languages, the type of and exposure to bilingual education program that the student has received, support received outside of schools, and practice opportunities with students who are proficient in the second language (Rhodes et al., 2005). In general, it takes between seven and ten years of learning English for ELLs to be able to perform cognitively demanding tasks on par with their monolingual-English peers. However, in practice, ELLs typically exit English as a Second Language (ESL) programs after three years (Shin, 2013). Such practices place ELLs at risk for failure as

200   Elizalde-Utnick and Romero

they exit ESL programs too early and prior to acquiring sufficient proficiency in English to succeed in general education classrooms, thereby increasing the risk of inappropriate special education referrals. Cummins (2000) described a quadrant model that conceptualizes the relationship between the cognitive demand of a task and the degree of contextual support available during the task. For example, a task may be cognitively demanding because it involves CALP (Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency) skills, in contrast to tasks that only require social language, which typically involve a more superficial level of language proficiency. The task may also be context-embedded (i.e., taught using context such as concrete objects) or context-reduced (i.e., taught using abstract concepts with few contextual supports). Taking into account these two dimensions (i.e., cognitive demand and contextualization), there are four resulting quadrants: (a) cognitively undemanding and context-embedded; (b) cognitively undemanding and context-reduced; (c) cognitively demanding and contextembedded; and (d) cognitively demanding and context-reduced. ELLs with a conversational level of proficiency, also known as basic interpersonal communicative skills (BICS), will have difficulty completing tasks demanding CALP, particularly if the tasks are context-reduced. The benefit of utilizing context-embedded tasks is that ELLs are able to gain meaning from the context clues and may be better able to engage in more cognitively demanding work (Cummins, 2000). When assessing ELLs, observations of how instruction is presented can be instrumental in determining how students are responding to the demands of different types of tasks. Recommendations can help teachers to adjust their instruction so that ELLs can succeed in more academically demanding tasks with contextual support. This section provides a framework for integrating nondiscriminatory, nonbiased, and ecological approaches within the assessment process. It is critical that school psychologists assess ELLs in different contexts, using a variety of assessment procedures and informants. Furthermore, a comprehensive evaluation must include level of acculturation and language proficiency as both these factors influence performance. The following section describes strategies that school psychologists can use in the assessment of ELLs.

Implications for Practice When assessing ELLs it is important to use an integrated approach to assessment that incorporates nondiscriminatory, nonbiased, and ecological frameworks in order to determine whether any presenting academic difficulties are due primarily to a language/cultural difference and/or a disability. The goal of such an approach is to gather assessment data from different sources and in different contexts regarding internal and external factors that might be contributing to the students’ learning

Assessment of ELLs   201

and academic difficulties. One strategy for such data gathering is to use Hass and Kennedy’s (2014) RIOT approach, a comprehensive assessment framework that stands for record reviews, interviews, observations, and tests. Hass and Kennedy expanded this framework in their assessment of ELLs to include Levitt and Merrell’s (2009) “rule of two,” which consists of gathering “information from a minimum of two settings, two informants, and two assessment methods” for each domain assessed (p. 166). The RIOT approach should be expanded by incorporating nondiscriminatory assessment procedures such as informal assessments, clinical trials, curriculum-based assessment (CBA), and testing of the limits.

Gathering Data using Multiple Tools ELLs are reared and schooled in complex multicultural contexts; thus, examining the learning ecology of the student plays a critical role in the assessment process (Ortiz, 2014). Ortiz suggests that, prior to data collection, it is important for the school psychologist to enter the assessment with a hypothesis that the academic difficulties are not intrinsic to the student and are likely a function of the learning ecology. Key pieces of information that should be examined via a review of educational records include the student’s health history, educational history in the U.S., and prior education in the native country if applicable, as well as the family’s socioeconomic status and educational background. In addition to a review of existing records, it is critical that the student be observed in a variety of natural contexts such as interacting with peers and educators and during instruction delivery. Graves, Gersten, and Haager (2004) developed a useful observation system focusing on observation of explicit teaching, instruction geared toward low-performing students, sheltered English techniques, interactive teaching, vocabulary development, and phonemic awareness and decoding. This system can be used as an ecological tool to observe ELLs within the context of intervention delivery in the classroom. In addition to record reviews and observations, parent, teacher and student interviews are an integral part of the initial assessment phase, as they provide firsthand information about the student’s experiences. For example, parents can provide valuable information regarding the student’s developmental milestones, behaviors at home, previous education, medical history, history of first and second language acquisition, and acculturation data. Interviewing parents is the first step in obtaining a clear picture of language usage in the home. Typically, a home language survey is the first measure administered and determines the language(s) spoken in the home (Rhodes et al., 2005). Questions should include asking what languages are spoken by the student as well as the

202   Elizalde-Utnick and Romero

communicative partners (e.g., parents, grandparents, and friends), and the contexts in which each of the languages is used. Those data will be helpful in determining the student’s language use and opportunities to interact with various partners (e.g., siblings, parents, other family members, classroom peers) in different settings (e.g., home, school, bilingual classroom vs. cafeteria) and contexts. Parents and teachers also have first-hand information on the student’s schooling history. During interviews, school psychologists should gather data about: (a) the type of programs that the student has attended (i.e., bilingual and/or ESL classes); (b) the quality of the programs; (c) the language(s) of instruction; (d) the cultural relevance of the curriculum; and (e) teaching strategies, styles, attitudes, and expectations. In general, using multiple assessment tools will facilitate gathering a variety of data from various sources that ultimately facilitates planning for intervention delivery. This process will also facilitate gathering acculturation and language proficiency data.

Gathering Acculturation Data The data obtained via interviews are critical to assessing ELLs’ level of acculturation. Interviews with students, parents, and teachers will help to gather data about acculturation strategies utilized by the student (i.e., integration, assimilation, separation, or marginalization), general demographic information about diversity within the community, parents’ roles and integration within the community, the match/ mismatch between the family’s culture and surrounding community, community attitudes toward the student’s culture and language, and opportunities and support for primary and secondary language use in the community. Rhodes et al. (2005) have outlined specific questions for school psychologists to ask parents regarding the student’s level of acculturation as it pertains to areas of social affiliation, daily living habits, communication style, cultural identity and pride, experiences with prejudice, generational status, family socialization, and cultural values. Additional acculturation data can be gathered by utilizing an acculturation instrument. Taras (2008) reviewed acculturation instruments published between 1947 and 2004 and reported psychometric properties (when available), descriptions of the areas assessed, the populations for which the instruments were developed and, in some cases, the complete instrument itself. Collier et al. (2007) outlined instruments to measure acculturation among culturally and linguistically diverse students. In addition, Romero and Branscome (2014) provided a checklist for school psychologists to ensure that all sociocognitive factors (i.e., language, education, and family) are explored when gathering information about students’ acculturation.

Assessment of ELLs   203

Gathering Language Proficiency Data An integrated approach to language proficiency assessment takes into consideration both communicative competence and the discrete aspects of language, with communicative competence being defined as the ability to use language effectively and to convey meaning within a variety of settings (MacSwan & Rolstad, 2006). The consensus of researchers is that language use is an integrated process, rather than a composite of discrete skills; therefore, best practices in language proficiency assessment entail examining language use within more integrated, contextualized, and meaningful tasks, rather than relying solely on discrete language measures (MacSwan & Rolstad, 2006). Typically, integrated approaches make use of informal assessment procedures, such as observations, interviews, questionnaires, teacher rating scales, natural or elicited language samples, work samples, and portfolios. When assessing language proficiency in each of a student’s languages, one has to assess the student’s English and native language proficiency, as well as content area strengths and weaknesses in each language. Specifically, it entails assessing oral language proficiency skills, as well as literacy skills in each of the languages. Oral language consists of receptive, expressive and pragmatic language ability while literacy includes reading and writing.The section below provides recommendations for conducting a language proficiency assessment. Observe Native and English Language Use

In addition to collecting a language history from family members, it is critical to observe a student’s language usage in a variety of contexts, including formal (e.g., classroom) and informal (e.g., playground, cafeteria) settings. The Student Oral Language Observation Matrix (SOLOM; see Resources section for website from which to download this), developed by the San Jose Unified School District (Valdez Pierce & O’Malley, 1992), can be used as a data-gathering tool regarding a student’s oral language based on observations of comprehension, fluency, vocabulary, pronunciation, and grammar. Students should also be observed in order to collect data about their use of language in social (BICS) as well as academically demanding (CALP) situations. Assess Oral Language Proficiency in Native Language and English

Oral language assessment consists of determining a student’s receptive, expressive, and pragmatic language abilities in both languages using a variety of procedures (Rhodes et al., 2005). The following set of procedures can be used, whereby ELLs (a) provide natural and elicited language samples, (b) follow simple directions, and (c) engage in a listening comprehension/story retelling task in each language. Natural language samples are obtained via conversations with the student in each

204   Elizalde-Utnick and Romero

of the languages, whereas elicited language samples are obtained by asking openended questions regarding personal information (e.g., name, age, leisure activities at home, interests, and so on). Readers are referred to Roseberry-McKibbin (2003) for strategies for collecting and analyzing natural and elicited language samples and for assessing the ability to follow directions. Elicited language samples can be collected via story retelling. The procedure consists of the examiner reading a story to ELLs and having them retell the story and answer listening comprehension questions; this procedure is conducted in each language with careful attention to using distinct stories with similar language levels. The stories should also be age-appropriate, relevant to the ELLs’ cultural background, and appealing to their interests. The story should be read once to the ELLs all the way through, showing the pictures when appropriate. If the story is too long, the examiner can first read the complete story and then divide it into two or three sections. On the second reading, at the end of each section, the ELLs are handed pictures that correspond to those sections and are then prompted to retell the story the way they had heard it. After the ELLs retell the story, the examiner should ask structured questions about the story. Assess Literacy Skills and Content Knowledge

Literacy skill assessment entails assessing both reading and writing skills in each language. Reading fluency and comprehension are closely linked. Fluency is defined as reading a text with speed and accuracy and in a manner that is smooth (Lipson & Wixson, 2012). Fluent readers are also able to group words into meaningful phrases.To assess fluency, a student is asked to read a text aloud. Lipson and Wixson describe simple procedures for evaluating a student’s fluency. Depending on the procedure used, a level of reading fluency can be determined for each language. After the student completes each passage in the reading fluency task, the student completes comprehension questions. These procedures are followed for each language. Since the language proficiency assessment has to include content-specific literacy, the student should be tested with both narrative and expository texts (both types per language), with the length of each text in each language being approximately the same (Hurley & Tinajero, 2001). Whereas narrative texts are written to tell a story, expository texts are written to provide explanations and academic content (e.g., science). The latter are generally more difficult to comprehend because they incorporate specialized and technical vocabulary. Such vocabulary may not be used outside of the classroom; therefore, exposure to that technical vocabulary is more likely to occur during school work. ELLs are at a disadvantage when reading and understanding expository texts because they may lack exposure to technical terms. Furthermore, many English words have multiple meanings, and that can lead to

Assessment of ELLs   205

confusion for ELLs. The examiner needs to compare fluency levels for narrative texts across both languages, and then do the same for the expository text to determine patterns of functioning while also considering the ELLs’ levels of language proficiency as well as background knowledge to comprehend the different text types (Lipson & Wixson, 2012). For the writing portion of the literacy assessment, students can provide an informal writing sample (e.g., letter to a family member) and a writing sample that is more academic in nature (e.g., essay based on academic work). Students should be prompted to write different letters in each of the languages. For example, students can write a letter to an aunt about school in one language and a letter about vacation to a friend in the other language. This minimizes the chances that students merely translate the content of one letter into the other language as a means of quickly completing the task. Similarly, different directives for the academic sample should be provided across the languages. School psychologists can use writing rubrics to examine the writing samples across each language in terms of content, organization, mechanics, and language use. Readers are referred to Hurley and Tinajero (2001) for examples of writing rubrics. Gather Data using Formal and Informal Procedures

While the language proficiency assessment can be conducted exclusively with informal procedures, formal instruments can be incorporated as well. However, it is critical that the formal tools selected are valid for ELLs in terms of language proficiency assessment. Furthermore, MacSwan and Rolstad (2006) caution against relying solely on normed instruments.Therefore, informal procedures must be used with careful analysis of natural and elicited language samples. Interpret Results using Culturally Responsive Practices

It is critical to understand the process of second language acquisition in order to arrive at useful and valid interpretations of the assessment data (Klingner et al., 2008). An important factor that needs to be considered is the opportunity the student has or has had to use English and/or the native language. If progress in English has been slow and there has been sufficient exposure to English, opportunities to use English, and adequate instruction in English, perhaps there are learning difficulties present. Yet, if the student has limited exposure to English or no opportunities to use English, then the slow rate of growth in English may be due to environmental factors, such as poor quality of the available instructional program. Similar issues must be considered when examining the student’s skills in the native language. Another consideration is whether the language assessment data are consistent across the assessment measures, particularly across informal and formal measures (Rhodes et al., 2005). This consistency among the measures indicates that the

206   Elizalde-Utnick and Romero

student’s performance was comparable across different tasks that measured the same constructs. The presence of inconsistencies would necessitate additional analyses, such as task and item analyses. Careful interpretation of the data is important, particularly if formal language proficiency assessment tools were used, as MacSwan and Rolstad (2006) found that such instruments tend to underestimate ELLs’ level of language ability. The relationship between oral language and reading must also be considered. When oral language skills increase, so do skills in reading fluency and comprehension (August & Shanahan, 2006). If an ELL exhibits difficulties on measures of Englishreading fluency and comprehension, it is important for the examiner to consider the student’s oral language proficiency, as the reading difficulties might be a function of limited knowledge and comprehension of English vocabulary. On the other hand, if oral language proficiency is age-appropriate and instruction is appropriate, then difficulties with reading fluency and comprehension might be a function of the student’s learning difficulties. A bilingual evaluation is important in order to determine functioning in both languages and to rule out the possibility that the difficulties are the result of learning problems. Difficulties such as learning disabilities should be evident in both languages depending on the student’s level of proficiency, and language history and exposure in each language (Paradis, 2005). Use Language Dominance Data to Guide Assessment of Cognitive and Academic Skills

ELLs can exhibit different patterns of dominance in each language domain (i.e., listening, speaking, reading, and writing), depending on usage (Shin, 2013). The dominant language is the one that (a) is the most developed, (b) is preferred when, from the point of view of both the speaker and the listener, the two languages are equally appropriate, and (c) intrudes on the phonological, lexical, or semantic system of the other language. Patterns of dominance typically reflect language history and experiences rather than a particular difficulty in the weaker language (Rhodes et al., 2005). It is possible that certain language skills have developed in different contexts; for example, a learner may be exposed to certain concepts in the first language at home but different concepts in the second language at school. Such natural learning experiences will lead to distinct patterns of dominance, and assessment data must be carefully examined to shed light on levels of dominance as well as patterns of learning in each language. School psychologists need to consider the language of instruction and ELLs’ language dominance when assessing cognitive and academic skills (Abedi, 2011). Students who have proficiency in academic content in the native language can be assessed using the native language. In contrast, ELLs who have higher levels of proficiency in English and are instructed in English would benefit from assessment

Assessment of ELLs   207

in English. Furthermore, even if the student is proficient in the native language in social situations (BICS), the student may perform better in an academic assessment in English if the student has received little or no instruction in the native language and relatively more instruction in English. The important component here is to assess the student and interpret results taking into consideration how much exposure the student has had to instruction in English, and what knowledge the student has been exposed to and has acquired. The assumption that the student lacks the background knowledge and therefore has a disability may be based on erroneous interpretations that ignore the student’s learning background and prior instructional experiences. A critical factor to consider is if the data suggest that the student needs to rely on both languages in order to respond during assessment tasks (Abedi, 2011). Such a pattern of functioning can suggest that the student may have gaps or weaknesses, and alternately strengths, in each language. As a result, the examiner would need to determine if it is critical for the student to be allowed to respond to test items in any of the student’s languages in order to gain an understanding of the breadth of knowledge and skills he or she possesses.

Gathering Cognitive Assessment Data Two fundamental issues that arise when conducting a nondiscriminatory, nonbiased, and ecological assessment of cognitive functioning are: (a) selection of the most appropriate modality for testing; and (b) determining whether the obtained test results were influenced by the individual’s cultural or linguistic difference (Ortiz, 2014). The assessment of ELLs can take the form of one or more of the following: (a) assessment in the native language; (b) bilingual assessment; (c) modified assessment; and (d) nonverbal assessment (Olvera & Gómez-Cerrillo, 2014; Ortiz, 2014). Assessment in the Native Language

Native language assessment consists of using psychometrically sound, standardized tests of intelligence in languages other than English being administered by school psychologists who demonstrate proficiency in ELLs’ native language. Olvera and Gómez-Cerrillo (2014) note that this method is most appropriate for ELLs who have had some formal instruction in the language being used for cognitive assessment. The limitation with this method is that, while it is ideal, there are few instruments available in languages other than English (Olvera & Gómez-Cerrillo, 2014). It should be noted that ELLs are typically not incorporated into the standardization process as the norms of native-language tests often sample monolingual speakers from other countries. For languages in which instruments are unavailable in the student’s native language, other procedures can be used, such as nonverbal

208   Elizalde-Utnick and Romero

assessment, informal assessment and other modified assessment strategies (e.g., testing the limits), and bilingual assessment through the use of a qualified interpreter.These alternative strategies will be discussed in subsequent sections. Bilingual Assessment

Bilingual assessment entails ELLs being assessed in both the primary and secondary languages by a qualified school psychologist who is fluent in both languages (Rhodes et al., 2005).With bilingual assessment, both the student and examiner are free to use both languages. Bilingual individuals often switch from one language to the other as the need and situation arise (Shin, 2013). A bilingual school psychologist is in the position to perform various tasks bilingually and directly observe and interpret cognitive processing behaviors. Furthermore, the examiner can assess in the native language but also probe in English if the student has deficits in both languages. Modified Assessment

Modified assessment, also known as testing the limits, consists of an approach that alters standardized procedures in order to account for cultural and linguistic differences (Olvera & Gómez-Cerrillo, 2014). This can include suspending time limits, elimination of test items, and repeating instructions. The use of an interpreter with ELLs is another form of modified assessment. Lopez (2014) cautions that “interpreters should only be used after all means have been exhausted to locate bilingual school psychologists who have the language, cultural, and assessment competencies to evaluate ELLs in their native languages . . .” (p. 113).There are many challenges to using interpreters, including the importance of having trained interpreters, the need to evaluate the validity of the results, and the act of test translation itself. The developmental level of test items may change with translation. Readers are referred to Lopez (2014) for best practices in conducting assessments via school interpreters. Informal assessment procedures, another form of modified assessment, are necessary when standardized tools are unavailable in a given language; they can also be used in conjunction with standardized testing, such as with nonverbal assessment (Olvera & Gómez-Cerrillo, 2014). Informal assessment is typically qualitative and consists of tasks that measure a variety of cognitive skills. School psychologists examine the quality of responses and error patterns without the use of normative data. Nonverbal Assessment

An alternative to conducting an evaluation using a language-based test is to utilize a nonverbal instrument. Nonverbal assessment tools reduce the amount of language that is embedded in the assessment process by heavily relying on tasks that have low

Assessment of ELLs   209

loading on language use. It should be noted that with nonverbal assessment, an inherent limitation is that it does “not predict how students will perform when they are required to manipulate language” (Liu, Ortiz,Wilkinson, Robertson, & Kushner, 2008, p. 183). However, the benefit is that the student is assessed while minimizing language use and diminishing potential language bias effects. In order to examine performance on language tasks, school psychologists can supplement standardized nonverbal assessment with informal assessment procedures that measure skills such as vocabulary knowledge and verbal comprehension.

Gathering Academic Skills Data The assessment of academic skills measures specific knowledge acquired in school. Performance in academic tasks is influenced by the content of the school curriculum, the quality of instruction, school absenteeism, motivation to learn, and test coaching (Rhodes et al., 2005). Quality of instruction is also pivotal, and recent research in the area of Response to Intervention (RtI) suggests that evidence-based interventions benefit ELLs in English and native language instruction (Klingner et al., 2008). School psychologists need to consider cultural and linguistic factors when gathering academic skills data (Abedi, 2011). ELLs may have less background information or knowledge relevant to the academic skills being assessed, especially in situations in which they have not been sufficiently exposed to curricula in U.S. schools. Assessment instruments and procedures need to be chosen that will provide examiners with information as to what the student knows in the context of their past and current exposure to instructional content. School psychologists also need to consider prior instruction in the first and/or second language, as Rhodes and colleagues note that “until a student is proficient in English, measures of achievement may really only be a crude test of English competence rather than an accurate assessment of academic growth and development” (p. 204). In addition to the language of instruction, the quality of instruction and whether or not ELLs received formal schooling in the first language are important considerations. Abedi (2011) notes that low performance on content assessments may be due to a lack of understanding of the language of the test, rather than a lack of content knowledge. Furthermore, for ELLs the main source of measurement error comes from unnecessary linguistic complexity of assessments (Abedi, 2011). In particular, linguistic features of test items such as word choice and types of sentences make a difference for ELLs as they may facilitate or obscure meaning (Klingner et al., 2008). For example, higher frequency words are more familiar to ELLs whereas less frequent words may be more difficult to comprehend. ELLs also have an easier time comprehending statements in active compared with passive voice, and affirmative

210   Elizalde-Utnick and Romero

statements are easier than sentences with negation (Klingner et al., 2008). In addition to these linguistic features that can make it difficult for ELLs to comprehend the intended meaning of a given test item, register can also affect the validity of academic achievement assessment for ELLs. Register is a variation of language determined by situation and context—in other words, there are different ways of saying the same thing depending on context (e.g., in formal settings one would say “mother,” whereas in an informal setting one might say “mom”). Since proficiency level affects how well register is understood, examiners must carefully consider if this component is impacting the student’s performance during assessment tasks that use different registers. One of the major challenges that school psychologists face is that instruments are not available in all languages other than English, and school psychologists often have to consider translating achievement tests, a process which invalidates the assessment results (see Hambleton and Li [2005] for a discussion on translation issues). Due to the validity concerns that arise when using standardized tools with ELLs, alternative procedures are recommended such as curriculum-based measurement (CBM) and curriculum-based assessment (CBA; Barrera, 2006). CBM is an evidence-based approach that involves the use of criterion-referenced measures to determine how students are progressing in key skills within a content area and is designed to function within RtI frameworks (Hosp, Hosp, Howell, & Allison, 2014). CBM assesses observable student behavior in the classroom in order to improve instruction. There are decades of research supporting the use of these assessment methods, and recent research has found that CBM is effective for identifying ELLs’ reading and writing skills (Campbell, Espin, & McMaster, 2013; Scheffel, Lefly, & Houser, 2012). CBA is an approach that makes use of mastery measures, or curriculum-based skills, and relies on classroom materials for assessment (Hosp et al., 2014). The use of CBA procedures such as informal reading inventories and task analyses in math are useful with ELLs in terms of obtaining data about their academic strengths and weaknesses (Lopez & Truesdell, 2007).

Interpreting and Reporting Assessment Data Much of the literature on the assessment of ELLs focuses on reducing bias in assessment practices. However, the outcomes of assessment are only as good as the interpretation methods used to make sense of the data for intervention purposes. Interpretation Considerations

An ecological approach to assessment requires interpreting the data that were gathered from multiple contexts and sources in a culturally responsive manner.

Assessment of ELLs   211

When looking at individual measures, school psychologists need to be mindful that a score is only an estimate of current level of functioning (Abedi, 2011). Furthermore, interpreting assessment data requires taking into consideration the influence of cultural, linguistic, and acculturation variables. Second language acquisition is influenced by a number of complex and interrelated factors, and there are many similarities between the characteristics of a learning disability and second language acquisition (Klingner et al., 2008). For example, what looks like weak auditory processing could be a function of a student struggling with auditory tasks as a result of poor proficiency in English, rather than a processing disorder. Furthermore, characteristics of second language development can seem like indicators of a disability (Klingner et al., 2008). For example, ELLs might exhibit confusion with grammatical rules. Code-switching, which consists of switching back and forth between languages, is often misinterpreted as being indicative of language confusion or a language disability; yet, it occurs typically between bilinguals because combining the languages is more meaningful to them than using just one of the languages (Shin, 2013). The list below includes questions to consider when interpreting assessment data. These questions help school psychologists determine the extent to which observed behavior and other findings might be a function of second language acquisition rather than an actual disability. If the questions that are marked with an asterisk are answered positively, then it is likely that the difficulties are due to the process of second language acquisition and not to a disability. Interpretation Questions Regarding Assessment Data

1. Does the student’s linguistic and cultural background and schooling experience influence performance on the task? * 2. Are there any second language acquisition factors that explain the student’s communicative difficulties in the native language and English? * 3. Is there evidence of language loss or weakening of first language due to the child focusing on the development of English? * 4. Is there any evidence that the difficulties the student is experiencing in the first language are due to a lack of prior education in the native country? * 5. Is there any evidence that the difficulties the student is experiencing in academic areas in either language are due to problems in the quality of instruction provided presently or in the past? * 6. Is there any evidence that the difficulties the student is experiencing in academic areas in either language are due to problems resulting from traumatic event related to immigration history? * 7. Has the student achieved CALP in the native language and English? Are skills in English sufficient to succeed academically in English-only instruction?

212   Elizalde-Utnick and Romero

8. Did performance improve with instructional assistance in the native language? 9. Are learning difficulties exhibited in both languages? If a student has a LD, the difficulties would be exhibited in both languages. *If answer is yes, the difficulties might be due to second language acquisition. The following questions, when answered affirmatively within the context of both the native language and English, can alert school psychologists to the possibility of a language impairment: In both languages, did the ELL exhibit (a) a delay in response on verbal test items? (b) difficulty following verbal directives? (c) gaps in vocabulary knowledge? (d) difficulty organizing verbal responses to open-ended questions? Other alerts include pragmatic deficits such as linguistic nonfluencies, revisions, word-finding difficulties, inappropriate responses to questions, poor topic maintenance, and asking the examiner to repeat questions (Rhodes et al., 2005). While these alerts are behaviors characteristic of ELLs with a language impairment, it is still possible that ELLs are exhibiting these behaviors as a result of second language acquisition. For example, the student’s proficiency level could be low in both languages, which could result in poor performance in both languages. It is possible that English proficiency is low because the student has not had enough time learning English or has not been exposed to concepts with sufficient time or with adequate instruction. At the same time, the native language might also demonstrate a pattern of low proficiency if the student has stopped using that language and is focusing on just English (i.e., language loss). It is evident that assessment data must be gathered using multiple reporters and tools, and in multiple settings in order to carefully examine patterns of functioning. The more consistency there is across the data, the more that a pattern will surface, making interpretation clearer. For example, gathering data that show that a student has had little or no educational exposure in his/her native country and is also in the process of acquiring English as a second language will help assessors to establish that a lack of educational exposure is impacting student performance. Furthermore, the use of clinical trials and RtI can help assessors to determine if the student is able to respond to effective and well-designed instruction, which are additional data that will be instrumental in planning for interventions. Reporting Results

The results of a bilingual psychoeducational evaluation should be presented in a culturally responsive, nondiscriminatory manner that integrates cultural and linguistic issues. The report should describe all procedures used, including the types of language samples obtained, and any alternative and informal assessment procedures utilized.The background section should include information regarding

Assessment of ELLs   213

second language acquisition and acculturation.The behavioral observations section should describe observed linguistic behaviors that would be indicative of second language acquisition and/or a language impairment. The results section should integrate the results of all the formal and informal instruments and procedures used. The presentation of the data is of critical importance to nondiscriminatory reporting. Nahari and Martines (2008) recommend writing a qualitative report due to the concerns regarding standardized testing with ELLs. Since standardized tools may be culturally loaded, scores obtained from such instruments should not be reported and data should be discussed descriptively. Readers are referred to Nahari and Martines for a full description of what each section of the report should include and for a sample of a qualitative report. While the field of school psychology is rooted in a psychometric approach that informs decision-making, in order to do justice in our assessment of ELLs, we need to be cognizant that standardized tools are not appropriate given their lack of validity for ELLs (Lopez & Bursztyn, 2013). A qualitatively written report ensures the nondiscriminatory presentation of assessment data and ensures social justice to those that matter the most: the English language learning students and their families.

Implications for Future Training and Research This chapter ends with a discussion regarding the future training for all school psychologists and how it should focus on cross-cultural competencies in nondiscriminatory, nonbiased, and ecological assessments when working with ELLs. First, Lopez and Bursztyn (2013) recommend that training programs adopt a transformative training philosophy with an emphasis on social justice that ensures the training of graduate students to provide culturally responsive services. A transformative training philosophy can be undertaken within the context of the courses provided as well as course sequence. For example, the knowledge base needed for nondiscriminatory, nonbiased, and ecological assessment should also be infused throughout the curriculum. The specific skills to conduct a nondiscriminatory, nonbiased, and ecological assessment can be either embedded in a cognitive assessment course or, preferably, be a course focused on cognitive assessments of ELLs. Given the research conducted by O’Bryon and Rogers (2010) showing that bilingual school psychologists surveyed deemed continuing education as a significant predictor of their assessment of acculturation and language proficiency, this content needs to be taught to all school psychology students. Furthermore, there needs to be increased recruitment of diverse faculty and students as this will help address the needs of culturally and linguistically diverse students, families, and schools. Moreover, a transformative training philosophy incorporating social justice enhances the school psychology candidates’ likelihood of advocating for ELLs and their families

214   Elizalde-Utnick and Romero

in their future practice. A focus on social justice allows school psychology graduate students to be agents of change within their graduate programs as well as in the communities in which they will work. In terms of research, there continues to be a need for tools to assess ELLs. For example, tools are needed to collect data in each of the ecological levels proposed by Renshaw and O’Malley (2009). Future research is needed examining the use of both informal and formal assessment tools and procedures to better understand how to conduct comprehensive, nondiscriminatory, nonbiased, ecological assessments that help school psychologists and educators to plan and implement appropriate interventions for ELLs. In conclusion, school psychologists who assess ELLs should use an integrated approach that incorporates nondiscriminatory, nonbiased, and ecological methodology. Furthermore, in order to determine whether any presenting academic difficulties are due primarily to a language/cultural difference and/or a disability, school psychologists must have the knowledge and skills required to conduct such assessments. That is the only way to make accurate, evidence-based decisions regarding these students.

Resources Discussion Questions 1. What are some challenges faced by school psychologists in conducting nondiscriminatory and nonbiased assessments? 2. What are the current practices in your district for conducting nondiscriminatory assessments? 3. What are specific informal and formal tools used when conducting a nondiscriminatory assessment?

Additional Readings Clinton, A. B. (Ed.). (2014). Assessing bilingual children in context: An integrated approach. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. This text includes chapters on neuropsychological considerations, cross-language transfer, RtI, and assessment of different domains. Renshaw,T. L., & O’Malley, M. D. (2009).Toward ecological assessment: Advancing the right science in school psychology. School Psychology: From Science to Practice, 1, 5–17. The authors discuss the ecological model of assessment and provide a list of data that should be collected.

Assessment of ELLs   215

References Abedi, J. (2011). Assessing English language learners: Critical issues. In M. del Rosario Basterra, E. Trumbull, & G. Solano-Flores (Eds.), Cultural validity in assessment: Addressing linguistic and cultural diversity (pp. 49–71). NY: Routledge. August, D., & Shanahan,T. (Eds.). (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on language-minority children and youth. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Barrera, M. (2006). Roles of definitional and assessment models in the identification of new or second language learners of English in special education. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 142–156. Berry, J. W. (2005). Acculturation: Living successfully in two cultures. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 697–712. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32, 513–530. Campbell, H., Espin, C. A., & McMaster, K. (2013).The technical adequacy of curriculumbased writing measures with English learners. Reading and Writing, 26, 431–452. Collier, C., Brice, A. E., & Oades-Sese, G. V. (2007). Assessment of acculturation. In G. B. Esquivel, N. Lopez, & S. Nahari (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural school psychology: An interdisciplinary perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Figueroa, R. A., & Newsome, P. (2006). The diagnosis of LD in English language learners: Is it nondiscriminatory? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 206. García, E. E., & Náñez, J. E. (2011). Bilingualism and cognition: Informing research, pedagogy, and policy. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Graves, A. W., Gersten, R. M., & Haager, D. (2004). Literacy instruction in multiplelanguage first-grade classrooms: Linking student outcomes to observed instructional practice. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 19(4), 262–272. Hambleton, R. K., & Li, S. (2005). Translation and adaptation issues and methods for educational and psychological tests. In C. L. Frisby and C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of multicultural school psychology (pp. 881–903). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Hass, M. R., & Kennedy, K. S. (2014). Integrated social-emotional assessment of the bilingual child. In A. B. Clinton (Ed.), Assessing bilingual children in context: An integrated approach (pp. 163–187). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. . Hosp, J. L., Hosp, M. K., Howell, K. W., & Allison, R. (2014). The ABCs of curriculum-based evaluation: A practical guide to effective decision making. NY: Guilford. Hurley, S. R., & Tinajero, J. V. (2001). Literacy assessment of second language learners. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Kena, G., Aud, S., Johnson, F., Wang, X., Zhang, J. Rathbun, A., Wilkinson-Flicker, S., & Kristapovich, P. (2014). The condition of education 2014 (NCES 2014–083). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from . Kim, B. S. K., & Abreu, J. M. (2001). Acculturation measurement: Theory, current instruments, and future directions. In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casa, L. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural counseling (2nd ed., pp. 394–424). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

216   Elizalde-Utnick and Romero

Klingner, J. K., Hoover, J. J., & Baca, L. M. (Eds.). (2008). Why do English language learners struggle with reading? Distinguishing language acquisition from learning disabilities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Levitt, V., & Merrell, K. (2009). Linking assessment to intervention for internalizing problems of children and adolescents. School Psychology Forum, 3(1), 13–26. Lipson, M.Y., & Wixson, K. K. (2012). Assessment of reading and writing difficulties: An interactive approach (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. Liu,Y., Ortiz, A. A., Wilkinson, C.Y., Robertson, P. M., & Kushner, M. I. (2008). From early childhood special education to special education resource rooms: Identification, assessment, and eligibility determinations for English language learners with readingrelated disabilities. Assessment for Effective Interventions, 33, 177–187. Lopez, E. C. (2014). Best practices in conducting assessments via school interpreters. In P. L. Harrison & A. Thomas (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology: Foundations (pp. 113–128). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists. Lopez, E. C., & Bursztyn, A. M. (2013). Future challenges and opportunities: Toward culturally responsive training in school psychology. Psychology in the Schools, 50(3), 212–228. doi:10.1002/pits.21674. Lopez, E. C., & Truesdell, L. (2007). Multicultural issues in instructional consultation for English language learning students. In G. B. Esquivel, E. C. Lopez, & S. Nahari (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural school psychology: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 71–98). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. MacSwan, J., & Rolstad, K. (2006). How language proficiency tests mislead us about ability: Implications for English language learner placement in special education. Teachers College Record, 108, 2304–2328. Nahari, S., & Martines, D. (2008). Writing psychological and educational reports for culturally and linguistically diverse students. In D. Martines, Multicultural school psychology competencies: A practical guide (pp. 249–276). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. O’Bryon, E. C., & Rogers, M. R. (2010). Bilingual school psychologists’ assessment practices with English language learners. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 1018–1034. doi:10.1002/ pits.20521. Olvera, P., & Gómez-Cerrillo, L. (2014). Integrated intellectual assessment of the bilingual student. In A. B. Clinton (Ed.), Assessing bilingual children in context: An integrated approach (pp. 109–135). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. . Ortiz, S. O. (2014). Best practices in nondiscriminatory assessment. In P. L. Harrison & A.Thomas (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology: Foundations (pp. 61–74). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists. Paradis, J. (2005). Grammatical morphology in children learning English as a second language: Implications of similarities with specific language impairment. Language, Speech, & Hearing Services in Schools, 36, 172–187. Pontón, M. O. (2001) Research and assessment issues with Hispanic populations. In M.O. Pontón and J. León-Carrión (Eds.), Neuropsychology and the Hispanic patient: A clinical handbook (pp. 39–58). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Renshaw,T. L., & O’Malley, M. D. (2009).Toward ecological assessment: Advancing the right science in school psychology. School psychology: From science to practice, 1, 5–17. Rhodes, R. L., Ochoa, S. H., & Ortiz, S. O. (2005). Assessing culturally and linguistically diverse students: A practical guide. NY: Guilford.

Assessment of ELLs   217

Romero, P. A., & Branscome, J. (2014). Acculturation and sociocognitive factors. In A. B. Clinton (Ed.), Assessing bilingual children in context: An integrated approach (pp. 191–214). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. . Roseberry-McKibbin, C. (2003). Assessment of bilingual learners: Language difference or disorder? Rockville, MD: American Speech–Language–Hearing Association. Scheffel, D., Lefly, D., & Houser, J. (2012). The predictive utility of DIBELS reading assessment for reading comprehension among third grade English language learners and English speaking children. Reading Improvement, 49, 75–92. Shin, S. J. (2013). Bilingualism in schools and society: Language, identity, and policy. New York, NY: Routledge. Sotelo-Dynega, M., Geddes, L., Luhrs, A., & Teague, J. (2009). “What is a bilingual school psychologist? A national survey of the credentialing bodies of school psychologists.” Poster presented at the 2009 convention of the National Association of School Psychologists. Boston, MA. Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2001). Ability testing across cultures. In L. A. Suzuki, J. G. Ponterotto, & P. J. Meller (Eds.). Handbook of multicultural assessment: Clinical, psychological, and educational applications (pp. 335–358). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Sullivan, A. L., Artiles, A. J., & Hernandez-Saca, D. (2015). Addressing special education inequity through systemic change: Contributions of ecologically based organizational consultation. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 25(2–3), 129–147. Taras, V. (2008). Instruments for measuring acculturation [PDF document]. Retrieved from . Valdez Pierce, L., & O’Malley, J. M. (Spring 1992). Performance and portfolio assessment for language minority students. NCBE Program Information Guide Series, 9, 1–38. Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Tanzer, N. K. (2004). Bias and equivalence in cross-cultural assessment: An overview. European Review of Applied Psychology, 54,119–135. doi:10.1016/ j.erap.2003.12.004. Wilkinson, C.Y., Ortiz, A., Robertson, P. M., & Kushner, M. I. (2006). English language learners with reading related LD: Linking data from multiple sources to make eligibility determinations. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 129–141.

12

Social, Emotional, and Behavioral Assessment with Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Populations Tara C. Raines and Howard Crumpton

Great attention is being given to the increasing number of culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students in school districts across the United States (U.S.). Most current estimates show that as of the 2012–13 academic year, it was estimated that 9.2% of students, or 4.4 million children, in U.S. public schools came from homes where English was a secondary or tertiary language. In 2015, 50.1 million students entered public schools between the prekindergarten and twelfth grade levels. Of those, 49%, or 25.4 million, identified as racial or ethnic minority group members (National Center for Education Statistics, 2015a). Because of changing population demographics, mental health training programs and professional organizations (e.g., National Association of School Psychologists [NASP], American Psychological Association [APA]) are increasing efforts to (a) produce culturally competent professionals and (b) improve psychological assessment practices to enhance cultural relevance. Specifically, the instruments utilized to evaluate and treat social, emotional, and behavioral (SEB) concerns of diverse children and youth are gaining needed attention.

218

Social, Emotional, and Behavioral Assessment   219

Such attention is important since studies have documented that children who exhibit markers of SEB difficulties (e.g., hyperactivity, anxiety) are more likely to experience emotional problems; have cycles of negative interactions with parents, teachers, and peers; demonstrate signs of academic underachievement; contribute to unsafe learning environments; and get expelled from school (Gilliam & Shahar, 2006; Trentacosta & Shaw, 2009). Evidence indicates that these outcomes are exacerbated when a child comes from a CLD background. Unaddressed, these outcomes can extend into later years contributing to poor life outcomes (Campbell, Spieker, Burchinal, & Poe, 2006; Fergusson & Woodward, 2002). Applied psychologists1 and researchers must consider the influence of culture and language on SEB assessment for CLD populations.The use of instruments that have demonstrated measurement equivalence is key to this consideration. Measurement equivalence indicates the same construct is being measured across different racial, ethnic, and/or linguistic groups (Hui & Triandis, 1985). Failing to use SEB measures demonstrating this equivalence when working with CLD populations may result in inappropriate referrals for intervention or misdiagnosis based on under-informed interpretations of the data. Thus, the development of assessment batteries using instruments that are both psychometrically sound and empirically validated for use with CLD populations is essential. This chapter reviews a few selected screening and diagnostic instruments that have demonstrated acceptable psychometric properties with CLD populations and discusses implications for their use. The chapter also explores the importance of selecting and conducting culturally and linguistically appropriate assessments for SEB difficulties, and identifies foundational cultural competence skills that should be considered in the selection of SEB assessments. Finally, the chapter provides directions for future practice, training, and research regarding SEB assessment for CLD populations.

Theoretical and Research Basis SEB assessment is the evaluation of an individual’s demonstrated capacity to foster adaptive relationships and their ability to manage and cope with difficult feelings. SEB assessment also determines how that capacity results in adaptive function or dysfunction in daily life. SEB assessment data are obtained from a variety of sources, including observational data provided by caregivers (e.g., teachers, parents, medical staff) and/or self-report. This section reviews instruments commonly utilized for SEB screening and diagnostic assessment. These instruments have demonstrated sound measurement equivalence across gender, age, and socioeconomic status, and are appropriate for use with CLD populations.

220   Raines and Crumpton

Screening Instruments Diagnostic screeners are designed to provide data on student2 risk for the development of emotional disturbance. The goal of administering an SEB screener is to produce a quick, inexpensive initial investigation of a social, emotional, and/or behavioral concern. Screeners are typically administered to one client and, in some cases, to teachers and/or parents/caregivers. In universal screening, screeners are administered to many, if not all, students in a school to provide a broader clinical picture of students’ functioning across a range of demographics (e.g., age, ethnicity, gender). Both individual and universal screeners help to (a) identify potential areas of concern to determine if more in-depth assessment is needed and (b) guide the process of selecting appropriate interventions to address identified concerns. Screening practices with sound reliability and validity are crucial for promoting classroom practices, school services, and mental health interventions that ensure children’s academic success (Feeney-Kettler, Kratochwill, Kaiser, Hemmeter, & Kettler, 2010; Glover & Albers, 2007; NASP, 2010). Two screening instruments— both of which can be used universally or individually—with sound psychometric properties for use with CLD populations are described below. BASC–2 Behavioral and Emotional Screening System

The BASC–2 Behavioral and Emotional Screening System (BESS; Kamphaus & Reynolds, 2008) is designed to measure the risk of behavioral and emotional problems in students in grades pre-school through twelfth grade. Developed as a universal screener as a part of a multi-gate approach to intervention, the BESS is available in parent, teacher, and student forms (Kamphaus & Reynolds, 2008). This instrument requires no informant training, can be completed in less than ten minutes, and is available in both Spanish and English. Informants report on behavioral and emotional functioning using a four-point scale (i.e., never, sometimes, often, almost always). Summing the responses to the problem items and the reverse scores of the adaptive behavior items creates a raw score. The raw score is transformed to a total T-score, in which higher scores reflect more problems; 20–60 suggests a “Normal” level of risk, 61–70 suggests an “Elevated” level of risk, and scores of 71 or higher suggest an “Extremely Elevated” level of risk. This method of classification was developed with the intention of assisting practitioners with decision-making regarding students who may require additional assessment and intervention (Kamphaus & Reynolds, 2008). The psychometric properties of the BESS forms are generally acceptable (DiStefano & Morgan, 2010). Additionally, all forms have been found to have moderate correlations with total scores from other measures of behavioral and

Social, Emotional, and Behavioral Assessment   221

emotional problems, including the Achenbach System of Empirically-based Assessment (ASEBA) forms. Additional information regarding the psychometric properties of the BESS can be found in the BESS Manual (Kamphaus & Reynolds, 2008). The norming sample consists of teacher, parent, and student forms, collected from 233 cities in 40 states in the U.S. and is reflective of the census data at the time of norming—approximately 60% White, 18% Hispanic, 16% Black, and 6% all other groups (Kamphaus & Reynolds, 2008). The large, diverse norming sample and strong psychometric properties support the use of the BESS with CLD populations. Dowdy, Dever, DiStefano, and Chin (2011) examined the measurement equivalence of the BESS student form across Black, White, and Hispanic participants from the norming sample and found that the instrument adequately identified behavioral and emotional risk across specific CLD groups. Dowdy et al. also found that the use of the BESS Teacher form with CLD students demonstrated consistent item functioning when comparing students with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) to their peers. Available research suggests this instrument has been successfully used throughout the U.S. (Dever, Kamphaus, Dowdy, Raines, & DiStefano, 2013). Because the measure is a relatively new instrument, research supporting its utility with specific groups of students is emerging. Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire

The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ; Goodman, 2001) yields six scores; five subscales and a total score. The SDQ is a brief, 25-item behavioral screening test for youth ages 11 through 17 years. Teacher, parent, and student selfreport forms are available in more than 50 different languages. Respondents rate items on a 3-point scale ranging from zero (not at all) to two (very much or all the time). The SDQ contains five scales, each consisting of five items: (1) Emotional Symptoms, (2) Conduct Problems, (3) Hyperactivity/Inattention, (4) Peer Relationship Problems, and (5) Prosocial Behavior. Studies examining the psychometric properties of the SDQ have yielded mixed results. However, many SDQ reliability and validity studies produced strong evidence in support of several score inferences and correlations between the SDQ and the ASEBA instruments suggesting strong sensitivity and specificity (Hysing, Elgen, Gillberg, Lie, & Lundervold, 2007; Janssens & Deboutte, 2010). For additional information regarding the psychometric properties of the SDQ readers should consult the SDQ manual (Goodman, 2001). The SDQ is a frequently utilized (i.e., it is used in at least 12 European countries as well as the U.S.) and studied instrument in cross-national contexts. Additionally, its use in screening has been found to be utilitarian in CLD populations across the globe (Bourdon, Goodman, Rae, Simpson, & Koretz, 2005; Ravens-Sieberer, Erhart,

222   Raines and Crumpton

Gosch, & Wille, 2008). Studies reported from Brazil, Canada, and Australia also support the use of all three SDQ forms (self, teacher, and parent) in various cultural contexts (Woerner et al., 2004).

Diagnostic Checklists Diagnostic checklists are typically used as a portion of the assessment for SEB difficulties. Checklists provide an evaluation of an individual’s social relations, coping strategies, and self-perceptions.They can also provide information regarding the client’s symptoms in relation to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-V) criteria. Diagnostic checklists offer insight into the client’s functioning based upon information obtained from a variety of sources, which can include the client, teachers, and parents. Diagnostic checklists should be used in conjunction with other data (e.g., interviews, observations) to make decisions regarding SEB functioning. The following checklists have strong empirically validated evidence to support their use with CLD populations. Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment

The Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment (ASEBA; Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001) provides forms for the parent (Child Behavior Checklist/CBCL), teacher (Teacher Report Form/TRF), and client (Youth Self Report/YSR) to report on child behavioral and emotional functioning in children ages six to 18. The CBCL includes 113 items that are rated as Not True (0), Somewhat or Sometimes True (1), or Very True or Often True (2). The six DSM-Oriented Scales that can be used to guide diagnostic decisions for mental health disorders include: Affective Problems (13 items that measure Dysthymic and Major Depressive Disorders); Anxiety Problems (six items—Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Separation Anxiety Disorder, and Specific Phobia); Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Problems (seven items—ADHD, Hyperactive–Impulsive, and Inattentive subtypes); Conduct Problems (17 items; Conduct Disorder); Oppositional Defiant Problems (5 items—Oppositional Defiant Disorder); and Somatic Problems (7 items— Somatization and Somatoform Disorders). Measurement equivalence studies reveal that the use of the ASEBA checklists with CLD populations is sound (Achenbach, Dumenci, & Rescorla, 2003; Gross et al., 2006; Leung et al., 2006; Rescorla et al., 2007). Ivanova and colleagues (2007) explored the factor structure of the YSR form across 23 countries including Ethiopia, Jamaica, and Spain, finding evidence to support the generalizability of this instrument. Additionally, forms are available in roughly 90 languages including English, Spanish, Chinese, and Haitian Creole.

Social, Emotional, and Behavioral Assessment   223

Behavior Assessment System for Children, Second Edition

The Behavior Assessment System for Children, Second Edition (BASC–2) includes the Self-Report of Personality (SRP), Parent Rating Scales (PRS), and Teacher Rating Scales (TRS), and several other components (e.g., progress monitoring forms, intervention guide). The items of the BASC–2 TRS and PRS are rated on a four-point response scale of frequency, ranging from “Never” to “Almost Always.” The TRS and PRS forms can be completed in approximately 20 minutes. The BASC–2 rating scales cover the age range of two-and-a-half through 18. The SRP, designed for ages eight through 18, can be completed in 30 to 40 minutes. The response options for the SRP include the aforementioned multipoint scale and some items that require a dichotomous “True–False” response. The BASC–2 is unique in that the Spanish and English forms were developed simultaneously. Thus, the Spanish version is not a mere translation of the English form; readers are referred to Reynolds and Kamphaus (2004) for specific details on test development procedures.The TRS, PRS, and SRP have been used successfully in the U.S., Latin America, and with Spanish-speaking European populations. The BASC–2 norms were based on a large normative sample that is representative of the general population of U.S. children with regard to sex, race and ethnicity, and clinical or special education classification (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2004). Measurement equivalence studies of the BASC–2 support the use of this instrument with CLD populations, finding the underlying constructs assessed to be consistent across populations. Specifically, this instrument was found to have strong utility with African American and Spanish-speaking populations in the U.S. (Jastrowski-Mano, Hobart Davies, Klein-Tasman, & Adesso, 2009; McCloskey, Hess, & D’Amato, 2003). The instruments reviewed do not represent an exhaustive list of SEB assessment tools that have demonstrated appropriate validity for use with CLD populations. Although substantial effort is being made, the field of psychology is still in the budding stages of developing and promoting SEB assessment instruments appropriate for use with CLD students.Thus, challenges persist related to the availability of appropriate instruments for use with this population.

Implications for Practice Ethical Considerations Ethical codes provided by the APA and the NASP (e.g., NASP, 2010a; NASP, 2010b) emphasize psychologists’ responsibility to provide competent and culturally appropriate services to all clients, particularly those of diverse backgrounds. This extends to providing assessments that, when available, are administered in the

224   Raines and Crumpton

client’s native language, interpreted without bias, and sensitive to the client’s culture. Further, ethical guidelines stress the importance of exploring behaviors in the client’s cultural context. Adherence to these ethical guidelines may help prevent the delivery of insensitive and potentially harmful services.

SEB Assessment Planning Psychologists have numerous considerations to balance when working with CLD populations. It is impossible to address each micro detail when working with CLD individuals because each individual represents multiple combinations of cultures. Because it is unrealistic for psychologists to be familiar with the culture of every client or student assessed for SEB difficulties, it is critical that psychologists, at minimum, possess some foundational skills in cultural competence. These foundational skills, as identified by the APA (1990) include psychologists’ ability to (a) recognize cultural diversity; (b) understand the role that culture, ethnicity, and race play in the sociopsychological and economic development of diverse clients and how such clients are impacted by socioeconomic and political factors; and (c) help clients understand the interaction of culture, gender, and sexual orientation on their behavior and needs. As previously indicated, psychologists providing direct services to CLD individuals should be aware that many psychological instruments lack the adequate standardization necessary for fairly evaluating the social, emotional, and behavioral functioning of CLD students. Psychologists should take extra care to evaluate the reliability, validity, norming sample, and generalizability of instruments when preparing to conduct evaluations of students who may not reflect those for whom the test was intended. During the preparation phase, evaluating an examinee’s level of acculturation may aid in determining whether popular tests written and standardized based on the dominant language and culture are appropriate, or if a more culturallysensitive and language-flexible instrument is required. In the case of the latter, psychologists should use test instruments that have been, at the very least, validated in different languages and for use with minority cultures. SEB assessment instruments should only be translated or adapted for language within the guidelines identified by the International Test Commission (International Test Commission, 2010). Translating a measure that is already tested and validated compromises the credibility of any outcomes obtained. Building strong rapport with the client and family before the assessment may aid psychologists in the essential task of becoming familiar with the global values and social practices of the client’s culture. Interviews with caregivers may provide valuable information that helps determine whether the SEB constructs being assessed exist in the culture of the client and, if so, the degree to which those

Social, Emotional, and Behavioral Assessment   225

constructs are important in the family and how this may impact relevant diagnostic and treatment conceptualization. This information should take into account that the values and practices of the client’s broader home culture may or may not be a part of the client’s specific cultural journey, and may or may not impact the client’s functioning. In all cases, psychologists should avoid stereotyping, and allow the client to provide insight into beliefs and values that may impact their worldview and interactions within their family system. Additionally, the use of a “cultural broker” (i.e., someone who is acculturated to the mainstream culture but shares the client’s background and possesses an understanding of the client’s values) may be beneficial during the assessment process (Lim, 2012, p. 187). Cultural brokers may be found in the school or community, and can assist with providing a context for the client’s SEB functioning. A cultural broker may also be able to support the psychologist in helping the client’s family understand the role and function of the evaluation (Yohani, 2013). In many cases, the cultural broker acts as a consultant and may not have direct knowledge of the case or direct contact with the family. Therefore, in cases where a cultural broker is incorporated into the process of assessment planning, assessment implementation and/or dissemination of assessment results, the psychologist should obtain consent to consult and maintain client confidentiality.

Instrument Selection Appropriate instrument selection is a critical component of SEB assessment, diagnosis, and treatment. Theoretically, instruments are specific to the problems or constructs they purport to evaluate.Therefore, clinicians should choose instruments designed to gather data essential to the conceptualization of specific aspects of client functioning. Best practices for instrument selection involve a thorough evaluation of instruments’ psychometric properties to ensure they will provide reliable, valid, and accurate results. Comprehensive measurement of a construct (e.g., worrying, anger, sadness) takes into full account the cultural context (e.g., first generation English Language Learner) in which the assessed individual functions.While sound reliability and validity are important, their utility becomes disputable if the SEB assessment is designed to measure symptoms of a disorder or dysfunction which does not exist in the client’s culture.To maintain fidelity, the constructs measured by assessment instruments must exist in both the culture in which the SEB assessment instrument was normed and the culture of the examinee. SEB instrument selection, administration, and data interpretation are most appropriate when there is overlap in cultural values and ideals among all test instruments, as well as the examiner (i.e., psychologist) and examinee (Reynolds &

226   Raines and Crumpton

Suzuki, 2012). Threats to this overlap commonly exist within the instrument– examinee and the examiner–examinee relationships. In a multicultural assessment context, this occurs when psychological instruments, examiners, or both, show some preference to respondents of a culture other than that of the examinee. For example, during a clinical interview or administration of a culturally bound test, a psychologist may overestimate the importance of certain Westernized concepts (e.g., freedom of expression in the home, direct parent–child communication), while underestimating non-Western values (e.g., hierarchical family structure, respeto [respect]). Unaware psychologists can easily overlook this threat. When this threat is overlooked, we can reasonably expect some bias to exist in the findings of the assessment. No test or examiner can claim to conduct a bias-free assessment, as some degree of bias is inherent in all instruments. Human error or clinical errors occur when examiners knowingly or unknowingly incorporate implicit and explicit stereotypes into test administration and data interpretation (Dana, 2005). This may happen when using high-inference tests that rely heavily on qualitative interpretation (e.g., Draw-A-Person, Kinetic Family Drawing) or non-standard administration procedures (e.g.,Thematic Apperception Test [TAT]).This bias is dangerous, as clinicians often use non-standardized measures and interviews that range in structure (highly structured vs. semi-structured) and are not empirically validated, leaving clients vulnerable to potentially faulty clinical judgments. Psychologists may also rigidly adhere to standardized interpretive criteria that are used to produce a quantitative result (e.g., Rorschach, Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory; Million Adolescent Clinical Inventory/Million Preadolescent Clinical Inventory [MMPI, MACI/M-PACI]), and may develop a more pathological clinical picture for CLD individuals than would occur for their majority counterparts (Allen & Dana, 2004).

Assessment Implementation From a practice perspective, providing quality services that cater to communities of linguistically diverse families presents formidable challenges to schools and clinics alike in the context of SEB assessment. Smaller and community-based mental health clinics may have a limited number of qualified translators and interpreters to assist in evaluations. Many school districts are also faced with this challenge. Lopez (2002) outlines best practices for working with interpreters in schools. Some guidelines include: providing training for frequently-used interpreters so they are familiar with the context of assessment and types of information to be translated, avoiding the use of interpreters with dual relationships with the client (siblings, neighbors, community members, etc.), and providing the opportunity for interpreters to build rapport with the client prior to the assessment (Lopez, 2002).

Social, Emotional, and Behavioral Assessment   227

Certainly, language match between the psychologist’s dominant language and the language in which the measure is administered or facilitated is essential. Here it is also noteworthy that cultural competence extends beyond language. In the same way that ethnic match in therapy does not guarantee positive treatment outcomes, it should not be assumed that a psychologist’s linguistic match ensures the provision of culturally competent SEB assessment. That being said, multilingual practitioners are encouraged to use their linguistic competence as an asset to complement their cultural competence. It is of equal value that the social context in which the client is functioning be evaluated. For instance, the level of acculturation should be assessed in determining the appropriateness of evaluations for students who are recent arrivals to the U.S. (Kohn, Scorcia, & Esquivel, 2007). In school assessments, observations in structured (classroom) and unstructured (lunch or recess) settings should be arranged to assist the practitioner in determining if an assessment is warranted and appropriate. Additionally, consultation and interviews with parents/caregivers, teachers, staff members, and cultural brokers to examine the areas of concern and their place within the client’s culture are necessary. Considering the act of assessing or evaluating the client to be culturally loaded is also vital (Ridley, Tracy, Pruitt-Stephens, Wimsatt, & Beard, 2008). When implementing an assessment, the examiner should remember that the accepted norms and standards of the dominant culture influence assessment procedures. For example, practices and protocols that are common in assessing for SEB functioning, such as working in a closed room alone with the client or asking the family personal questions, may be unexpected and cause additional distress. During assessment implementation and results interpretation, practitioners should be mindful of the cultural loading of assessment procedures and the impact they may have on client performance. This consideration provides an additional opportunity for the use of a cultural broker, as they may be able to provide insight into assessment practices in the client’s native culture.

Implications for Research and Training There is a need for more mental health programs, specifically school psychology, that have a multicultural training focus. Nineteen NASP-approved programs have a dedicated focus on preparing school psychologists to work with CLD populations (NASP, 2013a; NASP, 2013b). Other school psychology programs report addressing CLD populations through no more than one lecture-based course (Cochran-Smith, 2004; Loe & Miranda, 2005). This method falls short of preparing practitioners for the realities of working with and assessing CLD populations from a complete, critical lens.

228   Raines and Crumpton

Professional organizations, universities, and private organizations sponsor cultural immersion programs to help develop culturally competent mental health professionals. Such programs provide opportunities for students and practitioners to develop and utilize their cultural competence skills in systems across the globe. These programs have been found to create a feeling of increased cultural competence in practitioners by providing opportunities to participate in SEB assessments in other cultures. Participants in cultural immersion programs report the experiences to be generalizable and beneficial to their work with CLD populations in the U.S. (Berzins & Raines, 2010; Salamon, 2011). In addition, the number of practitioners and trainers from CLD backgrounds is limited, as most professionals and students in school psychology are White females. The demographics of the field are not representative of the U.S. population. Research examining the lack of CLD school psychology practitioners and graduate students suggests few structured plans to recruit CLD students and professionals (Proctor & Truscott, 2013; Zhou et al., 2004). It is essential that training programs work to increase diversity in academia and professional settings as one way to facilitate the field’s cultural awareness and competency (Proctor & Truscott, 2012). Appropriate, consistent credentialing of professionals trained to work with CLD populations is needed. By providing a consistent method of identifying individuals who have expertise in working with CLD populations, psychologists with less experience would be able to identify and enlist the services of these professionals. Currently, only three states provide multicultural credentialing or endorsements for school psychologists or mental health practitioners (NASP, 2013b). While progressive, these credentials vary greatly in rigor and expectation.This variance, combined with the absence of a minimum standard for assuring cultural and linguistic competence in the 47 other states, promotes potentially harmful, inconsistent practice in SEB assessment of CLD populations across the U.S. Assessment instrument construction is a long, expensive, and arduous process. Much time, money, and energy is invested into each stage of development, including establishing theoretical foundations, recruiting participants, administering assessments, data analyses, and other steps required before publication. The final product is an instrument with properties that, when administered under optimal conditions, yields vital information about client-functioning previously inaccessible via diagnostic interviews. Though well intentioned, many tests are not suitable for use with CLD populations. Instead of revealing valuable information, they mask it. It is not enough to include a portion of cultural and/or linguistic minorities into the recruitment and assessment portions of test development, yet exclude them from the theory on which the test is based. CLD professionals and community members have invaluable information to offer that should be considered during early theoretical stages of development, rather than the middle or end. Test developers of majority culture backgrounds should continue efforts to collaborate with

Social, Emotional, and Behavioral Assessment   229

professionals of CLD backgrounds who may offer critical insight into how certain phenomena may or may not exist among those of diverse backgrounds. Threats to reliable and valid assessment of CLD populations exist among the several types of bias previously discussed (e.g., test or method, construct, item, and clinician bias). Additionally, reliable and valid interpretation of assessment results is compromised when the populations against which CLD examinees are compared differ from the norming population, and when constructs the test purports to measure do not exist in the examinee’s culture.Translation of test items is an honest attempt to make the benefits of psychological assessment available to individuals who do not possess a strong grasp of the dominant culture and language. Unfortunately, this method still subjects examinees to test items that are culturally loaded. Tests that are best suited for evaluative use in CLD populations should be developed based on theory-driven and evidence-based studies that support approach for use with CLD populations. Assessment of SEB constructs is a sensitive task that requires specialized attention and care. When working with CLD populations, there are additional elements to be considered including the practitioner’s level of cultural competence, targeted assessment planning and implementation, and careful instrument selection. Indeed, there is a dire need for practitioners and researchers to attend to cultural factors in the development, administration, and interpretation of SEB assessments.

Notes 1 The terms “psychologist,” “evaluator,” and “practitioner” are used interchangeably throughout the chapter and refer to clinicians credentialed to administer and interpret SEB assessments. 2 The terms “student,” “client,” and “examinee” are used interchangeably throughout the chapter and refer to child and adolescent recipients of SEB assessments.

Resources Discussion Questions 1. What are the strengths and weaknesses of current assessment methods with regard to culturally and linguistically diverse students? 2. What influence (if any) do you believe the cultural journey of the practitioner has on social, emotional, and behavioral assessments? 3. How might training programs best prepare students to provide sound, fair, and relevant assessment services to growing numbers of individuals who differ not only culturally and linguistically, but also in their conceptions of mental health?

230   Raines and Crumpton

Professional Organizations American Educational Research Association International School Psychology Association National Center for Culturally Responsive Educational Systems

Additional Readings Skiba, R. J., Knesting, K., & Bush, L. D. (2002). Culturally competent assessment: More than nonbiased tests. Journal of Child & Family Studies, 11(1), 61–78. The article discusses how changing the content of tests to make them nonbiased does not solve minority disproportionality in special education. Assessment interpretation must also be executed in a culturally competent manner.The authors suggest that consideration of educational disparities when working with CLD populations is paramount and assessment approaches should be tailored accordingly. Lum, D. (2010). Culturally competent practice: A framework for understanding diverse groups and justice issues (4th ed). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole. This textbook provides a model for understanding and promoting collaborative problemsolving for confronting culturally-based challenges with clients and practitioners. Through a social justice lens, the author encourages the use of dialogue to understand and navigate culturally-based challenges and to promote cultural competence between academics and students.

References Achenbach, T. M., Dumenci, L., & Rescorla, L. A. (2003). DSM-oriented and empirically based approaches to constructing scales from the same item pools. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 32(3), 328–340. Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2001). Manual for the ASEBA school-age forms & profiles. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, & Families. Allen, J., & Dana, R. H. (2004). Methodological issues in cross-cultural and multicultural Rorschach research. Journal of Personality Assessment, 82(2), 189–208. American Psychological Association. (1990). Guidelines for providers of psychological services to ethnic, linguistic, and culturally diverse populations. Retrieved from . American Psychological Association. (1992). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Washington, DC: Author. American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Washington, DC: Author. Berzins, A. R., & Raines, T. C. (2010). The influence of cultural immersion programs in creating culturally competent education professionals. In K. Warnick, P. Warnick, &

Social, Emotional, and Behavioral Assessment   231

A. Laffoon (Eds.), Educational policy and practice: The good, the bad and the pseudoscience (Vols. I & II, pp. 111–126). New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers. Bourdon, K. H., Goodman, R. M., Rae, D. S., Simpson, G., & Koretz, D. S. (2005). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: U.S. normative data and psychometric properties. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 44(6), 557–564. Campbell, S. B., Spieker, S., Burchinal, M., & Poe, M. D. (2006). Trajectories of aggression from toddlerhood to age 9 predict academic and social functioning through age 12. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47, 791–800. Cochran-Smith, M. (2004). Defining the outcomes of teacher education: What’s social justice got to do with it? Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 32(3), 193–212. Dana, R. H. (2005). Multicultural assessment: Principles, applications, and examples. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Dever, B.V., Kamphaus, R.W., Dowdy, E., Raines,T. C., & DiStefano, C. (2013). Surveillance of Middle and High School Mental Health Risk by Student Self-Report Screener. Western Journal of Emergency Medicine, 14(4), 384–390. DiStefano, C., & Morgan, G. B. (2010). Evaluation of the BESS TRS-CA using the Rasch Rating Scale model. School Psychology Quarterly, 25(4), 202–212. doi:10.1037/ a0021509. Dowdy, E., Dever, B. V., DiStefano, C., & Chin, J. (2011). Screening for emotional and behavioral risk among students with Limited English Proficiency. School Psychology Quarterly, 26(1), 14–26. doi:10.01097/a0022072. Feeney-Kettler, K. A., Kratochwill, T. R., Kaiser, A. P., Hemmeter, M. L., & Kettler, R. J. (2010). Screening young children’s risk for mental health problems: A review of four measures.Assessment for Effective Intervention,35, 218–230.doi:10.1177/1534508410380557. Fergusson, D. M., & Woodward, L. J. (2002). Mental health, educational, and social role outcomes of adolescents with depression. Archives of General Psychiatry, 59(3), 225–231. Gilliam,W. S., & Shahar, G. (2006). Preschool and child care expulsion and suspension: Rates and predictors in one state. Infants & Young Children, 19, 228–245. Glover, T. A., & Albers, C. A. (2007). Universal screening for enhanced educational and mental health outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 45(2), 117–135. doi:10.1016/ j.jsp.2006.05.005. Goodman, R. M. (2001). Psychometric properties of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 40, 1337–1345. doi:10.1097/00004583-200111000-00015. Gross, D., Fogg, L.,Young, M. A., Ridge, A., Cowell, J., Richardson, R., & Sivan, A. (2006). The equivalence of the Child Behavior Checklist/1 1/2-5 across parent race/ethnicity, income level, and language. Psychological Assessment, 18(3), 313–323. doi:10.1037/ 1040-3590.18.3.313. Hui, H. C., & Triandis, H. C. (1985). Measurement in cross-cultural psychology. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 16, 131–152. doi:10.1177/0022002185016002001. Hysing, M., Elgen, I., Gillberg, G., Lie, S. A., & Lundervold, A. J. (2007). Chronic physical illness and mental health in children. Results from a large-scale population study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48, 785–792. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007. 01755.x. International Test Commission. (2010). Guidelines for Translating and Adapting Tests. Retrieved March 10, 2014, from .

232   Raines and Crumpton

Ivanova, M. Y., Achenbach, T. M., Rescorla, L. A., Dumenci, L., Almqvist, F., Bilenberg, N., & Verhulst, F. C. (2007). The generalizability of the Youth Self-Report syndrome structure in 23 societies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75(5), 729. Janssens, A., & Deboutte, D. (2010). Erratum to: Screening for psychopathology in child welfare: The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) compared with the Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment (ASEBA). European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 19(2), 167. Jastrowski-Mano, K., Hobart Davies, W. W., Klein-Tasman, B., & Adesso, V. (2009). Measurement equivalence of the Child Behavior Checklist among parents of African American adolescents. Journal of Child & Family Studies, 18(5), 606–620. doi:10.1007/ s10826-009-9263-0. Kamphaus, R. W., & Reynolds, C. R. (2008). BASC–2 Behavioral and Emotional Screening System. Minneapolis, MN: Pearson. Kohn, S. W., Scorcia, D., & Esquivel, G. B. (2007). Personality and behavioral assessment: Considerations for culturally and linguistically diverse individuals. In G. Esquivel, E. Lopez, & S. Nahari (Eds.) Handbook of multicultural school psychology: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 289–308). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Leung, P. W., Kwong, S. L., Tang, C. P., Ho, T. P., Hung, S. F., Lee, C. C., & Liu, W. S. (2006). Test–retest reliability and criterion validity of the Chinese version of CBCL, TRF, and YSR. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47(9), 970–973. Lim, R. F. (2012). Cultural competence. In H. McQuiston, W. E. Sowers, U. M. Ranz, & J. M. Feldman (Eds.) American Association of Community Psychiatrists’ handbook of community psychiatry (pp. 179–192). New York, NY: Springer. Loe, S. A., & Miranda, A. H. (2005). An examination of ethnic incongruence in school-based psychological services and diversity-training experiences among school psychologists. Psychology in the Schools, 42(4), 419–432. Lopez, E. C. (2002). Best practices in working with school interpreters to deliver psychological services to children and families. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes, Best practices in school psychology IV (pp. 1419–1432). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists. McCloskey, D. M., Hess, R. S., & D’Amato, R. C. (2003). Evaluating the utility of the Spanish version of the Behavior Assessment System for Children–Parent report system. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 21, 325–337. doi:10.1177/073428290302100402. National Association of School Psychologists. (2010a). Model for comprehensive and integrated school psychological services. Bethesda, MD: Author. National Association of School Psychologists. (2010b). Principles for professional ethics. Retrieved from . National Association of School Psychologists. (2013a). Professional standards & training. . National Association of School Psychologists. (2013b). Multicultural and bilingual school psychology training programs. . National Center for Education Statistics. (2015a). Fast facts: Back to school statistics. Retrieved from . National Center for Education Statistics. (2015b). The condition of education: Racial/ Ethnic enrollment in public schools. Retrieved August 29, 2015, from .

Social, Emotional, and Behavioral Assessment   233

Proctor, S. L., & Truscott, S. D. (2012). Reasons for African American student attrition from school psychology programs. Journal of School Psychology, 50, 655–679. doi:10.1016/j. jsp.2012.06.002. Proctor, S. L., & Truscott, S. D. (2013). Missing voices: African American school psychologists’ perspectives on increasing professional diversity. The Urban Review. 45(3), 355–375. doi:10.1007/s11256-012-0232-3. Ravens-Sieberer, U., Erhart, M., Gosch, A. and Wille, N. (2008). Mental health of children and adolescents in 12 European countries—results from the European KIDSCREEN study. Clinical Psychological Psychotherapy, 15, 154–163. doi:10.1002/cpp.574. Rescorla, L. A., Achenbach,T. M., Ivanova, M.Y., Dumenci, L., Almqvist, F., & Bilenberg, N. (2007). Problems reported by adolescents in 24 countries. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75(2), 351–358. Reynolds, C. R., & Kamphaus, R.W. (2004). Behavior Assessment System for Children—Second Edition (BASC–2). Circle Pines, MN: AGS. Reynolds, C. R., & Suzuki, L. A. (2012). Bias in psychological assessment: An empirical review and recommendations. In I. B. Weiner (Editor-in-Chief), J. R. Graham & J. A. Naglieri (vol. Eds.), Handbook of psychology, second edition (vol. 10, pp. 82–113). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. doi: 10.1002/9781118133880. Ridley, C. R., Tracy, M. L., Pruitt-Stephens, L., Wimsatt, M. K., & Beard, J. (2008). Multicultural assessment validity: The preeminent ethical issue in psychological assessment. In L. A. Suzuki & J. G. Ponterotto (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural assessment: Clinical, psychological, and educational applications (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Salamon, T. (2011). The Ecuador professional preparation program: A multicultural experience. National Association of School Psychologists’ Communique, 39(5), 34. Trentacosta, C. J., & Shaw, D. S. (2009). Emotion self-regulation, peer rejection, and antisocial behavior: Developmental associations from early childhood to early adolescence. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30, 356–635. Woerner,W., Fleitlich-Bilyk, B., Martinussen, R., Fletcher, J. M., Cucchiaro, G., Dalgalarrondo, P.,Tannock, R. (2004).The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire overseas: Evaluations and applications of the SDQ beyond Europe. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 13(2), ii47–ii54. Yohani, S. (2013). Educational cultural brokers and the school adaptation of refugee children and families: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 14(1), 61–79. Zhou, Z., Bray, M. A., Kehle, T. J., Theodore, L. A., Clark, E., & Jenson, W. R. (2004). Achieving ethnic minority parity in school psychology. Psychology in the Schools, 41(4), 443–450.

Part V

Systems-based Issues

13

Systemic Approaches to Reduce Prejudice in Schools Sheri R. Levy, Jiyun Elizabeth Shin, Ashley Lytle, and Lisa Rosenthal

Prejudice remains a pressing problem around the world. Scholars in numerous racially and ethnically diverse countries such as Canada, England, Germany, the Netherlands, and the United States study prejudice and prejudice-reduction in schools and the workplace (e.g., Aboud et al., 2012; Johnson & Johnson, 2000). Prejudice involves holding negative feelings toward a group and its members, or exhibiting hostile or negative treatment directed at a group and its members (Raabe & Beelmann, 2011). Prejudice is multi-dimensional and multi-determined; accordingly, there are many theories about the development of prejudice and the reduction of prejudice that address factors at many levels (for reviews, see Aboud & Spears Brown, 2013; Killen & Rutland, 2011; Levy & Killen, 2008). Children as young as five years old express prejudice, suggesting that prejudice may begin to develop in some children before or as they enter school and that prejudice-reduction efforts should begin in childhood (Aboud et al., 2012; Raabe & Beelmann, 2011). This chapter reviews research on prejudice and prejudice-reduction among children from preschool through high school. The review is organized through an ecological systems approach to understanding prejudice and prejudice-reduction among children (see Figure 13.1 on p. 238; Levy, Karafantis, & Ramírez, 2008; 237

238   Levy, Shin, Lytle, and Rosenthal Culture School

Child

Classroom

Time FIGURE 13.1  Schematic Representation of an Ecological Systems Approach

Levy, West, & Ramírez, 2005). An ecological systems perspective (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; 1986) highlights that individuals (e.g., a child) interact with and are nested within many environments, ranging from proximal (e.g., classroom, family) to more distal contexts (e.g., school, community, culture). Further, this perspective highlights the role that personal characteristics (e.g., age, race, ethnicity) play in the kind of prejudice-relevant messages individuals receive from their environments and how they respond to those messages (see Levy et al., 2005; Levy et al., 2008). The dynamic interaction between personal characteristics (in this case, children) and environmental issues is represented in the double arrow in Figure 13.1. In addition, as depicted in Figure 13.1,“time” is a crucial consideration, including the cumulative effects of experiences throughout an individual’s lifetime, as well as changes and continuities over time in the environments in which an individual is developing (e.g., classrooms, school). The ecological systems framework is used as the backbone for the discussion of theories of prejudice and prejudice-reduction at the levels of child, classroom, and school. The chapter does not provide an exhaustive review of theories related to prejudice; the chapter reviews several theories and prejudice-reduction strategies that are well-studied, supported by evidence, and representative of multiple ecological levels (child, classroom, school). As an ecological systems approach highlights the dynamic interplay among children and the environments in which children are nested, it will be noted how the theories and prejudice-reduction strategies can fit within and influence more than one ecological level. This chapter also focuses on racial and ethnic prejudice among children because this topic and prejudice-reduction are well studied in many diverse countries such as the United States, where there has been long-standing racial and ethnic discrimination and tensions. The focus is on racial and ethnic prejudice because of the combined set of features differentiating it from other prejudices. The category of race is less malleable than other categories (for example, people may move in and

Reducing Prejudice in Schools   239

out of the category of overweight, making it a more fluid category), is more visible (for example, people’s sexual orientation is not typically a visible category), and allows for social separation more readily (for example, people may be biased toward members of another gender, while also engaging in intimate relationships with them).Although there are distinctions between race and ethnicity (e.g., see Quintana, 1998), racial and ethnic group memberships appear to have similar implications for prejudice. Race is often thought of as a more biological distinction between groups of people, in terms of features such as skin color, facial features, and so on, and ethnicity is often thought of as a more cultural distinction between groups of people, in terms of features such as nationality, language, beliefs, and so on. However, many people use race and ethnicity interchangeably, and even within the field of psychology, there is not full agreement about the definitions of and distinctions between these terms (Phinney, 1996). Accordingly and consistent with other reviews of the prejudice literature, findings of research on race and ethnicity together are reviewed (e.g., Raabe & Beelmann, 2011). Another feature of this chapter is that it focuses on theories, research, and interventions that apply to children in preschool, elementary, middle, and high school grades. In order to study prejudice in any age group, researchers need valid and reliable measurement tools of prejudice to test theories of prejudice and assess the effectiveness of interventions involving prejudice-reduction strategies. Older children can complete measures or surveys concerning their beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors on their own whereas younger children who need help with reading typically complete surveys with the help of an adult such as a research assistant, teacher, or teacher aide. As noted at the outset, prejudice is typically defined as holding negative feelings toward or exhibiting hostile or negative treatment directed at a group and its members (e.g., Aboud, 1988); therefore, measures of prejudice typically assess negative and positive feelings towards an outgroup (i.e., a group of which one is not a member) with the use of “liking” or emotion words (“Is group X nice?”; “How much do you like members of group X?”; Not at all, a little, some, a lot, very much) or the use of smiley faces for younger children to indicate how much they like members of group X and want to play with them (five-point response scale from “not at all” [big frown] to “very much” [big smile]; see Cameron, Rutland, Hossain, & Petley, 2011: Raabe & Beelmann, 2011). Other relevant measures of prejudice assess how much contact or social distance children would like to have with other groups such as measures of intended friendship (e.g., “Would you like to play with members of group X?; five-point response scale from “not at all” [big frown] to “very much” [big smile]; Cameron et al., 2011) and being neighbors (e.g., “How much would you like to live near members of group X? Not at all, a little, some, a lot, very much; Levy et al., 2005). Children are sometimes also asked about their current and past same-race and cross-race friendships, and they are typically

240   Levy, Shin, Lytle, and Rosenthal

given a list of same-sex classmates and asked to indicate with which classmates they play and interact (e.g., Aboud, Mendelson, & Purdy, 2003).

Theoretical and Research Basis This section of the chapter reviews theories of prejudice and their application to a few representative interventions at the levels of the child, classroom, and school (see Figure 13.1). The discussion of interventions at each level is limited to those that have been evaluated using quantitative data. Recommendations for the implementation of these theoretically-driven prejudice-reduction strategies at the levels of the child, classroom, and school are discussed in the implications section.The chapter also provides recommendations for future research and training. The origin of prejudice among children is multi-faceted.There is no single theory that fully explains prejudice among children. Cognitive developmental theory is discussed to pinpoint developing social, cognitive, and emotional abilities that contribute to children’s prejudice levels.The sections on the classroom and school levels, in turn, focus on theories that more strongly emphasize and pinpoint the contributing roles of social forces and factors in the classroom and school environments in which children are nested.

Child-Level A long-standing theory for understanding prejudice at the level of the child is cognitive developmental theory, also called social-cognitive developmental theory (see Aboud, 2008).This theory spotlights the age-related social, cognitive, and emotional constraints that contribute to the generally higher levels of prejudice among younger children. A key launching pad for this theory is Jean Piaget’s cognitive developmental theory, which Katz (1973), Aboud (1988; 2008), Bigler and Liben (1993), and others have applied to the understanding of prejudice, finding that children’s attitudes toward racial and ethnic groups are influenced by their ability to think about group information in complex ways. For example, children cannot express empathy for another person until they have the ability to see the world through another person’s perspective. According to cognitive developmental theory, prejudice is inevitable among young children such as three- to five-year olds because they lack the skills necessary to view people as individuals. This theory suggests that children are initially focused on themselves and then on surface features of social categories, which results in the exaggeration of differences among groups (e.g., assuming that all members of group A do X; Aboud, 2008). Only later, as their cognitive systems mature, can children recognize similarities across groups

Reducing Prejudice in Schools   241

(e.g., some members of group A and of group B do X) and differences within the same group (e.g., some members of group A do X, and some members of group A do Y). Children obtain these skills between the ages of seven and eleven and are then better equipped to judge people as individuals (Aboud, 2008). As children get older, they obtain cognitive skills that allow for reduced prejudice. Motivational and social forces also contribute to prejudicial attitudes that persist into adulthood (Levy, 1999). Studies show that children show less prejudice after seven years of age, providing supportive evidence of cognitive developmental theory (for a review, see Aboud, 2008). Early and strong support came from a longitudinal study by Doyle and Aboud (1995) in which they found that between the ages of six and nine, European Canadian children reported more positive traits associated with Black Canadians. Children who obtain the skill of classifying others on multiple dimensions are also better at remembering stereotype-inconsistent information, which helps reduce or maintain lower prejudice levels. For example, in a study by Bigler and Liben (1993), six- to nine-year old children were asked to listen to six stories, each depicting the interaction between an African American and European American story character. In this interaction, a negative trait that represented a societal stereotype about African Americans (e.g., lazy) was either linked to the European American story character (counter-stereotypic story) or the African American story character (stereotypic story). Children who had achieved multiple classification skills, as measured on a pre-test, were better able than children who had not achieved those skills to correctly recall the counter-stereotypic story information (Bigler & Liben, 1993). Interventions growing out of cognitive developmental theory generally focus on teaching or strengthening developing social-cognitive skills associated with reduced prejudice (Katz, 1973; Katz & Zalk, 1978). For example, Aboud and Fenwick (1999) focused on teaching children to attend to the unique characteristics of other children and not on surface level characteristics. Ten-year-old European Canadian children participated in an 11-week school-based program that taught them to focus on the internal attributes of people. Throughout the 11-week program, children participated in a series of activities in which the theme of each activity was “There is more to me than meets the eye.” To illustrate the idea that people possess unique qualities, in one activity participants were presented with photographs of thirty unfamiliar, racially diverse children and were provided with each child’s name and individualized trait descriptions, such as the child’s likes and dislikes as well as unique personality traits. The control group did not receive the treatment and followed their standard curriculum. European Canadian children in the program who scored high on prejudice at pre-test demonstrated a decrease in prejudice toward Black Canadians compared to the children in the control group.

242   Levy, Shin, Lytle, and Rosenthal

Another intervention study focused on teaching children about the uniqueness of individuals along with the importance of attending to similarities across different groups of people. Jones and Foley (2003) created an intervention with eight- to eleven-year old American children who received lessons via 25 colorful PowerPoint slides tracing through findings in biology and anthropology that highlighted individual differences as well as similarities among diverse groups of people. As examples, the slides covered topics such as “where the earliest human bones were found, . . . levels of melanin and skin tones, and the inaccuracy of color (black and white) terms for skin tones . . . genetic similarity of people from different parts of the world, and medical transplant matches between people who appear different” (Jones & Foley, pp. 556–557). Children in the control condition listened to the story “Oh, The Places You’ll Go!” by Dr. Seuss. Children in the intervention condition reported more positive beliefs about, and positive feelings toward, people differing in race or ethnicity than children in the control condition. In a similar vein, Levy, West, Bigler, et al. (2005) developed an intervention to help strengthen skills in attending to individual differences as well as similarities among diverse groups of people. African American and Latino children ages 11 to 14 read two science readers (i.e., one concerning the weather, the other concerning recycling).The readers featured a roughly equal number of light- and dark-skinned females and males. Experimental messages that communicated the theme of uniqueness along with similarities were included in the experimental condition. For example, a scene in the “weather” book showed children who appeared scared by thunder and lightning, with the message “All humans are the same. Everyone gets scared sometimes, but each person also is a unique individual. Different things scare different individuals” (Levy et al., 2005, p. 720). Children randomly assigned to the control condition read the same books (e.g., weather) without the insertion of the experimental messages. Children in the experimental condition compared to those in the control condition reported higher levels of treating people equally and greater willingness to sit next to unfamiliar White peers while at the movie theatre. In summary, cognitive developmental theory highlights the developing skills that children acquire, typically around seven years of age, that allow for less rigid and exaggerated views of groups and their members, and that support less prejudiced views and behaviors. Interventions or training that specifically target these skills have been successful in reducing prejudice. Still, while individual differences in the acquisition and use of these social-cognitive skills help explain prejudice among children, social-cognitive skills of children cannot provide a complete picture of their prejudice levels throughout childhood (Aboud, 1988; Killen & Rutland, 2011). Children’s prejudice is affected not only by social-cognitive factors but also by environmental factors (e.g., levels of classroom and school), which are discussed in subsequent sections.

Reducing Prejudice in Schools   243

Classroom-Level One of the environments in the ecological system in which children spend a great deal of time is the classroom. This section reviews a long-standing theory of prejudice and prejudice-reduction at the level of the classroom. In the classroom, children interact with peers of the same or differing racial and ethnic backgrounds, and children also receive information from their peers and classroom materials about same-race and cross-race friendships (Aboud & Spears Brown, 2013). Children enter racially and ethnically diverse classroom environments with their set of social-cognitive skills as well as their positive attitudes and prejudices about other groups. While classroom environments are a microcosm of the larger society and thus can be a place where children act out the racial and ethnic prejudicial beliefs they hold or are aware of, the classroom environment can also be structured in ways that facilitate positive racial and ethnic attitudes and relations. Allport (1954), in his classic text The Nature of Prejudice, discussed the complex and multi-faceted origins of prejudice and proposed in his intergroup contact theory that direct interactions among different racial and ethnic groups can facilitate the development of positive attitudes and relations. Recognizing that social exclusion and segregation occur in intergroup contexts (see Killen, Mulvey, & Hitti, 2013; Tatum, 1997), Allport proposed how an environment could be structured to facilitate positive contact by employing the following four criteria: (a) contact should be individualized or on a one-to-one basis; (b) contact should be cooperative (instead of competitive) in nature; (c) the environment should provide or promote equal status between the individuals who are interacting; and, (d) the positive intergroup interaction should be sanctioned by authorities such as teachers in the classroom. Research strongly supports that intergroup harmony can be promoted by altering features of racially and ethnically diverse classroom environments in accordance with these principles (for evidence from a large-scale meta-analysis, see Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006; Tropp & Prenovost, 2008). For instance, Aronson and Gonzalez (1988) designed what is now a classic demonstration and is called the jigsaw classroom, in which students work cooperatively to learn and teach each other components of an academic lesson. This technique replaced competitive aspects of the classroom with cooperative activities. Students in a classroom were divided into six racially- and academically-mixed groups, each consisting of six students. Each group learned one-sixth of the information that was unique, valuable, and necessary to understand the full lesson. Participants in each of the original groups were divided so that new groups were composed of one member of each of the original groups, thereby allowing them to teach each other the entire lesson. Thus, the jigsaw technique promoted interdependence and cooperation in a diverse classroom. This form of cooperative learning improved children’s relationships

244   Levy, Shin, Lytle, and Rosenthal

with each other, self-esteem, and academic success (for a review of cooperative learning techniques and prejudice-reduction, see Johnson & Johnson, 2000). The jigsaw technique has been successfully used in thousands of classrooms since 1971 (www.jigsaw.org/). Research increasingly points to intergroup friendships as key to reducing prejudice and promoting positive intergroup attitudes over time (Davies, Tropp, Aron, Pettigrew, & Wright, 2011; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). However, close contact in the form of a cross-race friendship may not always be possible in all classroom environments because of numerous factors, including lack of racial and ethnic diversity. Therefore, researchers also focus on indirect contact, which is any type of contact that does not involve a direct interaction with a member of another group such as extended, vicarious, and imagined contact. A popular sub-theory on indirect contact emerging from intergroup contact theory is Extended Contact theory (i.e., contact extended through a friendship), originally proposed and tested by Wright, Aron, McLaughlin-Volpe, and Ropp (1997). This theory suggests that observing or having same-race friends who have cross-race friends opens the door to reduced racial prejudice and positive attitudes. For example, if Angie (who is African American) has a close friend, Janelle (who is African American) who is close friends with Susan (who is European American), Angie might develop more positive feelings toward Susan and European Americans because of her knowledge of the close friendship between Janelle and Susan. Support for the extended contact theory is widespread, with applications across development from childhood to adulthood (Aboud & Spears Brown, 2013; Cameron & Rutland, 2006; Cameron, Rutland, Hossain, & Petley, 2011). Cameron, Rutland, and colleagues, for example, conducted numerous studies with children testing the extended contact intervention strategy. In one study, Cameron and Rutland had children read and discuss several fiction books in which members of their own group had close friendships with members of another group. Children read the stories while in small groups of three to four children. Afterwards, children tended to show more positive attitudes toward and more willingness to interact with members of the other group, whereas their attitudes and intended behavior toward their own group were not changed. In subsequent studies, Cameron, Rutland, and colleagues continued to demonstrate the effectiveness of extended contact. In these studies, they also found that extended contact interventions seem to work best for children who do not already have intergroup friendships of their own (Cameron et al., 2011). In summary, intergroup contact theory highlights that direct intergroup contact in the classroom can promote intergroup understanding and attitudes when the contact meets certain criteria, such as it being cooperative, on a one-to-one basis, and supported by adult figures in the classroom. The effectiveness of positive intergroup contact is also highlighted by indirect contact theories such as the

Reducing Prejudice in Schools   245

increasingly popular Extended Contact theory, which supports that observing that friends or members of one’s in-group have intergroup friendships can improve attitudes toward the groups represented in the friendships.Thus, social norms in the classroom play a role in children’s prejudice levels.

School-Level The school environment is an important broader environment in the ecological system for children from preschool through high school as they are formally socialized in the norms of their communities. Children in preschool through elementary school spend the majority of their school day in one particular classroom, while children in middle school and high school increasingly spend time in many classrooms throughout the school and also frequent the hallways between classes. Theories about prejudice-reduction at the school level take into account the school policies and environment as a whole, and also filter into the classrooms. As discussed in the previous section, intergroup contact—both direct and indirect—also occurs at the school-level, such as in hallways, lunchrooms, gyms, clubs, assemblies, and playgrounds. The multicultural approach, also called multicultural education and curricula, is a long-standing and popular theoretical approach that communicates positive intergroup attitudes in schools in numerous diverse countries such as the Netherlands and the United States (Banks, 2013; Banks & Banks, 2013; Verkuyten & Thijs, 2013). The multicultural approach has been defined and applied in a number of ways across age groups (see Banks, 2013; Zirkel, 2008). A common thread in the multicultural approach is the hypothesis that prejudice develops in part because of a lack of knowledge and understanding of diverse groups; therefore, by learning about diverse groups and their experiences, individuals will understand, respect, and have more positive attitudes toward people from other racial and ethnic backgrounds (Banks, 2013; Rosenthal & Levy, 2010; Zirkel, 2008). In a similar vein, the anti-racist education literature suggests that prejudice derives in part from a lack of intergroup knowledge, namely an awareness and understanding of the history and roots of inequality (see review by McGregor, 1993). Anti-racist teaching is sometimes a stand-alone approach in schools and sometimes a component of multicultural education, and there is overlap in their guiding principles and use at the school-level (e.g.,Verkuyten & Thijs, 2013). The multicultural approach has been applied with success across a wide range of age groups from pre-school (Perkins & Mebert, 2005) through high school (Banks & Banks, 2013; Dessel, 2010; Zirkel, 2008). Across this wide range of grade levels, multicultural education focuses on learning about important differences between groups, appreciating different groups’ positive contributions to society,

246   Levy, Shin, Lytle, and Rosenthal

and recognizing each group’s right to maintain its own culture and traditions. Multicultural education tends to emphasize that the entire school climate should be in keeping with these goals and communicate that all groups are welcomed, accepted, and valued at the school (Banks, 2013; Banks & Banks, 2013).This suggests a need to be attuned to the entire school environment such as the treatment of race and ethnicity inside and outside of the classroom, on bulletin boards, at school celebrations and events, in the training of school personnel, and in the selection of curricula (Perkins & Mebert, 2005; also see Derman-Sparks & Ramsey, 2006). James A. Banks and Cherry A. McGee Banks are long-standing leaders of multicultural education and strong proponents of reforming the entire school environment to facilitate improved intergroup understanding and relations (Banks, 2013; Banks & Banks, 2013).Their theoretical model focuses on five interconnected dimensions of multicultural education (Banks & Banks, 2013, p.19): (a) content integration (e.g., teachers teach about various cultures); (b) knowledge construction (e.g., teachers assist students with understanding how knowledge is constructed and how cultural forces impact that construction); (c) equity pedagogy (e.g., teachers assist students from all backgrounds to achieve academic success); (d) prejudicereduction (e.g., teachers use methods and materials to reduce students’ prejudice) and, (e) empowering school climate (e.g., teachers and school staff work toward empowering all students to be academically and socially integrated into the school). Banks and Banks propose that the school is a social system with interconnected factors that each can be targeted, and ideally all of the factors are addressed to effectively create a multicultural school environment. These 11 factors are: school policy and politics; school staff ’s attitudes, perceptions, beliefs and actions; school culture and hidden curriculum; learning styles of the school; formalized curriculum and course of study; languages and dialects of the school; instructional materials; community participation and input; assessment and teaching procedures; teaching styles and strategies and counseling program.Thus, Banks and Banks have outlined a comprehensive intervention program to transform schools and have made a positive impact on many schools in the United States and around the world (Banks, 2013; Banks & Banks, 2013). Even though the Banks and Banks model of multicultural education is widely used and well received, not all schools implement all pieces of the model (see Zirkel, 2008). A popular manifestation of multicultural education that is used in schools from preschool to high school focuses on expanding students’ knowledge and appreciation for all racial and ethnic groups during particular school units, programs, or events such as programming for Black History Month, school trips to museums with a cultural focus, celebrating the Chinese New Year, or hosting a Native American Pow Wow (for a review, see Rosenthal & Levy, 2010). Although popular, these stand-alone units have been criticized. This is because the celebration of cultural “differences” may increase the likelihood that children will place outgroups

Reducing Prejudice in Schools   247

and their members into rigid categories, thereby increasing racial and ethnic stereotyping and prejudice. This is especially true among children who lack the cognitive sophistication to recognize that individuals fit into multiple categories (e.g., age, race, gender, etc.; Bigler, 1999). For example, the presentation of racerelated educational material during Black History Month may help children learn about African American culture, history, and contributions to society, which could improve attitudes toward African Americans. At the same time, the focus on differentiating people according to racial group membership could potentially have the unintended negative effects of increasing stereotyping about African Americans and the perception that racial differences pose a challenge to crossgroup friendships. Thus, limiting the focus on race and ethnicity as differentiating and separating characteristics may be vital when implementing these multicultural education strategies.The aforementioned limitations of the stand-alone units could also be avoided by utilizing the comprehensive school transformation advocated by Banks and Banks (2013). Tests of the effectiveness of multicultural education in reducing prejudice have generally been small-scale interventions that address components of multicultural education, such as the message of inclusion. The message of inclusion is wellcaptured by The Green Circle Program, which was started in 1957 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (see http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED151458). Houlette et al. (2004) tested the effectiveness of this intervention in a study of 830 first- and second-grade children (approximately two-thirds European American, one-third African American). Specifically, this intervention encourages children to expand their circles of caring to include individuals who are different from themselves in terms of gender, race, ethnicity, and other characteristics. The Green Circle Program encourages “intergroup awareness, understanding and cooperation while enhancing self-esteem” and aims to communicate that all people belong to the human family (Houlette et al., 2004, p. 40).The intervention includes a range of activities and classroom lessons designed to facilitate positive interactions with others and appreciation for differences. Green Circle facilitators teach the children to think about the people they care about and who care about them whenever they see the green circle.The facilitators then encourage the children to have a green circle that includes everyone. Children completed both a pre- and post-test of how inclusive they were toward other similar and dissimilar children. Control condition participants did not receive any lessons. Findings indicated that children in the inclusive intervention were more inclusive in their most preferred playmate compared to children receiving no intervention from pre-test to post-test. Additionally, those in the intervention condition showed somewhat greater willingness to choose children who were from different backgrounds than themselves as someone they would want to play with. As noted above, anti-racist education often goes hand in hand with multicultural education efforts in schools and is a component of the Banks and Banks (2013)

248   Levy, Shin, Lytle, and Rosenthal

multicultural model, particularly within the component in which teachers address biases in knowledge construction. Anti-racist teaching involves teaching students about past and contemporary racial and ethnic discrimination and inequalities, and pointing out the forces that maintain racism (see McGregor, 1993; Hughes, Bigler, & Levy, 2007). This approach may increase empathy and at the same time discourage future racism. Anti-racist teaching sometimes occurs in preschool (Derman-Sparks & Ramsey, 2006) but is more likely to occur in elementary school and beyond. For example, Hughes, Bigler, and Levy (2007) examined the effects of learning about historical racism on the racial attitudes of European American and African American children in elementary school. Half of the children in the study received the treatment and the other half did not. The experimental classrooms received lessons about famous African American leaders, which included examples of the racial discrimination those leaders experienced. Children in control classrooms received the same biographical information about the leaders, without any mention of experienced racism. At post-test, European American children’s racial attitudes revealed significantly less prejudice toward African Americans among children in the experimental compared to the control classrooms. Although there were no differences between conditions among African American children, both they and the European American children also exhibited greater valuing of interracial fairness in the experimental rather than in the control classrooms. It is important to note that such anti-racist teaching could be counterproductive for students if they come to feel angry, self-righteous, stereotyped, threatened, and/or humiliated, for example, after learning that members of their own group were the perpetuators of racism and cruel treatment (McGregor, 1993). Hughes et al. (2007) took steps to minimize the potential negative side effects of anti-racist education by noting that not all European Americans have discriminated against African Americans and providing examples of diverse group members who are working to end racism (e.g., Mary Robinson, Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma). Studies of anti-racist teaching with older age groups have also found this approach to be successful at reducing prejudice. For example, Schultz, Barr, and Selman (2001) studied eighth-graders (14 year olds) who participated in a ten-week curriculum unit on anti-racist teaching drawn from resource materials available from Facing History and Ourselves (www.facinghistory.org/reach). There were four experienced teachers who used the Facing History and Ourselves Resource Book: Holocaust and Human Behavior. As examples, the teachers used novels and movies including Eli Wiesel’s novel Night, Steven Spielberg’s movie Schindler’s List, and guest speakers including an African American author, activist, and actor, two gay police officers, and a Holocaust survivor. There were also an additional five experienced teachers involved in the study who did not teach the Facing History and Ourselves unit but who did address issues of intergroup relations with their

Reducing Prejudice in Schools   249

students. Compared to students in the control classrooms, students who participated in the Facing History and Ourselves unit reported a greater decline in racial prejudice. It is worth highlighting that the units attempt specifically to strengthen perspectivetaking, which as noted earlier is a social-cognitive skill from cognitive-developmental theory discussed at the level of the child.This underscores the interaction between individual children and their environments as outlined in the ecological systems approach (see Figure 13.1). In summary, multicultural education and anti-racist education are two, often interconnected, approaches that tend to be adopted at the level of the school because they often involve coordinated school efforts such as the selection of instructional activities for and by teachers (Banks, 2013; Zirkel, 2013). Likewise, these approaches may also be adopted at the level of the classroom by individual teachers when the school has not adopted a multicultural and/or antiracist approach (Schultz et al., 2001).

Implications for Practice This section provides a brief summary of the theories and findings reviewed throughout the chapter. Barriers that should be considered and addressed in order to successfully implement prejudice-reduction strategies are also discussed (DermanSparks & Ramsey, 2006; Pollack & Zirkel, 2013). As demonstrated in this selective review, prejudice among children has multifaceted origins, and a multi-level approach to reducing prejudice is ideal. At the child-level, research deriving from social-cognitive developmental theory suggests that prejudice among children derives in part from their lack of certain social cognitive skills that promote less prejudiced views and behaviors. Thus, interventions have been developed and tested that support the utility of providing children with one-on-one training to develop and strengthen their social-cognitive skills relevant to evaluating groups, including classifying people on multiple dimensions, perceiving similarity across groups, and perceiving individual differences within groups. Notably, such interventions apply to children in any context, that is, at both racially diverse and homogenous classrooms and schools. Children bring their social-cognitive skills and constraints to the classroom with them, influencing their interactions with diverse others and/or interactions with information about diverse others. In racially diverse classrooms, interventions such as the jigsaw classroom, which involves direct contact among children of different racial groups that is cooperative, individualized, socially sanctioned and between individuals of equal status, have been successful at reducing prejudice and fostering academic success. In racially homogenous as well as diverse classrooms, indirect contact strategies, such as those deriving from extended contact theory, are appropriate

250   Levy, Shin, Lytle, and Rosenthal

and have also been found to be successful at reducing prejudice (e.g., Cameron et al., 2011). At the school level, multicultural education is a broad and popular approach often involving anti-racist education components as part of school-wide prejudicereduction efforts. Overall, multicultural and anti-bias education approaches suggest that educators focus on teaching interracial relations and learning about other groups and their connections, while being careful not to overemphasize differences among groups, not to gloss over the rich histories of groups, and not to downplay existing racism. It is important to discuss race with children openly and honestly at schools and elsewhere at a cognitive-developmentally appropriate level. Such interventions can be implemented in any context, that is, in both racially diverse and homogenous schools. The successful implementation of any prejudice-reduction strategies requires addressing the concerns of students, teachers, administrators, parents, and communities. In some cases, parents, teachers, and/or school administrators do not see schools as appropriate settings for prejudice-reduction interventions. This can be because they feel that the interventions take away valuable time from fostering academic success. They may also feel that their communities are already doing enough to encourage open discussions of race, and/or that racism is not a problem among children in schools. It seems wise for school leaders who wish to implement prejudice-reduction interventions to anticipate resistance and develop strategies ahead of time to alleviate and address concerns because sometimes those concerns can lead to political and public debates (e.g., see the case study of a high school by Pollack & Zirkel, 2013).Thus, it is recommended that schools work toward an open and collaborative dialogue involving teachers and families, provide training to teachers on promoting an accepting environment for all students, and consider, if needed, providing internal and external consultants to assist with facilitating communication among all parties (Derman-Sparks & Ramsey, 2006; Dessel, 2010; Pollack & Zirkel, 2013). This chapter’s focus on an ecological systems approach to understanding prejudice and prejudice-reduction highlights that understanding children’s level of prejudice means taking into account the numerous environments in which they are nested. This review attempts to shed light on some theories and interventions that are well-suited to particular environments, such as the classroom or the school. However, the ecological approach as a whole highlights that children are situated in all their environments, that it is almost impossible to address an environment in isolation, and that prejudice-reduction efforts are ideally part of children’s lives and environments as a whole. An ecological approach further underscores the notion that it is ideal when parents and educators are working as part of the same team and with the same goals towards prejudice-reduction. It is ideal if parents, educators, and other important

Reducing Prejudice in Schools   251

figures in children’s lives are mindful of children’s exposure to race information, including exposure to negative influences, such as in movies or television shows, across their environments. Sometimes, parents and educators, including wellintentioned, open-minded, and tolerant ones, do not discuss issues around race with children for fear of bringing attention to it. However, evidence suggests it is a better strategy to explicitly discuss these issues with children (e.g.  Aboud, 2008). Educators and researchers can assist parents by providing them with information and support on how to talk about issues related to race and prejudice with their children. For example, parents could be referred to some of the helpful websites and resources that are provided in this chapter. Research on the social-cognitive development of prejudice suggests that children’s cognitive skill levels and readiness for learning new skills influence their interpretations of race-related information (Aboud, 2008).Thus, educators need to determine a child’s level of social-cognitive development and meet the child at this level with anti-prejudice messages. Inducing cooperative and interdependent, as opposed to competitive, learning environments involving children from diverse backgrounds appears to be beneficial regardless of age (Tropp & Prenovost, 2008). Full commitment to promoting positive intergroup relations in schools would involve integrating prejudice-reduction into school curricula and norms sanctioned by the community, the schools, and families.

Implications for Research and Training As prejudice unfortunately remains a problem in the United States and other countries, research in this area remains important. The areas of research discussed in this chapter continue to grow, with research findings increasingly offering specific conclusions about the nature of prejudice and how to reduce it. Future research is needed to continue to focus on effective interventions for prejudice-reduction. Given the focus of this chapter on an ecological perspective, a future research recommendation is to continue to examine how to address prejudice at the various ecological levels.The preparation of educators such as teachers and school psychologists is also pivotal in this area as agents of change in schools. Thus, multicultural education efforts also need to be instituted in undergraduate and graduate programs leading to the preparation of future educators. There are now many guidebooks, textbooks, and websites available that can guide teachers, school psychologists and other educators to address prejudicereduction in schools. Some of these resources were created with researchers working hand-in-hand with educators and thus reflect recommendations for putting into practice conclusions from research on prejudice-reduction. Two great examples of this are the Teaching Tolerance division of the Southern Poverty Law

252   Levy, Shin, Lytle, and Rosenthal

Center (www.tolerance.org) and Understanding Prejudice (www.understanding prejudice.org/), which have websites dedicated to providing an understanding of the causes of prejudice and providing educators with resources to reduce prejudice in schools. Additionally, Teaching Tolerance provides free film kits for educators as well as a webinar series that allows educators to connect with and exchange ideas with other experienced teachers from the teaching tolerance community. In this section, some of those relevant resources from Teaching Tolerance, Understanding Prejudice, and other sources for educators are reviewed through the lens of the ecological systems approach. In terms of training social cognitive skills at the level of the child, Teaching Tolerance offers a relevant book and film kit, “Starting Small: Teaching Tolerance in Preschool and the Early Grades.” One film clip called “Everybody’s Story: SelfPortraits” portrays a teacher’s efforts to have her students attend to similarities and differences among themselves by creating self-portraits. In a group session led by the teacher, the children are encouraged to select a paint color to use for their face in the portrait. Using paint colors with names like mahogany, gingerbread, peach, and honey, children mix colors and learn about the similarities and differences in their skin color. Likewise, using many shades of yarn and paint, children learn to attend to similarities and differences in their eye color and hair color. Within the Understanding Prejudice website, there is a recommended activity called “When Life Hands You a Lemon, Peel It,” which is relevant to teaching the socialcognitive skill of attending to similarities across different groups (www.understanding prejudice.org/teach/elemact.htm). In this activity, children are each given a lemon and asked to pay close attention to all its external features (size, shape, color). Eventually, all the children peel their lemon to discover that despite different outward appearances, all the lemons are roughly the same on the inside.The teacher guides the children to see that like lemons, people who look different are roughly similar on the inside. At the level of the classroom, the jigsaw classroom website (www.jigsaw.org), mentioned earlier, includes an outline of the sequential steps that educators can take to implement the jigsaw technique in their classrooms. Additionally, the website offers helpful advice to address common problems or issues that may arise. For example, it provides information on how to deal with a dominating student or a gifted student who may traditionally be bored working in a group setting. Teaching Tolerance also has some suggested activities that fit with diversifying one’s social group. One popular activity is called “Mix It Up” (ww.tolerance.org/mix-it-up/ what-is-mix) in which school administrators encourage children to “mix it up” and sit with someone different at the lunch table. At the level of the school, recommended multicultural educational practices are available for interested educators. Derman-Sparks and Ramsey (2011) developed an anti-bias multicultural education guidebook for the preschool classroom, which

Reducing Prejudice in Schools   253

is popular and updated in its second edition. The Teaching Tolerance book and film kit, “Starting Small,” which was mentioned earlier, is a free and relevant resource. For example, one of the film clips called “Sense of Wonder” chronicles a teacher’s efforts to bring multiculturalism to her classroom. The teacher invites community members to discuss their cultural backgrounds and traditions with the children, and the children learn to appreciate group differences. The Green Circle Program, which was described earlier as a program focusing on teaching inclusion, has guidelines that are available (see http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED151458). In addition, as reviewed earlier in this chapter, a popular resource for anti-racist teaching within multicultural education is Facing History and Ourselves (Schultz et al., 2001). The website (www.facinghistory.org/reach) includes lessons, readings, and videos that teachers can adopt as they feel appropriate for a one-session or ten-week-long unit involving students critically reviewing past instances of intergroup conflict. Likewise, Teaching Tolerance has classroom resources to aid in anti-racist teaching with older children and adolescents. These include classroom resources and lessons (books and films) on a range of historical and contemporary topics such as the Civil Rights Act and Mexican American Labor in the U.S.

Conclusion Prejudice continues to create barriers for learning, development, and future outcomes of children from all racial and ethnic groups. An ecological systems approach to understanding prejudice and prejudice-reduction helps capture the multi-level sources that affect children’s prejudice over time. This chapter focuses on children in their classrooms and schools, two of the numerous environments in which children are nested and spend a great deal of their time. It is valuable to draw on strengths of multiple approaches targeting factors at multiple levels to make progress toward reducing prejudice among children.

Resources Discussion Questions 1. What can be done to address some of the concerns of teachers and administrators (or others such as parents) that the authors suggest can challenge the implementation of prejudice-reduction strategies in schools? 2. How might teachers, school psychologists, and school administrators implement prejudice-reduction strategies that cut across the school-, classroom-, and child-levels?

254   Levy, Shin, Lytle, and Rosenthal

3. Although researchers assess the effect of the prejudice-reduction interventions on children’s racial and ethnic attitudes, what are some reasons for and against teachers, school psychologists, and school administrators assessing the effect of the prejudice-reduction interventions on their students’ racial and ethnic attitudes?

Professional Organizations Facing History and Ourselves Jigsaw Classroom Teaching Tolerance Understanding Prejudice

References Aboud, F. E. (1988). Children and prejudice. New York: Blackwell. Aboud, F. E. (2008). A social-cognitive developmental theory of prejudice. In S. M. Quintana & C. McKown (Eds.), Handbook of race, racism, and the developing child (pp. 55–71). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc. Aboud, F. E., & Fenwick, V. (1999). Evaluating school‑based interventions to reduce prejudice in pre-adolescents. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 767–785. Aboud, F. E., Mendelson, M. J., & Purdy, K. T. (2003). Cross-race peer relations and friendship quality. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 27, 165–173. doi:10.1080/01650250244000164. Aboud, F. E., & Spears Brown, C. (2013). Positive and negative intergroup contact among children and its effect on attitudes. In G. Hodson & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Advances in intergroup contact (pp. 176–199). New York, NY: Psychology Press. Aboud, F. E., Tredoux, C., Tropp, L. R., Brown, C., Niens, U., & Noor, N. M. (2012). Interventions to reduce prejudice and enhance inclusion and respect for ethnic differences in early childhood: A systematic review. Developmental Review, 32, 307–336. doi:10.1016/j. dr.2012.05.001. Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley. Aronson, E., and Gonzalez, A. (1988). Desegregation, jigsaw and the Mexican American experience. In P. A. Katz & D. A. Taylor (Eds.), Eliminating racism: Profiles in controversy (pp. 301–314). New York: Plenum. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Banks, J. A. (2013). An introduction to multicultural education (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Banks, J. A., & Banks, C. A. M. (2013). Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (8th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Bigler, R. S. (1999). The use of multicultural curricula and materials to counter racism in children. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 687–705. Bigler, R. S., & Liben, L. S. (1993). A cognitive-developmental approach to racial stereotyping and reconstructive memory in Euro-American children. Child Development, 64, 1507–1518.

Reducing Prejudice in Schools   255

Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475–482. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22, 723–742. Cameron, L., & Rutland, A. (2006). Extended contact through story reading in school: Reducing children’s prejudice toward the disabled. Journal of Social Issues, 62(3), 469–488. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2006.00469.x. Cameron, L., Rutland, A., & Brown, R. (2007). Promoting children’s positive intergroup attitudes towards stigmatized groups: Extended contact and multiple classification skills training. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31(5), 454–466. doi:10.1177/ 0165025407081474. Cameron, L., Rutland, A., Hossain, R., & Petley, R. (2011). When and why does extended contact work? The role of high quality direct contact and group norms in the development of positive ethnic intergroup attitudes amongst children. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14, 193–206. doi:10.1177/1368430210390535. Davies, K., Tropp, L. R., Aron, A., Pettigrew, T. F., & Wright, S. C. (2011). Cross-group friendships and intergroup attitudes: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15(4), 332–351. doi:10.1177/1088868311411103. Derman-Sparks, L., & Ramsey, P. G. (2006). What if all the kids are white? Anti-bias multicultural education with young children and families. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Derman-Sparks, L., & Ramsey, P. G. (2011). What if all the kids are white? Anti-bias multicultural education with young children and families. (2nd ed.) New York, NY:Teachers College Press. Dessel, A. (2010). Prejudice in schools: Promotion of an inclusive culture and climate. Education and Urban Society, 42, 407–429. doi:10.1177/0013124510361852. Doyle, A. B., & Aboud, F. E. (1995). A longitudinal study of white children: Racial prejudice as a social-cognitive development. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 41, 209–228. Houlette, M. A., Gaertner, S. L., Johnson, K. M., Banker, B. S., Riek, B. M., & Dovidio, J. F. (2004). Developing a more inclusive social identity: An elementary school intervention. Journal of Social Issues, 60(1), 35–55. doi:10.1111/j.0022-4537.2004.00098.x. Hughes, J. M., Bigler, R. S., & Levy, S. R. (2007). Consequences of learning about racism among European American and African American children. Child Development, 78, 1689–1705. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01096.x. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2000). The three Cs of reducing prejudice and discrimination. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 239–268). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Jones, L. M., & Foley, L. A. (2003). Educating children to decategorize racial groups. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33(3), 554–564. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb01912.x. Katz, P. A. (1973). Stimulus predifferentiation and modification of children’s racial attitudes. Child Development, 44, 232–237. Katz, P. A., & Zalk, S. R. (1978). Modification of children’s racial attitudes. Developmental Psychology, 14(5), 447–461. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.14.5.447. Khmelkov,V.T., & Hallinan, M.T. (1999). Organizational effects on race relations in schools. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 627–645. Killen, M., Lee-Kim, J., McGlothlin, H., & Stangor, C. (2002). How children and adolescents evaluate gender and racial exclusion. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 67, 1–119.

256   Levy, Shin, Lytle, and Rosenthal

Killen, M., Mulvey, K., & Hitti, A. (2013). Social exclusion in childhood: A developmental intergroup perspective. Child Development, 84(3), 772–790. doi:10.1111/cdev.12012. Killen, M., & Rutland, A. (2011). Children and social exclusion: Morality, prejudice, and group identity. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9781444396317. Levy, S. R. (1999). Reducing prejudice: Lessons from social-cognitive factors underlying perceiver differences in prejudice. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 745–766. Levy, S. R., & Hughes, J. (2009). The development of prejudice and stereotypes in children and adolescents. In T. Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 23–42). New York, NY: Psychology Press. Levy, S. R., Karafantis, D., & Ramírez, L. (2008). A social-developmental perspective on lay theories and intergroup relations. In S. R. Levy & M. Killen (Eds.), Intergroup attitudes and relations in childhood through adulthood (pp. 146–156). Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press. Levy, S. R., West, T., Bigler, R. S., Karafantis, D., Ramírez, L., & Velilla, E. (2005). Messages about the uniqueness and similarities of people: Impact on U.S. Black and Latino youth. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 26, 713–733. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2005.08.004. Levy, S. R., West, T., & Ramírez, L. (2005). Lay theories and intergroup relations: A social developmental perspective. European Review of Social Psychology, 16, 189–220. McGlothlin, H., Killen, M. & Edmonds, C. (2005). European-American children’s intergroup attitudes about peer relationships. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 23, 227–249. McGregor, J. (1993). Effectiveness of role playing and anti-racist teaching in reducing student prejudice. Journal of Educational Research, 86, 215–226. doi:10.1080/00220671. 1993.9941833. Perkins, D. M., & Mebert, C. J. (2005). Efficacy of multicultural education for preschool children: A domain-specific approach. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36, 497–512. doi:10.1177/0022022105275964. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751–783. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514. 90.5.751. Phinney, J. S. (1996). When we talk about American ethnic groups, what do we mean? American Psychologist, 51(9), 918–927. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.51.9.918. Pollack, T. M., & Zirkel, S. (2013). Negotiating the contested terrain of equity-focused change efforts in schools: Critical race theory as a leadership framework for creating more equitable schools. The Urban Review, 45(3), 290–310. doi:10.1007/s11256012-0231-4. Quintana, S. M. (1998). Children’s developmental understanding of ethnicity and race. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 7, 27–45. Raabe, T., & Beelmann, A. (2011). Development of ethnic, racial, and national prejudice in childhood and adolescence: A multinational meta-analysis of age differences. Child Development, 82(6), 1715–1737. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01668.x Rosenthal, L., & Levy, S. R. (2010). The colorblind, multicultural, and polycultural ideological approaches to improving intergroup attitudes and relations. Social Issues and Policy Review, 4, 215–246. Rosenthal, L., & Levy, S. R. (2012). The relation between polyculturalism and intergroup attitudes among racially and ethnically diverse adults. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 18, 1–16. doi: 10.1037/a0026490.

Reducing Prejudice in Schools   257

Schultz, L., Barr, D. J., & Selman, R. L. (2001). The value of a developmental approach to evaluating character development programmes: An outcome study of Facing History and Ourselves. Journal of Moral Education, 30(1), 3–27. doi:10.1080/03057240120033785. Tatum, B. (1997). “Why are all the black kids sitting together in the cafeteria?”. New York, NY: Basic Books. Thijs, J., & Verkuyten, M. (2013). Multiculturalism in the classroom: Ethnic attitudes and classmates’ beliefs. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 37, 176–187. doi:10.1016/j. ijintrel.2012.04.012. Tropp, L. R., & Prenovost, M. A. (2008). The role of intergroup contact in predicting children’s inter-ethnic attitudes: Evidence from meta-analytic and field studies. In S. R. Levy & M. Killen (Eds.), Intergroup relations: An integrative developmental and social psychological perspective (pp. 249–260). New York: Oxford University Press. Turner, R. N., & Brown, R. (2008). Improving children’s attitudes toward refugees: An evaluation of a school-based multicultural curriculum and an anti-racist intervention. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 1295–1328. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008. 00349.x. Verkuyten, M., & Thijs, J. (2013). Multicultural education and inter-ethnic attitudes: An intergroup perspective. European Psychologist, 18, 179–190. doi:10.1027/1016-9040/ a000152. Wright, S. C., Aron, A., McLaughlin-Volpe, T., & Ropp, S. A. (1997). The extended contact effect: Knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(1), 73–90. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.73.1.73. Zirkel, S. (2008). The influence of multicultural educational practices on student outcomes and intergroup relations. Teachers College Record, 110, 1147–1181.

14

Systemic Issues in the Implementation of Response to Interventions in Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Schools Janette K. Klingner, Lucinda Soltero-González, John J. Hoover, Amy Eppolito, Clara E. Smith, Edilberto Cano-Rodríguez, and Kathryn Harue Okuma White

Note: Select content in this chapter reflects material that was produced, in part, under U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs Grant No. H326M110001, University of Colorado, Boulder. Grace Zamora Durán served as the OSEP project officer. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the positions or policies of the Department of Education. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education of any product, commodity, service or enterprise mentioned in this publication is intended or should be inferred.

Response to Intervention (RtI) represents a contemporary, systemic approach to identifying learner needs, providing early intervention and determining, in part, eligibility 258

Implementation of RtI in CLD Schools   259

for special education.Though RtI models vary across school systems, four components are typically included (National Center on Response to Intervention, 2010): n

n

n

n

Multi-level instructional and behavioral supports grounded in evidence-based practice that maximize achievement and reduce behavior problems; Universal Screening, designed to identify learners who are currently struggling or predict those who may be at-risk for learning or behavior problems; Progress Monitoring, designed to measure learner performance over time, determine responsiveness to instruction, and serve as a basis for delivering more targeted instruction; Data-based decision making for instructional adjustments, movement within the multi-tiered system, and special education disability referral and identification (Hoover, 2012).

RtI has the potential to improve outcomes for students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds (Klingner & Hoover, 2014) and reduce their disproportionate representation in special education (Hoover & Klingner, 2011). Building upon the four core components included in most RtI models, three topical areas systemic to RtI implementation for English Language Learners (ELL) emerge: (a) multi-level system of support delivered within a culturally and linguistically responsive framework, (b) implementation of high quality core literacy instruction and associated culturally responsive universal screening and progress monitoring, and (c) necessary resources and infrastructure. This chapter addresses each area from both theoretical and practical perspectives based on material from numerous sources, including the authors’ research related to RtI for ELLs. Implications for future teacher training and research are presented.

Theoretical and Research Basis An RtI framework is grounded theoretically in the premise that instructional quality and sufficient opportunity to learn are essential prior to determining academic and behavioral progress, as well as a potential disability (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006; Hoover & Love, 2011). A theoretically sound RtI framework for ELLs includes several elements implemented in integrated ways to ensure that proper instruction, assessment, and decision-making occur for ELLs: (a) high quality research-based multi-level instruction, (b) a multi-leveled system of supports, (c) culturally responsive screening and ongoing monitoring of student progress, (d) data-based decision-making processes and structures that reflect diverse learners’ cultures, homes and communities, and (e) effective use of available resources (Drame & Xu, 2008; Esparza-Brown & Doolittle, 2008; Garcia & Ortiz, 2008; Hoover, 2012; Hoover & Klingner, 2011). Each is discussed below with specific relevance toward effective literacy instruction for ELLs.

260   Klingner et al.

High Quality Research-Based Multi-Level Instruction RtI models implemented with ELLs have produced some effective results. ELL who are struggling readers have responded to interventions within an RtI model when provided with high-quality instruction (Cirino, Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, Cardenas-Hagan, Fletcher, & Francis, 2009; Lovett, De Palma, Frijters, Steinbach, Temple, Benson, & Lacerenza, 2008) implemented with strategies known to be effective for ELLs (McIntosh, Graves, & Gersten, 2007).The process of implementing high quality instruction within an RtI model has proven to be effective in reducing the number of ELLs referred for and placed into special education (Witt & VanDerHeyden, 2007). Culturally and linguistically responsive pedagogy and the understanding of the role of oral language in ELLs’ literacy development are essential to providing high quality instruction for these students. Culturally and linguistically responsive literacy practices that incorporate home experiences and communicative practices into the school curriculum are necessary to help students access content in a meaningful way (Gay, 2002). Increased student engagement and literacy learning occurs when teachers connect subject matter content to students’ lived experiences and home cultures (Nieto & Bode, 2012). Understanding the important role of oral language in students’ literacy development in both their home language and English (Hickman, Pollard-Durodola, & Vaughn, 2004;Vaughn, Cirino, Linan-Thompson, Mathes, Carlson, Hagan, . . . & Francis, 2006) is central to core literacy instruction. Oral language influences wordlevel skills in English such as spelling as well as text-level skills, including reading comprehension and writing (Geva, 2006).Yet, oral language development in English is rarely promoted within literacy instruction for ELLs (August & Shanahan, 2006). The National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth suggests that sound reading instruction combined with support for oral language development in English may be necessary to promote ELLs’ English literacy achievement (August & Shanahan, 2006). Recent research recommends oral language instruction designed to support advanced oral language skills that are necessary to learn subject matter taught in English (Escamilla, Hopewell, Butvilofsky, Sparrow, Soltero-González, Ruiz-Figueroa, & Escamilla, 2014; Goldenberg, 2008; Saunders & Goldenberg, 2010). Specifically, the direct teaching and opportunity to practice English language skills (listening, speaking, reading, and writing) and language features (e.g., vocabulary, grammar, language functions) for academic purposes have been suggested as an effective way to promote reading comprehension, oral fluency, and higher order thinking skills (Snow & Katz, 2010). A comprehensive review of research on literacy instruction for ELLs favors instruction that combines explicit teaching and interactive approaches (Genesee, Lindholm-Leary, Saunders, & Christian, 2006).

Implementation of RtI in CLD Schools   261

Multi-Leveled System of Supports Implementing high quality literacy instruction shown to be effective for ELLs needs to be standard practice in core instruction to improve the language and literacy learning of ELLs within a multi-tiered system of supports (e.g., three-tier model). Tier 1, which is core instruction, is provided to all students within the general education classroom.Tier 1 literacy instruction in culturally and linguistically diverse settings should be research-based and appropriate to the students’ cultural, language, and literacy needs. Tier 2 is a level of more intensive support offered to students who have not made adequate progress when taught using appropriate methods in Tier 1.Tier 2 supplements (i.e., does not replace) core Tier 1 instruction by providing students with instruction that increases in duration and intensity, sufficient to affect progress. Tier 3 represents more highly intensive instruction often considered special education. Instruction at Tier 3 is tailored to the individual needs of the student, is even more focused and personalized, and has a longer duration and intensity than instruction at Tier 2. Issues associated with the development, implementation, and evaluation of an RtI model challenges educators to transform education for all learners, by initially confirming high quality Tiers 1 and 2 instruction prior to examining potential intrinsic disorders and the need for special education (Hoover, 2012).

Culturally Responsive Universal Screening and Progress Monitoring Process One of the more perplexing aspects of the RtI model for ELLs is how to accurately screen and monitor student progress and make decisions about instructional effectiveness. Currently, there is no real consensus on which measures will most accurately determine response to instruction and intervention for ELLs although there are emerging characteristics of ELLs who are considered non-responders (O’Connor & Klingner, 2010). Additionally, most RtI models use general outcomes measures (GOMs), or curriculum-based measurement (CBM) to make assessment decisions for ELLs, and these measures have proven insufficient in informing instructional decisions for ELLs and predicting academic success (Linan-Thompson, 2010).The research indicates that a more effective screening and progress monitoring process for ELLs would incorporate the use of multiple measures as benchmarks for determining progress for ELLs, or alternate assessments such as dynamic assessments that provide educators with information about ELLs’ ability to learn (Barrera & Liu, 2010).

262   Klingner et al.

Data-Based Decision-Making Qualities An integral component of an RtI model for ELLs is a data-based problem-solving model to make educational decisions (Deno, 2005). Such a model utilizes a problemsolving approach (problem identification, problem definition, intervention plan design, implementation of intervention plan, and problem solution) to analyze and interpret data to inform educational decisions. Historically, school teams have faced challenges in collecting and interpreting student information to make valid instructional and evaluative decisions for culturally and linguistically diverse students (Figueroa & Newsome, 2006; Wilkinson, Ortiz, Robertson, & Kushner, 2006). Data decision teams have often relied on anecdotal information rather than data from which decisions can be made. In addition, student language proficiency is rarely considered (Klingner & Harry, 2006). For a decision-making process to be valid and appropriate for ELLs, educators must distinguish second language acquisition behaviors from a learning or reading disability (Hoover, Baca, & Klingner 2016). Therefore, it is essential to decision making that school professionals are knowledgeable about aspects of learning to read and write in a second language, since some typical characteristics of second language acquisition may resemble those of a reading disability.Thus, understanding the reasons for ELLs’ struggles with literacy learning is necessary to avoid confusing students’ lack of progress with signs of learning disability. According to Klingner and Geisler (2008), some of the reasons ELL students may struggle with reading include: n

n

n

n

Difficulty performing phonological awareness tasks when the home language does not include some English phonemes (e.g., short vowel sound for “i” and “th” do not exist in Spanish) or students do not know the target words; Orthographic differences between the students’ home language and English (e.g., letters that look the same in both alphabets but represent different sounds); Common English words can be confusing (e.g., prepositions, pronouns, cohesion markers, words with multiple meanings, and idiomatic expressions); Lack of vocabulary knowledge in English and differences in cultural schema can affect students’ interpretation and comprehension of texts and their ability to use context clues.

Klingner and colleagues (2008) recommend that decision-making teams first look at the number of ELL students who are struggling in the classroom or are not being “responsive” to core practices. If the majority of ELL students are not showing reasonable progress, core instruction should be adjusted. Efforts to improve core instruction should ensure that instruction is culturally and linguistically appropriate to address students’ language and literacy needs. Ultimately, prior to providing more

Implementation of RtI in CLD Schools   263

intensive interventions or referring for special education evaluation, school teams must make sure that all students have received adequate opportunity to learn (Hoover, 2012). Additionally, consideration of the many contextual factors that influence a student’s language development and academic learning within an RtI framework is best facilitated by using an ecological framework for decision making (Hoover, Klingner, Baca, & Patton, 2008). Such a framework fosters a more holistic view of learning that addresses the broader educational and cultural contexts (Bronfenbrenner, 1995; Orosco & Klingner, 2010). Home/community factors include home language, community adjustment, educational history, family heritage, and community connections (Baca & Cervantes, 2004). Learner factors include language development, acculturation, experiential background, cultural norms, higher order thinking skills, and learning preferences (Hoover, 2009). Classroom factors include contextualized learning, joint productivity, active participation, and challenging curricula (Tharp, 2004). A systems approach to RtI for ELLs assists to ensure that the decisionmaking process adheres to ecological principles necessary to best understand diverse instructional qualities and student needs as summarized below.

Effective Use of Available Resources and Infrastructure The availability of resources for RtI development, implementation, and sustainability represents a major challenge for many school districts. Research shows that many schools lack sufficient resources to deliver appropriate instruction in an RtI model (Schwierjohn, 2011). Insufficient school and district resources/supports are contributing factors that may limit the effective delivery of multi-level instruction. Limited resources are of particular concern in the implementation of RtI with ELL students. Hall (2008) discussed several important resources that districts must access to provide quality instruction to all learners, including ELLs, in a multilevel instructional model. These include, yet are not limited to: (a) staff, (b) time, (c) materials, and (d) professional development. Each of these critical resources contributes to an effective RtI model as discussed below. Staff

Two interrelated staffing issues often encountered are teacher turnover and insufficient funds to hire or replace staff to support the needs of ELL students. This systemic challenge requires the district to utilize staff in highly creative and efficient ways to meet diverse learning abilities, often needing to reassign staff to better reflect multi-level needs (Hall, 2008). Additionally, as new educators enter the district they

264   Klingner et al.

do so with varying levels of knowledge, skills and second language proficiency to provide education to the ever-increasing population of ELL students.These staffing issues relate directly to the other three resource challenges confronting educators charged with instruction of ELL students in most RtI models. Time

Another important resource necessary for successful implementation of an RtI model for ELL students is time. Sufficient time is required of educators for a variety of different tasks closely connected to the principles of an RtI model, including universal screening, progress monitoring, data-charting and decision-making, and documenting fidelity and quality of culturally responsive instruction. Many school districts are experiencing reductions in staff, particularly support personnel, placing increased pressures on the general classroom teacher who is challenged with providing additional tasks within the same amount of time. By improving classroom teachers’ abilities to better differentiate literacy instruction, the number of potential problems is minimized, allowing more time for high quality instruction for ELLs in the general classroom. The solution of strengthening core Tier 1 instruction supports the views expressed by other educators engaged in the education of ELLs within RtI models (Klingner, Soltero-González, & Lesaux, 2010; Klingner et al., 2008). Materials

Limited financial resources may also affect a school or district’s abilities to purchase new and contemporary instructional materials necessary to implement an RtI model. The emphasis on evidence-based practice challenges schools and districts to make certain that proper curricula exist for ELL students. The need for core literacy curricula and methods that have been validated with ELL students requires schools and districts to purchase materials not previously used with these students, and yet it is difficult to buy expensive materials and curricular programs when districts are struggling with reduced revenue and funding. These limited resources may contribute to ineffective or less than high quality instruction, which creates a challenging situation for both teachers and students. Additionally, within the same district, curricular materials may exist in one school yet not be accessible to those in other schools. Professional Development

General educators should engage in professional development on a regular basis to increase their knowledge and skills to educate ELL students (Vaughn & Ortiz, 2010). In districts with limited resources the need for professional development becomes an issue of priority. In regards to ELLs and RtI, two important topics for

Implementation of RtI in CLD Schools   265

professional development that should take priority over many others include improved literacy instruction for ELLs in Tier 1 and Tier 2 settings (Klingner et al., 2010), and strategies to reduce inappropriate or unnecessary special education referrals of ELLs (Hoover, 2011, 2012). The above discussions highlight the importance of educators needing to go beyond the four general core components of most RtI models (i.e., multi-level instruction, screening, monitoring, and data decision-making) to meet the diverse needs of ELLs. The five elements presented below provide a foundation for developing, implementing and evaluating an effective RtI model for ELLs. Grounded in the theoretical and research foundation of RtI in general and RtI specific to ELLs, presented above, discussions now move into selected implications for practitioners.

Implications for Practice Over the past several years, the authors as well as other researchers have developed and presented different variations of an RtI framework consistent with meeting the needs of ELLs (e.g., Hoover, 2009, 2011, 2012; Orosco & Klingner, 2010; Vaughn & Ortiz, 2010). Drawing upon these and related works, a five-component RtI model for ELLs is presented and illustrated in Figure 14.1 as one framework that captures the critical elements previously discussed.

Multi-Level Instruction

Culturally Responsive Decision Making

Multiple Levels of Assessment and Data Sources

Integrated Rtl Model Components for ELLs

Research-based Core Literacy Instruction

Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Practice

FIGURE 14.1  RtI Model Components for ELLs. Developed from Several Literature Sources including Esparza-Brown & Doolittle (2008); Fuchs & Fuchs (2006); Hoover (2009); Hoover, Klingner, Baca, & Patton (2008); National Center on Response to Intervention (NCRTI) (2010); NCCRESt (2005).

266   Klingner et al.

Although it is beyond the scope of this chapter to describe each aspect, the model has five core components, each designed to incorporate an essential element in the delivery of RtI for ELLs, that collectively address the three systemic issues addressed in this chapter: (a) multi-level system of supports delivered within a culturally and linguistically responsive framework, (b) implementation of effective Tier 1 core literacy instruction, and (c) necessary resources and infrastructure.

Multi-Level System of Support within a Culturally and Linguistically Responsive RtI Framework For an RtI framework to be culturally and linguistically responsive, at minimum, two key components must be in place: (a) high quality instruction, and (b) progress monitoring and data-based decision making. Each has specific implications for the effective implementation of an RtI model for ELLs. High Quality Instruction

Implementing an RtI model within a culturally and linguistically responsive framework requires the delivery of high quality instruction. Common RtI implementation issues experienced by many school teams include knowing when a method or an intervention has been successful and whether to make a decision based on the response or non-response to instruction or intervention (Ball & Christ, 2012). One recommendation entails working with school-based teams to support teachers’ use of effective strategies for ELLs and help them think about how they can utilize information from them to make valid decisions. Teachers may benefit from professional development and coaching around English as a Second Language (ESL) and native language strategies that target different domains of literacy and language development that are feasible to monitor progress. More specific suggestions for the implementation of high quality literacy instruction for ELLs are provided below. It would also be beneficial for instructional coaches and mentor teachers to help teachers distinguish between generic “good instruction” (e.g., addressing key aspects of reading and writing) and practices that are essential for ELLs to be successful in order to build a foundation for RtI. Culturally Responsive Progress Monitoring and Data-Based Decision-Making for ELLs

It is clear from the research that ambiguity remains in progress monitoring for ELLs. Many school teams may struggle with making decisions for ELLs in terms of finding appropriate progress monitoring tools for literacy that serve as screening measures—measures that inform assessment, analyzing and interpreting the data

Implementation of RtI in CLD Schools   267

objectively for ELLs—and, knowing when to refer an ELL for special education services. In working with school-based teams, researchers have found it beneficial to support educators in developing processes to interpret data (Hoover & Klingner, 2011; Orosco & Klingner, 2010). For example, during grade level meetings, educators collaborate to analyze district Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM) results and/or classroom CBM data with regards to how ELLs were performing in literacy in the general education classroom. Educators should be encouraged to look at patterns and trends of ELLs compared to their true peers. True peers refer to students with similar educational histories, cultural values, and language proficiencies. If several “true peers” are struggling, this is an indication that the instruction is less than optimal for that group of students (Esparza-Brown & Doolittle, 2008), and requires adjustment prior to moving any further with a more intensive tier of instruction or referral to special education. Educators who are encouraged to interpret data with ELLs in mind, in turn, more effectively consider how the data might suggest elements of instruction that need to be adjusted for ELLs to make greater progress. For example, master teachers and educators trained in working with ELLs are able to work strategically with classroom teachers and interventionists to guide them through this process. Researchers recommend that school teams set decision rules for ELLs based on gap analysis (i.e., the extent to which a gap exists between expected and actual student performance) and rate of progress (i.e., the extent to which the learner is making an adequate rate of progress toward achievement of benchmarks or standards), as well as the proficiency cut score (e.g., below 25th percentile) (Hoover, 2012). Consideration of each of these three aspects with decision rules allows professionals to more comprehensively review student data while always considering an ELL’s true peers.

Effective Tier 1 Core Literacy Instruction Tier 1 core instruction is the foundation of any RtI framework; without strong Tier 1 instruction the foundation of the framework may fail. A common challenge in the delivery of high quality Tier I literacy instruction is how to address oral language development for ELLs while providing rigorous literacy instruction (Vaughn et al., 2006). Building the foundation of Tier 1 and ensuring that students have every opportunity to develop both language and literacy skills is central to an effective RtI model for ELLs. Effective Teaching Practices for ELLs

As previously discussed, though “good” generic literacy instruction is necessary in every classroom, it is not sufficient, by itself, to teach ELLs to read and write in

268   Klingner et al.

English at proficient levels. Adjustments to generic instructional approaches and implementation of culturally responsive effective and promising practices are needed to achieve maximum benefits with ELLs. Some of the recommended literacy strategies include: simultaneous teaching of all language domains within daily instruction (listening, speaking, reading, writing, and metalinguistic awareness), incorporating the writing method “The Dictado” (Escamilla et al., 2014) into core instruction, explicit instruction and interactive learning strategies to promote oral language development such as teaching vocabulary, language structures and guided dialogue (Escamilla et al., 2014), use of the Language Experience Approach (LEA) (Nessel & Dixon, 2008) and Collaborative Strategic Reading (CSR) (Klingner, Vaughn, Boardman, & Swanson, 2012), along with core ESL instructional practices incorporated into literacy unit instruction (Hoover, Hopewell, & Sarris, 2014). Additionally, schools serving high percentages of ELLs should make certain that an ESL or bilingual teacher is a member of the school RtI team, ensure that sufficient information is gathered to determine that cultural and linguistic needs are identified and understood, and recognize the importance of co-planning to meet the needs of ELLs (Klingner & Hoover, 2014). Sufficient Opportunity to Learn

Another implication for practitioners as the systemic issue of implementing high quality literacy instruction for ELLs is addressed pertains to providing rigorous and sufficient learning opportunities that are culturally and personally relevant for students (Klingner et al., 2010). Suggested practitioner strategies to address this systemic issue include: pre-reading strategies for accessing prior knowledge and to build background knowledge such as the use of real objects, video clips and visuals (Herrera, Perez, & Escamilla, 2015), activities to validate the ecological resources that students bring from their homes and communities (Hoover, 2009), while also providing appropriate support for the development of language and literacy in English (Herrera, Perez, & Escamilla, 2015), use of instructional conversations to promote the development of oral language and higher-order thinking skills (Goldenberg, 2008), and use of authentic, culturally and personally relevant texts (Souto-Manning, 2009).

Resources and Infrastructure As discussed above, the lack of needed resources and supports are contributing factors that may limit the effective delivery of multi-level instruction for ELLs. Within this reality, however, several practices exist to assist educators, especially classroom teachers, to meet the resources and infrastructure challenges.

Implementation of RtI in CLD Schools   269

Staffing

Limited financial resources often result in significant reductions and less staff.These types of staff reductions often lead, in part, to less staff available to support struggling learners and their teachers in Tier 1 core and Tier 2 supplemental instruction through push-in or pull-out situations. An implication of this situation is to provide ongoing workshops and professional development to existing staff that target the education of ELLs within an RtI framework. Additionally, follow-up support and coaching are essential to improve staff knowledge and skills, which in turn may help to alleviate some of the issues connected to reduced availability of necessary staff, by empowering existing staff to better meet the literacy needs of ELLs. Efficient Delivery of Tiers 1 and 2 Instruction

One solution to address efficient instructional delivery and associated use of teacher time is to ensure that both Tier 1 and Tier 2 instruction are aligned, with some Tier 2 being delivered within the general education classroom, reducing the need for additional external support staff. Aligning Tiers 1 and 2 instruction is a practice put forth by Hoover and Love (2011) and staff at the IRIS Center, who wrote that if Tier 2 instruction is provided by someone other than the general class teacher, collaboration between educators is especially important so that the Tier 2 intervention program directly aligns with Tier 1 instruction (Hoover & Love, 2011; IRIS Center: Effective Instruction at Tier 2). While a challenge, an alignment emphasis not only affects efficient use of time, it also contributes to the important quality of making certain that Tier 2 supplements Tier 1, rather than serving as a replacement to Tier 1 (Hoover & Love, 2011). Another recommended practice that facilitates more efficient delivery of instruction and use of teacher time is seen in efforts to improve the general classroom teachers’ core Tier 1 literacy skills for teaching ELL students. As this development occurs and is continued, the classroom teachers become better prepared to more effectively deliver literacy instruction, thereby reducing the time needed to consider the learner for referral or higherlevel tiered instruction (i.e., Tier 3). Materials Shortages

One practice to meet a resource shortage is to develop a district-wide database of available materials for use in different content areas, intervention implementation, and second language development, to name a few. This same database may also include access to student universal screening and progress monitoring scores, which may allow teachers to select from a menu of methods and materials available in the district, providing options to meet specific instructional learner needs. The implication of a centralized database of student-related information is consistent

270   Klingner et al.

with the recommendation provided by Marston, Lau, and Muyskens (2007), who found that a district-wide e-warehouse was an effective way to counter shortages. Therefore, a centralized system provides accessibility to educators who require access to student data and curricular materials and methods, creating an effective process for addressing the challenge of limited materials for use in all schools. Professional Development

Two important topics for professional development that should take priority are: (1) improve literacy instruction for ELLs in Tier 1 and Tier 2 settings (Klingner et al., 2010), and (2) reduce inappropriate or unnecessary special education referrals of ELLs (Hoover, 2012). These two topics are effectively addressed through professional development provided that coaching and classroom observations are components of the development process. Research supports and it is clear that professional development is valuable and necessary, especially given the limits previously discussed of staff, materials and time. Additionally, implications for effective professional development include the use of collaborative coaching, in which classroom teachers and district coaches cooperatively interact and plan, video coaching, which allows teachers and coaches to jointly provide input via an online format, and development of a designated blog in which all materials, PowerPoint presentations and related materials are deposited for easy access by all participants for future use.

Implications for Research and Training Based on the research experiences of the authors and extensive literature reviews about RtI for ELLs, direct implications for teacher education programs, professional development, and continued research exist. First, pre-service, graduate, and undergraduate teacher preparation programs should include coursework on second language acquisition and methods courses that focus on both content and the language demands placed on ELLs. Programs must help pre-service teachers to acquire the skills, knowledge and dispositions to work with ELLs, understand the importance of students’ backgrounds in their learning, and implement high quality instructional and assessment practices that have been validated with ELLs. These and related topics essential for effective teacher preparation were discussed in this chapter. Practical recommendations for practicing teachers, specialists and administrators point to addressing the systemic challenges discussed in this chapter at various levels: in one-on-one and grade level meetings, on the ground in classrooms, during professional development workshops, and in partnerships with building and district

Implementation of RtI in CLD Schools   271

leaders. It is important for all stakeholders to consider their roles and how these fit within the “bigger picture,” which are affected by systemic issues involved in RtI implementation. Additionally, systemic issues may seem invisible, operating in the unseen spaces of educational professionals’ daily work, while influencing actions in sub-conscious ways. Though some of the systemic issues discussed in this chapter may appear insurmountable (i.e., too big to tackle alone or even with a handful of other like-minded individuals), by identifying and making them more visible, they will become more manageable as illustrated in the various implications for practitioners discussed in the chapter. The focus of professional development for teachers, specialists (such as school psychologists), and school and district leadership staff should include the combined topics of illuminating systemic issues with RtI for ELLs, along with practical suggestions leading to potential solutions and greater literacy achievement. This includes advancing the knowledge base to differentiate between language acquisition and a potential learning disability. Delineating the processes for making appropriate and necessary special education referral and placement eligibility decisions for ELL students must continue to be investigated. It is suggested that school-based teams consider the recommendations outlined in this chapter so that core literacy instruction for all students is strong, prior to making decisions about the need for more intensive interventions as part of an RtI model. Doing so has the potential to reduce the number of inappropriate referrals of ELL students to special education. More research is needed to better understand systemic facilitators and barriers to the implementation of RtI in culturally and linguistically diverse settings. Future research must attend to the underlying tensions that influence educators’ actions and the factors that influence their everyday decision-making.Teachers face several ongoing challenges to cover content, to differentiate instruction to meet diverse needs, to improve test scores, and to support the language acquisition and overall achievement of their ELL students, to name a few. Recognizing the everyday challenges associated with the development, delivery and evaluation of an RtI for ELLs model, provides a solid foundation for addressing various systemic issues discussed in this chapter, which in turn, leads to increased learner progress in today’s classrooms.

Resources Discussion Questions 1. How are the issues identified in this chapter for the implementation of RtI in culturally and linguistically diverse settings similar to, and different from, those you have noticed in your school?

272   Klingner et al.

2. How does the RtI framework in your school address issues in the literacy learning and instruction of ELL students? 3. When an ELL student is not reaching benchmarks and is making little progress, what should be the next steps of a decision-making team?

Professional Organizations Council for Exceptional Children International Reading Association

Additional Readings Hoover, J. J. (2013). Linking assessment to instruction in multi-tiered models. A teacher’s guide to selecting reading, writing, and mathematics interventions. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. This text provides practitioners with 96 evidence-based and promising practices in reading, writing and mathematics for use in a Response to Intervention model. Strategies for linking assessment to instruction are provided throughout the text to make important instructional decisions, along with step-by-step procedures for classroom implementation of the methods. Both teacher and student strategies are presented. Herrell, A. L. & Jordan, M. (2008). 50 strategies for teaching English language learners (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. This practitioner-oriented text presents basic principles of instructing and assessing ELLs. It offers a wealth of strategies to support ELLs’ learning with realia, visuals, cooperative learning, and contextualized language instruction. Text is accompanied by strategies on video (DVD included).

References August, D. & Shanahan, T. (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on language-minority children and youth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. The Iris Center. Effective instruction at Tier 2. Vanderbilt Peabody College. Available at . Baca, L. A., & Cervantes, H.T. (2004). The bilingual special education interface. Columbus, OH: Merrill. Ball, C. R., & Christ, T. J. (2012). Supporting valid decision-making: Uses and misuses of assessment data within the context of RtI. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 231–244. Barrera, M., & Liu, K. K. (2010). Challenges of general outcomes measurement in the RtI progress monitoring of linguistically diverse exceptional learners. Theory into Practice, 49, 273–280.

Implementation of RtI in CLD Schools   273

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1995). Developmental ecology through space and time: A future perspective. In P. Moen, G. Elder, & K. Luescher (Eds.), Examining lives in context: Perspectives on the ecologies of human development (pp. 619–647).Washington, DC:American Psychological Association. Brown, J. E., & Doolittle, J. (2008). A cultural, linguistic, and ecological framework for response to intervention with English Language Learners. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(5), 67–72. Cirino, P.T.,Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., Cardenas-Hagan, E., Fletcher, J. M., & Francis, D. J. (2009). One-year follow-up outcomes of Spanish and English interventions for English language learners at risk for reading problems. American Educational Research Journal, 46(3), 744–781. Deno, S. L. (2005) Problem-solving assessment. In Rachel Chidsey-Brown (Ed.), Assessment for intervention: A problem-solving approach (pp.10–43). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Drame, E. R., & Xu,Y. (2008). Examining sociocultural factors in response to intervention models. Childhood Education, 85, 26–32. Escamilla, K., Hopewell, S., Butvilofsky, S., Sparrow,W., Soltero-González, L., Ruiz-Figueroa, O., & Escamilla, M. (2014). Biliteracy from the start: Literacy Squared in action. Philadelphia, PA: Caslon Pub. Inc. Esparza-Brown, J., & Doolittle, J. (2008). A cultural, linguistic, and ecological framework for response to intervention with English language learners. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(5), 66–72. Figueroa, R. A., & Newsome, P. (2006). The diagnosis of LD in English learners: Is it nondiscriminatory? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 206–214. Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), pp. 93–99. Garcia, S. B., & Ortiz, A. (2008). A framework for culturally and linguistically responsive design of response-to-intervention models. Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 11(1), 24–41. Gay, G. (2002). Culturally responsive teaching in special education for ethnically diverse students: Setting the stage. Qualitative Studies in Education, 15, 613–629. Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W. M., & Christian, D. (2006). Educating English language learners: A synthesis of empirical findings. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Geva, E. (2006). Cross-linguistic relationships in working memory, phono­logical processes, and oral language. In D. August & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing lit­eracy in secondlanguage learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth (pp. 175–184). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Goldenberg, C. (2008). Teaching English language learners: What the research does— and does not—say. American Educator, 8–23, 42–44. Hall, S. L. (2008). Implementing response to intervention: A principal’s guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Herrera, S. G., Perez, D. R., & Escamilla, K. (2015). Teaching reading to English language learners: Differentiated literacies (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Hickman, P., Pollard-Durodola, S. D., & Vaughn, S. (2004). Storybook reading: Improving vocabulary and comprehension for English-language learners. The Reading Teacher, 720–730. Hoover, J. J. (2009). Differentiating learning differences from disabilities: Meeting diverse needs through multi-tiered response to intervention. Columbus, OH: Pearson Allyn & Bacon.

274   Klingner et al.

Hoover, J. J. (2011). Special education eligibility decision making in response to intervention models. Theory into Practice, 49(4), 289–296. Hoover, J. J. (2012). Reducing unnecessary referrals: Guidelines for teachers of diverse learners. Teaching Exceptional Children, 44(4), 38–47. Hoover, J. J., Baca, L. A., & Klingner, J. K. (2016). Why do English learners struggle with reading? Distinguishing language acquisition from learning disabilities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Hoover, J. J. & Klingner, J. K. (2011). Promoting cultural validity in the assessment of bilingual special education students. In M. Basterra, E. Trumbull, & G. Solano-Flores (Eds.), Cultural validity in assessment: A guide for educators. New York: Routledge. Hoover, J. J., Klingner, J. K., Baca, L. A., & Patton, J. (2008) Teaching culturally and linguistically diverse exceptional learners. Columbus, OH: Merrill. Hoover, J. J., Hopewell, S., & Sarris, J. (2014). Core ESL instructional practices (CEIP). Boulder, CO: BUENO Center, University of Colorado. Hoover, J. J., & Love, E. (2011). Supporting school-based response to intervention: A practitioner’s model. Teaching Exceptional Children, 43(3), 40–49. Klingner, J. K., & Geisler, D. (2008). Helping classroom reading teachers distinguish between language acquisition and learning disabilities. In J. K. Klingner, J. J. Hoover, & L. A. Baca (Eds.), English language learners who struggle with reading: Language acquisition or learning disabilities? (pp. 57–73). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Klingner, J. K., & Harry, B. (2006). The special education referral and decision-making process for English language learners: Child study team meetings and placement conferences. Teachers College Record, 108, 2247–2281. Klingner, J. K., & Hoover, J. J. (2014). Challenges for implementing RtI for English learners. Reading Today, July/August, 12–14. Klingner, J. K., Soltero-González, L., & Lesaux, N. (2010). Response to intervention for English language learners. In M. Lipson & K. Wixson (Eds.), Successful approaches to response to intervention (RtI): Collaborative practices for improving K-12 literacy (pp. 134–162). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Klingner, J. K., Vaughn, S., Boardman, A., & Swanson, E. (2012). Now we get it! Boosting comprehension with collaborative strategic reading. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Linan-Thompson, S. (2010). Response to instruction, English language learners and disproportionate representation: The role of assessment. Psicothema, 22(4), 970–974. Lovett, M. W., De Palma, M., Frijters, J., Steinbach, K., Temple, M., Benson, N., & Lacerenza, L. A. (2008). Interventions for reading difficulties: A comparison of  Response to Intervention by ELL and EFL struggling readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41(4), 333–352. Marston, D., Lau, M., & Muyskens, P. (2007). Implementation of the problem-solving model in the Minneapolis public schools. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns, & A. M.VanDerHeyden (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention:The science and practice of assessment and intervention (pp. 279–287). New York, NY: Springer. McIntosh, A. S., Graves, A. W., & Gersten, R. M. (2007). The effects of response to intervention on literacy development in multiple-language settings. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30(3), 197–212. National Center on Response to Intervention. (2010). Essential components of RtI. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research. Available at .

Implementation of RtI in CLD Schools   275

NCCRESt. (2005). Cultural considerations and challenges in Response-to-Intervention models: An NCCRESt position statement. . Nessel, D. D., & Dixon, C. N. (2008). Using the language experience approach with English language learners: Strategies for engaging students and developing literacy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Nieto, S., & Bode, P. (2012). Affirming diversity:The sociopolitical context of multicultural education (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. Noguera, P. A., & Wing, J. Y. (2006). Unfinished business: Closing the racial achievement gap in our nation’s schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. O’Connor, R. E., & Klingner, J. K. (2010). Poor responders in RtI. Theory Into Practice, 49, 297–304. Orosco, M. J., & Klingner, J. K. (2010). One school’s implementation of RtI with English language learners: Referring into RtI. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43(3), 269–288. Saunders,W. M., & Goldenberg, C. (2010). Research to guide English language development instruction. In Improving education for English learners: Research-based approaches (pp. 21–82). Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education. Schwierjohn, C. A. (2011). Identifying key factors in implementing and sustaining Response to Intervention: A comparison of schools currently implementing RtI. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database. Available at . Souto-Manning, M. (2009).Acting out and talking back: Negotiating discourses in American early educational settings. Early Child Development and Care, 179(8), 1083–1094. Snow, M., & Katz, A. (2010). English language development: Foundations and implementation in K through 5. In Improving education for English learners: Research-based approaches (pp. 83–150). Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education. Tharp, R. (2004). Observing the five standards in practice: Development and application of the standards performance continuum. University of California at Santa Cruz: Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence (CREDE). Vaughn, S., Cirino, P.T., Linan-Thompson, S., Mathes, P. G., Carlson, C. D., Hagan, E. C., . . . Francis, D. J. (2006). Effectiveness of a Spanish intervention and an English intervention for English language learners at risk for reading problems. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 449–487. Vaughn, S., & Ortiz, A. (2010). Response to intervention in reading for English language learners. New York, NY: National Center for Learning Disabilities. Wilkinson, C.Y., Ortiz, A. A., Robertson, P. M., & Kushner, M. I. (2006). English language learners with reading-related LD: Linking data from multiple sources to make eligibility determinations. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(2), 129–141. Witt, J. C., & VanDerHeyden, A. M. (2007). The System to Enhance Educational Performance (STEEP): Using science to improve achievement. In S. Jimerson, M. Burns, & A. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention: the science and practice of assessment and intervention (pp. 343–353). New York, NY: Springer.

15

Addressing Disproportionately High Rates of Disciplinary Removal for Students of Color The Need for Systemic Interventions M. Karega Rausch and Russell J. Skiba

Racial and ethnic disparities in use of exclusionary discipline are pervasive in our schools (American Psychological Association [APA], 2008). Since the Children’s Defense Fund (1975) reported rates of school suspension for Black1 students that exceeded White students 40 years ago, the overrepresentation of students of color has been highly consistent over time (Losen, Hodson, Keith III, Morrison, & Belway, 2015). Such overrepresentation has been documented in many exclusionary discipline practices including office disciplinary referrals, out-of-school suspensions, expulsions, and corporal punishment (APA, 2008). Typically defined as removal from school for less than ten consecutive days (out-of-school suspension) or more than ten consecutive days (expulsion) (Skiba & Rausch, 2006), use of out-of-school suspension and expulsion is associated with a number of negative outcomes such as reduced learning time (Lassen, Steele, & Sailor, 2006) and threats to the student–school bond (Bracy, 2011). Data are 276

Discipline Reform for All Students   277

emerging that connect out-of-school suspension and expulsion to school dropout and increased risk of juvenile justice involvement (Council of State Governments, 2011; Nicholson-Crotty, Birchmeier, & Valentine, 2009). A number of popular school-wide disciplinary system reforms show strong evidence of reducing the need for frequent student removal and improving school climate. These include School-wide Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) (Horner et al., 2009), social-emotional learning (SEL) (Payton et al., 2008), and restorative practices (Jennings, Gover, & Hitchcock, 2008) among others. Yet, empirical evidence on interventions that reduce discipline disparities is only emerging (Skiba, Mediratta, & Rausch, 2016). Perhaps the most important research and practice need in the field of school discipline is designing and implementing disciplinary systems that both reduce the use of disciplinary removal and eliminate racial/ethnic disparities.Thus, in addition to describing what is known about disproportionality in school discipline and contemporary intervention efforts, this chapter will describe important opportunities for school psychologists and other change agents to create approaches that reduce racial/ethnic disparities in school discipline.

Theoretical and Research Basis Consistency and Extent of Use Disciplinary disparities, particularly for Black students, have been consistently documented for 40 years. In one of the earliest national studies of disciplinary disparities, the Children’s Defense Fund (1975) reported widespread racial disparities for Black students across the country, including suspension rates two or three times higher than White students at the elementary, middle, and high school levels. Since that report, the overrepresentation of Black students in exclusionary discipline practices has been highly consistent. Not only have Black students been found to be exposed more frequently to a wide range of exclusionary school disciplinary measures (APA, 2008), they have also been found to receive more severe disciplinary sanctions compared to their peers when referred to the office for the same infraction (Skiba et al., 2011).While suspension rates have increased for all racial/ethnic groups over 30 years, rates for Black students have grown at a significantly higher rate, increasing the disciplinary gap between Black students and their peers (Losen et al., 2015). Disproportionality in school discipline for other student groups, such as Hispanic/ Latino students, has been studied far less, and with less consistent results. Some studies have found that Hispanic/Latino students are overrepresented in out-ofschool suspension (Peguero & Shekarkhar, 2011) but such findings have not been

278   Rausch and Skiba

consistent (Horner, Fireman, & Wang, 2010; Skiba et al., 2011). Inconsistent results for Hispanic/Latino students may be due to contextual factors such as school level; for example, Hispanic/Latino students have been found to be overrepresented in office referrals at the middle school level, but underrepresented at the elementary school level (Skiba et al., 2011).

Association with Negative Outcomes Frequent use of student removal is associated with a number of negative student and social outcomes; thus, frequent removal of students of color places them at a much higher risk of experiencing such outcomes. Longitudinal and descriptive studies of student removal have found that frequent use is not associated with improved student behavior (Shollenberger, 2015; Theriot, Craun, & Dupper, 2010) or an improved school climate (Steinberg, Allensworth, & Johnson, 2011). Moreover, the use of exclusionary discipline is positively associated with an increased risk of dropping out of school (Suh & Suh, 2007) and contact with the juvenile justice system (NicholsonCrotty, Birchmeier, & Valentine, 2009). Those negative outcomes appear to be particularly pronounced for Black students (Mattison & Aber, 2007; NicholsonCrotty, Birchmeier, & Valentine, 2009). Emerging evidence suggests that frequent use of suspension and expulsion is negatively related to student achievement, an important finding given increased expectations for higher student achievement among all student groups. Studies have found higher rates of exclusionary discipline are associated with multiple measures of lower academic achievement (Arcia, 2006; Beck & Muschkin, 2012; Rocque, 2010). Muscott, Mann, and LeBrun (2008) reported that an average office disciplinary referral resulted in 45 minutes of lost classroom instruction for students, ten to 15 minutes of lost teaching time for teachers, and 15 to 45 minutes of lost time for school administrators. Loss of instructional time may contribute to the negative relationship between achievement and discipline, particularly for Black students (Lewis, Butler, Bonner, & Joubert, 2010). In a three-year longitudinal investigation of a matched sample of suspended and non-suspended middle-school students, Arcia (2006) found a significant negative relationship between reading achievement growth over a three-year period and the number of days suspended over that same period.

Predicting Racial Disproportionality Research exploring factors related to disparities has found that some commonly assumed factors, such as poverty and differential behavior, do not fully explain racial

Discipline Reform for All Students   279

discipline gaps. Other factors such as the racial composition of faculty, classroom and administrative processes, student–teacher relationships, and school climate have emerged as making an apparent contribution to disparities. Each of those factors is described below. Poverty

Students growing up in high-poverty homes are more likely to experience suspension and expulsion (Beck & Muschkin, 2012). It might be assumed then, given the overlap of race and poverty in schools (National Center for Education Statistics, 2012), that Black disproportionality in school discipline is more a function of the disadvantages associated with poverty than racial category. Yet multivariate studies that have controlled for socio-economic status, typically measured by free and/or reduced lunch, have consistently found that being Black independently predicts higher use of exclusionary discipline (Beck & Muschkin, 2012; Sullivan, Klingbeil, & Van Norman, 2013). For example, in a multilevel model of more than 18,000 K-12 students in one Midwestern school district, Sullivan and colleagues (2013) reported that even after controlling for an individual’s free or reduced lunch status and rates of free and reduced lunch rates at the school level, the odds of receiving one or multiple suspensions was high and significant for Black students. Student Behavior

Since student removal is at least in part a function of student behavior (Horner, Fireman, & Wang, 2010), it is possible that racial disparities in discipline are due to different rates or types of misbehavior. Available evidence suggests, however, that the racial discipline gap cannot be explained by differences in behavior among student groups. While direct observational studies of classroom behavior have not yet been conducted, research using more indirect methods of inference suggests students of color do not engage in more seriously disruptive behavior warranting higher rates of school punishment (Gregory & Weinstein, 2008; Skiba et al., 2002). Moreover, race remains a significant predictive factor in the likelihood of removal, even after controlling for the characteristics or severity of student behavior (Peguero & Shekarkhar, 2011; Skiba et al., 2011). Race continues to predict higher rates of disciplinary referral, even after controlling for teacher ratings of student behavior (Bradshaw et al., 2010; Horner, Fireman, & Wang, 2010). Student and Faculty Racial Composition

Emerging evidence suggests that schools with a more racially diverse teaching force tend to have lower rates of disproportionality in school discipline (Rocha & Hawes, 2009), although the race of the school principal has not been found to

280   Rausch and Skiba

be related to levels of disproportionality (Roch, Pitts, & Navarro, 2010). The racial composition of the student body has been found to be associated with disparities in some studies (Payne & Welch, 2010) but not others (Sullivan, Klingbeil, & Van Norman, 2013). Classroom and Administrative Processes

Disproportionality in discipline also appears to be influenced by both classroom and administrative decision-making processes (Gregory & Weinstein, 2008). For example, in a recent national analysis of both classroom and administrative contributions to student removal from school, Skiba et al. (2011) found that Black students were twice as likely to receive office disciplinary referrals at the elementary level and up to four times as likely at the middle school level. At the administrative level, Black and Hispanic/Latino students were more likely than White students to receive suspension and expulsion for minor infractions—such as minor disrespect, noncompliance, and inappropriate language—even when controlling for the severity of the office disciplinary referral category (Skiba et al., 2011). Student–Teacher Relationships

The office disciplinary referral gap between Black students and their peers tends to be the widest in subjective and interpersonal categories and tends to be teacher/ classroom specific (Gregory & Thompson, 2010; Skiba et al., 2002). Such evidence suggests that the quality of relationships Black students have with their teachers may be a driver of disparities. Gregory and Thompson reported that the likelihood of African American students with low academic achievement receiving an office discipline referral (ODR) was largely classroom specific: rather than finding a generalized pattern of ODRs across classrooms for students, particular student– teacher dyads were found to produce the vast majority of ODRs for those students. Further, Skiba et al. (2002) reported very few differences between reasons for Black and White student ODRs; where differences existed, however, Black students were referred to the office disproportionately more in categories that require significant interpretation (for example, disrespect and excessive noise). Such findings suggest that a student’s likelihood of being referred to the office is at least in part due to how educators interpret a student’s behavior and the quality of relationships between certain teachers and students. School Climate

A school’s racial climate also appears to be related to disciplinary disparities. Mattison and Aber (2007) compared rates of suspension with ratings of racial school climate and found that Black students reported more experiences of racism and

Discipline Reform for All Students   281

lower ratings of racial fairness at school, and both of those ratings were associated with higher rates of suspension.

Summary The evidence described thus far makes it clear that while still frequently used, exclusionary discipline is not effective, and not used equitably. A clear implication for practice is the identification and implementation of alternatives that reduce both overall and disproportionate use of exclusionary discipline. The following section describes the extent to which such alternatives exist and opportunities for school psychologists to lead disparity-reducing change efforts.

Implications for Practice Reducing Disparities in Use of Exclusionary Discipline Available evidence suggests that use of exclusionary discipline can be reduced through approaches that change disciplinary structures, climate and practices. For example, PBIS is a comprehensive decision-making framework designed to provide a continuum of positive supports that align data, practices, and school-wide systems to improve student behavior (Horner et al., 2009). Rigorous evaluations have demonstrated its efficacy in reducing office discipline referrals and suspensions (Bradshaw, Mitchell, & Leaf, 2010). Further, SEL programs are implemented as preventative curriculums and/or through the creation of supportive learning environments aimed at reducing problem behaviors by teaching students needed social or life skills (Durlak, Weissberg, & Pachan, 2010). Evidentiary reviews indicate that SEL approaches can reduce the need for exclusionary discipline (Payton et al., 2008). Yet approaches that reduce the use of exclusionary discipline do not necessarily also reduce racial disparities in discipline. For example, in a nationally-representative sample of elementary and middle schools implementing PBIS, Skiba et al. (2011) reported that, in general, schools in the study used a graduated system of discipline: minor infractions received less severe administrative consequences, while major infractions received more severe consequences. Yet Skiba and colleagues also reported that Black and Hispanic/Latino students were up to five times more likely to receive a suspension or expulsion for a minor office discipline referral. Moreover,Vincent and her colleagues have found that Black students have benefited significantly less from PBIS implementation in terms of reduced office referrals and suspensions as compared to their White peers (Vincent, Sprague, Pavel, Tobin, &

282   Rausch and Skiba

Gau, 2015; Vincent & Tobin, 2011). For SEL, there appear to be no published studies that have used racial/ethnic disproportionality as an outcome variable. Promising recent evidence, albeit limited, is emerging on approaches that may reduce both overall use of exclusionary discipline and disparities. For example, in a national presentation of a randomized controlled trial study in five secondary schools, Gregory and colleagues reported on the outcomes of a teacher professional development program (i.e., My Teaching Partner) designed to improve teacher– student interactions during instruction (Gregory et al., 2015). Teachers in the treatment condition focused on areas such as establishing clear routines, monitoring behavior in a proactive way, developing warm and respectful interactions with students and valuing student needs for autonomy and leadership. Those teachers not only relied less on exclusionary discipline overall, but the racial disciplinary gap for Black students was virtually eliminated in these classrooms compared to control group classrooms. Moreover, restorative practices are approaches that create stronger interpersonal relationships between and within faculty and student groups (Jennings, Gover & Hitchcock, 2008). Studies of its implementation suggests that it can reduce both use of exclusionary discipline and racial/ethnic disparities in discipline (González, 2015; Gregory, Clawson, Davis, & Gerewitz, 2015). Finally the Virginia Threat Assessment Guidelines are a structured protocol used to respond to students’ threats of violence without immediately resorting to exclusionary discipline (Cornell, Shinn, Ciolfi, & Sancken, 2013). Cornell and colleagues report that implementation of the Guidelines is associated with reductions in suspensions and a shrinking of the suspension gap between Black and White males.

Opportunities for New Reform Approaches The clear need for approaches that reduce both overall rates and disparate usage of exclusionary discipline represents an important opportunity for the adaptation of existing systems, and the development and testing of new reform approaches. Among widely used approaches such as PBIS and SEL, there is no reason to believe that such approaches cannot be adapted to address disparities. Indeed researchers are beginning to pilot adapted PBIS models that intentionally incorporate student and family culture into designs, such as working with “cultural guides” to inform types of reinforcement systems, embedding cultural values in functional assessment processes, and developing systems in partnerships with families the most impacted by change. Some promising evidence, on a small scale, is emerging (Jones et al., 2006; Wang, McCart, & Turnbull, 2007;Vincent et al., 2015). In order to develop and test the degree to which adapted or new interventions work to reduce disproportionality, such efforts should consider the importance of using disaggregated data in assessing progress and the degree to which implementing

Discipline Reform for All Students   283

cultural responsiveness as a design element reduces disparities. Each of those factors is briefly described below. Data Disaggregation

Available evidence suggests that it is insufficient to review school-wide data and assume that it is equitably impacting all student groups (Skiba et al., 2011). If Black students are referred to the office in the disciplinary category of defiance at significantly higher rates than their peers then, in order to create equal outcomes for students, intervention efforts would need to result in disproportionately fewer office referrals for Black students compared to others in this category. Assessing the effectiveness of new efforts will require evaluation of the degree to which efforts result in lower overall rates of exclusionary discipline compared to baseline levels, and the degree to which gaps between student groups are reduced. Cultural Responsiveness

The struggle of school faculty and other professionals to talk about issues of racial inequity may be a barrier to accurately interpreting data documenting racial differences, and ultimately to implementing interventions that effectively address disparities (Skiba et al., 2006). Unless a diversity of perspectives, opinions, and voices are considered in exploring why racial/ethnic disproportionality is evident in local contexts, attempts to address disparities may be restricted in the number and quality of interventions that are considered and responsive to racial, ethnic, or cultural differences. To date, there is a dearth of empirical studies that have validated the degree to which culturally responsive approaches are required design elements in addressing disciplinary disparities. Given the complex group histories, perceptions, and experiences students come to the learning environment with, some scholars have argued that educational approaches and interventions do not operate in the same way for all groups of students, and that explicitly culturally responsive approaches may be necessary (Gay, 2010; Milner & Tenore, 2010). It has also been argued, however, that there is insufficient empirical research to determine whether behavioral interventions operate differently based on race/ethnicity, gender, or religious affiliation (Kauffman et al., 2008). Given a shortage of tests of interventions designed specifically to address disparities in discipline, all interventions—those that explicitly include elements of culturally responsiveness and those that do not— should be evaluated for their impact on disproportionality. In implementing reforms to create greater equity, school psychologists may benefit from models that guide the process of change. Ritter and Skiba (2006) describe a model of change, Local Equity Action Development (LEAD), used in one state to guide reform efforts in response to racial disproportionality in special

284   Rausch and Skiba

Activity

Action steps

Form a planning team

Form an initial planning team that identifies areas of greatest concern after examining school/district data. Recruit additional team members representative of key school/district constituencies Develop hypotheses on why disproportionality is occurring based on literature reviews, focus groups, and quantitative data. Identify strategies, programs, or approaches likely to remediate the issue Synthesize existing information and design a pilot program and action plan. Plan should reflect knowledge of best practice and local context, and identify implementation and outcome data to assess effectiveness Collect implementation and outcome data and share widely; continue and deepen discussions about equity; monitor progress and quickly adapt pilot if intended outcomes are not being achieved

Identify greatest potential impact Develop the plan Implement, assess, and adapt

TABLE 15.1  Local Equity Action Development (LEAD) activities and action steps Source: From Ritter and Skiba (2006). Adapted with permission of the authors.

education eligibility. Table 15.1 describes LEAD process activities and includes specific action steps school psychologists can take to create and pilot locally developed approaches to discipline reform.

Implications for Research and Training Perhaps the most important research and practice requirement in the field of school discipline is in the creation of disciplinary systems that reduce both the use of exclusionary discipline and eliminate racial/ethnic disparities (Skiba, Arredondo, & Rausch, 2014). While some promising interventions described previously have been identified, those interventions have not yet been tested or replicated widely enough to be considered evidence-based in addressing disciplinary disproportionality. Thus, clear implications exist for future research and training in developing and piloting disciplinary gap-closing interventions.

Systemic Change, Race, Culture, and Equity Organizational and systemic change in social institutions such as schools is difficult. Rittel and Webber (1973) argued that, in contrast to problems in the natural sciences that are definable and potentially amenable to a well-defined solution, organizational issues in the social sciences are “wicked problems,” with ill-defined boundaries, no clear solutions, and a heavy reliance on political judgment for resolution. McCall and Skrtic (2009) framed the problem of racial/ethnic disproportionality in education as a wicked problem, with particular sources of social, political, and institutional complexity. Many problems faced during a social change process are adaptive,

Discipline Reform for All Students   285

requiring a shift in the perceptions, beliefs, and actions of those in the organization (Heifetz, Grashow, & Linsky, 2009). Treating adaptive issues as simply technical or routine problems risks derailment of change efforts by the person-centered adaptive problems that invariably surface during change (Heifetz et al., 2009). Difficulty in creating systemic change is compounded when the focus of the change effort is race, culture or equity. When a change process is explicitly about racial inequity, racial inequity in school discipline in particular, educators’ attributions of school underperformance to deficient parents, students, and communities become particularly pronounced, direct, and emotional (McKenzie & Scheurich, 2008; Young, Madsen, & Young, 2010). McCall and Skrtic (2009) argue that, as a wicked problem, disproportionality is best approached through frame-reflective inquiry (Schon & Rein, 1994), evaluating competing problem interpretations by considering the extent to which the outcomes of each interpretation accord with desirable social values.

Leading Change Additional training for school psychologists in leading and facilitating effective change processes in complex systems may be warranted. Training in educational leadership that teaches systemic problem-solving as well as methods that restructure and re-culture policies, practices, and perceptions toward common and equitable outcomes may be particularly useful in planning for and successfully implementing change approaches (Marshall & Oliva, 2006; Senge, 2010). Moreover, future efforts to address racial disparities in discipline will likely have to attend to both adaptive issues (i.e., beliefs and perceptions about disparities in discipline) and technical issues specific to the elements of interventions.Training in how to effectively attend to such adaptive issues may be particularly important: interventions that explicitly include conversations about bias, race, and power can lead to the reinforcement of negative stereotypes if not handled skillfully (Pollock, 2008). Training in ethnographic and action research may also aid in future research and intervention evaluation efforts. Particularly for school-based school psychologists, approaches that engage other educators and even students in the process of research design, scope, and implementation may yield more effective and ecologically valid intervention approaches (Reason & Bradbury, 2008).

Conclusion Developing research-validated approaches that address the racial/ethnic disciplinary gap is an urgent priority and, arguably, one of the most important and complex

286   Rausch and Skiba

needs in the field.There is a clear and pressing need for change agents with the skills, knowledge, and ability to design, implement, evaluate, and disseminate the findings of interventions that reduce the use of exclusionary discipline and disparities in discipline, particularly for Black students. All students will benefit from more change agents with the moral and ethical commitment and skills to attend to disparities and prevent the negative academic and social outcomes associated with frequent removal.

Note 1 Throughout this chapter, the authors use the term Black to be inclusive of groups that identify as Black and may not identify as African American. Research studies cited in this chapter use both Black and African American, and at times use those terms interchangeably. When describing specific studies, the authors of this chapter use the term used by the authors of those studies, favoring the term Black when warranted.

Resources Discussion Questions 1. How can schools/districts ensure that disaggregated discipline data are routinely available, regularly monitored, and used for decision-making? 2. What resources do educators need to reduce disproportionality while maintaining a safe and productive learning climate? 3. What are the best methods for encouraging school staff to participate in open conversations about race, racism, power, and disciplinary inequity that do not lead to the reinforcement of negative stereotypes and further divisions?

Professional Organizations Equity Project at Indiana University Discipline Disparities Research-to-Practice Collaborative

References American Psychological Association. (2008). Are zero tolerance policies effective in the schools? An evidentiary review and recommendations. American Psychologist, 63(9), 852–862. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.63.9.852.

Discipline Reform for All Students   287

Arcia, E. (2006). Achievement and enrollment status of suspended students: Outcomes in a large, multicultural school district. Education and Urban Society, 38(3), 359–369. Beck, A. N., & Muschkin, C. (2012).The enduring impact of race: Understanding disparities in student disciplinary infraction and achievement. Sociological Perspectives, 55 (4), 637–662. Bracy, N. L. (2011). Student perceptions of high-security school environments. Youth and Society, 43(1), 365–395. Bradshaw, C. P., Mitchell, M. M., & Leaf, P. J. (2010). Examining the effects of school-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports on student outcomes: Results from a randomized controlled effectiveness trial in elementary schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 12, 133–148. Bradshaw, C. P., Mitchell, M. M., O’Brennan, L. M., & Leaf, P. J. (2010). Multilevel exploration of factors contributing to the overrepresentation of black students in office disciplinary referrals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(2), 508–520. Children’s Defense Fund (1975). School suspensions:Are they helping children? Cambridge, MA: Washington Research Project. Cornell, D., Shin, C., Ciolfi, A., & Sancken, K. (2013). Prevention v. punishment: Threat assessment, school suspensions, and racial disparities. Charlottesville, VA: Legal Aid Justice Center and University of Virginia. Council of State Governments. (2011). Breaking schools’ rules: A statewide study of how school discipline relates to students’ success and juvenile justice involvement. Texas A&M University, Public Policy Research Institute. New York, NY: Author. Durlak, J. A.,Weissberg, R. P., & Pachan, M. (2010). A meta-analysis of after-school programs that seek to promote personal and social skills in children and adolescents. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45, 294–309. doi:10.1007/s10464-010-9300-6. Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching:Theory, research and practice (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. González, T. (2015). Socializing schools: Addressing racial disparities in discipline through restorative justice. In D. J. Losen (Ed.), Closing the discipline gap (pp.151–165). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Gregory, A., Allen, J. P., Mikrami, A.Y., Hafen, C. A., & Pianta, R. C. (2015). The promise of a teacher professional development program in reducing disparity in classroom exclusionary discipline. In D. J. Losen (Ed.), Closing the discipline gap (pp.166–179). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Gregory, A., Clawson, K., Davis, A., & Gerewitz, J. (2015). The promise of restorative practices to transform teacher–student relationships and achieve equity in school discipline. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 25, 1–29. doi:10.1080/10474412. 2014.929950. Gregory, A., & Thompson, A. R. (2010). African American high school students and variability in behavior across classrooms. Journal of Community Psychology, 38(3), 386–402. Gregory, A., & Weinstein, R. S. (2008). The discipline gap and African Americans: Defiance or cooperation in the high school classroom. Journal of School Psychology, 46(4), 455–475. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2007.09.001. Heifetz, R., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M. (2009). The practice of adaptive leadership. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Horner, S. B., Fireman, G. D., & Wang, E. W. (2010). The relation of student behavior, peer status, race, and gender to decisions about school discipline using CHAID decision trees

288   Rausch and Skiba

and regression modeling. Journal of School Psychology, 48(2), 135–161. doi:10.1016/ j.jsp.2009.12.001. Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Smolkowski, K., Eber, L., Nakasato, J., Todd, A. W., & Esperanza, J. (2009). A randomized, wait-list controlled effectiveness trial assessing school-wide positive behavior support in elementary schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Supports and Interventions, 11(3), 133–144. doi:10.1177/1098300709332067. Jennings, W. G., Gover, A. R., & Hitchcock, D. M. (2008). Localizing restorative justice: An in-depth look at a Denver public school program. In H. V. Miller (Ed.), Sociology of crime, law, and deviance (Vol. 11) (pp. 167–187). Bingley, England: JAI Press. Jones, C., Caravaca, L., Cizek, S., Horner, R. H., & Vincent, C. G. (2006). Culturally responsive school-wide positive behavior support: A case study in one school with a high proportion of Native American students. Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 9(1), 108–119. Kauffman, J. M., Conroy, M., Gardner, R., & Oswald, D. P. (2008). Cultural sensitivity in the application of behavioral principles in education. Education and Treatment of Children, 31, 239–262. Lassen, S. R., Steele, M. M., & Sailor, W. (2006). The relationship of school-wide Positive Behavior Support to academic achievement in an urban middle school. Psychology in the Schools, 43(6), 701–712. doi:10.1002/pits.20177. Lewis, C. W., Butler, B. R., Bonner III, F. A., & Joubert, M. (2010). African American male discipline patterns and school district responses’ resulting impact on academic achievement: Implications for urban educators and policy makers. Journal of African American Males in Education, 1(1), 1–19. Losen, D. J., Hodson, C., Keith III, M. A., Morrison, K., & Belway, S. (2015). Are we closing the school discipline gap? Los Angeles, CA: The Center for Civil Rights Remedies at the the Civil Rights Project. Marshall, C., & Oliva, M. (Eds.). (2006). Leadership for social justice: Making revolutions in education. Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Mattison, E., & Aber, M. S. (2007). Closing the achievement gap: The association of racial climate with achievement and behavioral outcomes. American Journal of Community Psychology, 40(1), 1–12. doi:10.1007/s10464-007-9128-x. McCall, Z., & Skrtic, T. M. (2009). Intersectional needs politics: A policy frame for the wicked problem of disproportionality. Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 11(2), 3–23. McKenzie, K. B. & Scheurich, J. J. (2008). Equity traps: A useful construct for preparing principals to lead schools that are successful with racially diverse students. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(5), 601–632. Milner, R. H. & Tenore, B. F. (2010). Classroom management in diverse classrooms. Urban Education, 45(5), 560–603. Muscott, H. S., Mann, E. L., & LeBrun, M. L. (2008). Positive behavioral interventions and supports in New Hampshire: Effects of large-scale implementation of school-wide positive behavior support on student discipline and academic achievement. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 10, 190–205. doi:10.1177/1098300708316258. National Center for Education Statistics (2012). The condition of education 2012.Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. Nicholson-Crotty, S., Birchmeier, Z., & Valentine, D. (2009). Exploring the impact of school discipline on racial disproportion in the juvenile justice system. Social Science Quarterly, 90(4), 1003–1018. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2009.00674.x.

Discipline Reform for All Students   289

Payne, A. A., & Welch, K. (2010). Modeling the effects of racial threat on punitive and restorative school discipline practices. Criminology, 48(4), 1019–1062. doi:10.1111/j. 1745-9125.2010.00211.x. Payton, J., Weissberg, R. P., Durlak, J. A., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., Schellinger, K. B., & Pachan, M. (2008). The positive impact of social and emotional learning for kindergarten to eighth-grade students: Findings from three scientific reviews. Chicago, IL: Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning. Peguero, A. A., & Shekarkhar, Z. (2011). Latino/a student misbehavior and school punishment. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 33(1), 54–70. doi:10.1177/07399863 10388021. Pollock, M. (2008). Because of race: How Americans debate harm and opportunity in our schools. Camden, N J: Princeton University Press. Reason, P. & Bradbury, H. (Eds.). (2008). The Sage handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (2nd ed). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. W. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169. Ritter, S., & Skiba, R. J. (2006). Local equity action development (LEAD). Bloomington, IN: Center for Evaluation and Education Policy. Roch, C. H., Pitts, D.W., & Navarro, I. (2010). Representative bureaucracy and policy tools: Ethnicity, student discipline, and representation in public schools. Administration & Society, 42(1), 38–65. doi:10.1177/0095399709349695. Rocha, R., & Hawes, D. (2009). Racial diversity, representative bureaucracy, and equity in multicultural districts. Social Science Quarterly, 90(2), 326–344. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6237. 2009.00620.x. Rocque, M. (2010). Office discipline and student behaviors: Does race matter? American Journal of Education, 116(4), 557–581. doi:10.1086/653629. Schon, D. A., & Rein, M. (1994). Frame reflection. Towards the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York, NY: Basic Books. Senge, P. M. (2010). The fifth discipline:The art and practice of the learning organization (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Currency Doubleday. Shollenberger, T. L. (2015). Racial disparities in school suspension and subsequent outcomes: Evidence from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. In D. J. Losen (Ed.), Closing the discipline gap (pp. 31–43). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Skiba, R. J., Arredondo, M. I., & Rausch, M. K. (2014). New and developing research on disparities in discipline. Bloomington, IN: Center for Evaluation and Education Policy. Skiba, R. J., Horner, R. H., Chung, C. G., Rausch, M. K., May, S. L., & Tobin, T. J. (2011). Race is not neutral: A national investigation of African American and Latino disproportionality in school discipline. School Psychology Review, 40(1), 85–107. Skiba, R. J., Mediratta, K., & Rausch, M. K. (Eds.). (2016). Inequality in school discipline: Research and practice to reduce disparities. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Skiba, R. J., Michael, R. S., Nardo, A. C., & Peterson, R. (2002). The color of discipline: Sources of racial and gender disproportionality in school punishment. Urban Review, 34(4), 317–342. doi:10.1023/A:1021320817372. Skiba, R. J., & Rausch, M. K. (2006). Zero tolerance, suspension, and expulsion: Questions of equity and effectiveness. In C. M. Evertson & C. S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, and contemporary issues (pp. 1063–1089). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

290   Rausch and Skiba

Skiba, R. J., Simmons, A., Ritter, S., Kohler, K., Henderson, M., & Wu,T. (2006).The context of minority disproportionality: Practitioner perspectives on special education referral. Teachers College Record, 108(7), 1424–1459. Steinberg, M., Allensworth, E., & Johnson, D. (2011). Student and teacher safety in Chicago public schools: The roles of community context and school social organization. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research. Suh, S., & Suh, J. (2007). Risk factors and levels of risk for high school dropouts. Professional School Counseling, 10(3), 297–306. Sullivan, A. L., Klingbeil, D. A., & Van Norman, E. R. (2013). Beyond behavior: Multilevel analysis of the influence of sociodemographics and school characteristics on students’ risk of suspension. School Psychology Review, 42(1), 99–114. Theriot, M. T., Craun, S. W., & Dupper, D. R. (2010). Multilevel evaluation of factors predicting school exclusion among middle and high school students. Children & Youth Services Review, 32(1), 13–19. Vincent, C. G., Sprague, J. R., Pavel, M., Tobin, T. J., & Gau, J. M. (2015). Effectiveness of schoolwide positive behavior interventions and supports in reducing racially inequitable disciplinary exclusion. In D. J. Losen (Ed.), Closing the discipline gap (pp. 207–221). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Vincent, C. G., & Tobin, T. J. (2011). The relationship between implementation of schoolwide positive behavior support (SWPBS) and disciplinary exclusion of students from various ethnic backgrounds with and without disabilities. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 19(4), 217–234. doi:10.1177/1063426610377329. Wang, M., McCart, A., & Turnbull, A. P. (2007). Implementing positive behavior support with Chinese American families: Enhancing cultural competence. Journal of Positive Interventions, 9(1), 38–51. Young, B. L., Madsen, J., & Young, M. A. (2010). Implementing diversity plans: Principals’ perception of their ability to address diversity in their schools. NASSP Bulletin, 94(2), 135–157.

16

Cultural Reciprocity in Home–School Consultation and Collaboration within International Contexts Maya Kalyanpur

All professionals bring cultural assumptions in their interactions with families. Many are related to one’s professional training, such as the belief in children’s right to education. However, these assumptions can be problematic if they differ from those of families and are further exacerbated when they occur across countries. Drawing from research and the author’s own experiences as a consultant and researcher on India and Cambodia, this chapter examines some challenges these different contexts present and the cultural assumptions professionals might bring, particularly with regard to working with families of children with disabilities from other countries, and offers the process of cultural reciprocity towards working through these challenges. The first part of the chapter identifies the dominant values of the field that consultants might bring to interactions with families and then describes the families’ values. Next, the section on implications for practice provides real examples to illustrate the process of cultural reciprocity in consultative interactions with families in international contexts. Finally, the chapter examines the implications of applying this approach in future training and research.

291

292   Kalyanpur

Theoretical and Research Basis In order to serve the needs of children and young adults with disabilities and their families, disability-related expertise on education, psychological, and rehabilitation services is being shared globally (Artiles & Dyson, 2009). United Nations (UN) agencies, such as the Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), and affiliated international agencies like the World Health Organization (WHO) have set international standards and expectations for quality services and policies (Armstrong, Armstrong, & Spandagou, 2010; Shakespeare, 2012).Through international non-government organizations (NGOs) like Handicap International or Mobility International, and government institutions like the U.S. Agency for International Development, many professionals provide consultant services to the governments or local NGOs in developing countries where these international standards are beginning to be implemented. In all these instances, professionals bring their expertise, and apply their knowledge and skills learned in the U.S. in what is often a completely different context. When working with families, consultants must consider that home and school are two distinct systems, and the transition from the culture of home to that of school can be traumatic for children. Arguing the need for building bridges between them towards ensuring children’s successful learning and development, LawrenceLightfoot (2003) asserted that interactions between parents and teachers “are shaped by their own autobiographical stories and by the broader cultural and historical narratives that inform their identities, their values, and their sense of place in the world” (p. 3). Similarly, Harkness, Super, and their colleagues, in their considerable body of research with families across the world (see Chen & Rubin, 2011), contend that parental ethnotheories or parent belief systems about child rearing and development are affected by culture and personal history in ways unique to each family.This perspective challenges the implicit assumption of universal applicability across cultures and also indicates that, even within the same culture, families can have distinctive ethnotheories. The concepts of cultural narratives and parental ethnotheories and the notion of building bridges between home and school are echoed in two theoretical frameworks that inform this chapter: the process of cultural reciprocity for working with families of children with disabilities from diverse backgrounds (Kalyanpur & Harry, 2012) and the model for multicultural school consultation (MSC) developed for school psychologists by Ingraham and her colleagues (Ingraham, 2000; Ingraham & Meyers, 2000). Although neither directly addresses international contexts, the premises of both approaches regarding cultural sensitivity are appropriate for overseas consultants in disability-related fields. Both note the need for professionals to develop competencies towards making service recommendations congruent with students and their families’ beliefs and values or “cultural patterns” (Ingraham, 2000,

Home–School Collaboration    293

p. 323) towards building reciprocal relationships, and assert that professionals take the first step in the process by examining their own stereotypes and biases. Next, both approaches recommend that professionals understand the impact of their culture on others by identifying the families’ or consultees’ values. Ingraham (2000) suggests that consultants acknowledge cultural saliency, or those elements of their own, as well as their consultees’, cultures that are relevant and provide the frame of reference during the cross-cultural interaction, and cultural context, or the extent to which even participants who come from similar cultural backgrounds may still differ. The process of cultural reciprocity recommends that professionals engage in a dialogue with families towards helping them gain cultural capital or an understanding of dominant values and making an informed decision. Two features that both approaches emphasize here are particularly noteworthy: (1) in identifying the cultural context of professionals or students and families as the units of analysis, these approaches go beyond stereotypical representation, underscoring the need to identify underlying values in the individual’s expectation as well as the professional’s own recommendation within each interaction, and (2) both approaches acknowledge the need for reciprocity that goes beyond cultural competence whereby all parties grow through the process, and stress that the responsibility for undertaking this reflective process falls on the professional. Further, both approaches assert that the cultural identity of the consultant or professional is less important than the posture of respect and understanding they bring to each interaction.The ultimate outcome, as Ingraham (2000) asserts, is to “build bridges of understanding based upon shared thinking, perceptions, and experiences” (p. 341). The next section illustrates these theoretical frameworks. The first part identifies the consultant’s own values, that is, the values of the dominant culture in terms of the international standards for disability-related practice. The second part describes the consultee’s values, specifically, beliefs and attitudes towards disability among other cultures.

International Standards in Special Educational Policy and Practice Most professional policies and practices in the field of disability and rehabilitation in developed countries have become global standards. In 1990, the World Congress on Education set a goal of free and compulsory universal primary education for all countries (Shakespeare, 2012).To further this aim, UNESCO (1994) developed the Salamanca Statement on Principles, Policy and Practice in Special Needs Education and a Framework for Action to promote inclusive education.The goal of achieving education for all by the year 2015 (or EFA 2015) was set in 2000, and, in 2007, the UN (2007) promulgated the hallmark The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

294   Kalyanpur

(UNCRPD), which further reiterated that governments should ensure an inclusive education system. UNESCO (2004a; 2004b; 2006) has also endorsed many Western instructional practices of child-centered pedagogy for use in developing countries. These include textbook resources on differentiated instruction, and positive discipline as an alternative to corporal punishment, and a toolkit for increasing parental and community involvement in a child’s education by making parents advocates for change. Given that these standards have emerged from Western contexts and are being implemented in non-Western contexts, we must ask: What are the values and cultural assumptions imbedded in these international standards for policy and practice? How applicable are they for non-Western contexts? The first assumption imbedded in the international standards is of universal applicability. Professionals cannot assume that what “works” in the U.S. will work in another country. In countries where political, social, and economic contexts may be completely different from the U.S., all children may not go to school, whether the reason is because it is not compulsory (political context), or the teachers and school do not believe a student with disabilities can learn (social context), or the parents cannot afford to pay for the child’s school kit (economic context). Thus, bringing the professional belief that all children with disabilities have the right to education might cause some dissonance. Another assumption about universality is there is only one parenting style and, more egregiously, that this is the “right” way. Professionals may impose their values and practices for making children independent and competent adults in society on families who may have different benchmarks or goals for measuring competence and even different definitions of independence.Thus, they neglect to respect parents’ perspectives and might conclude that a parent is bad or inadequate because they do things differently.

Challenges in Building Relationships with Families In international contexts, these differences between professionals’ and families’ values may be even starker. As foreigners, consultants are obvious outsiders, which can be an advantage: when professionals are presented with the more overt differences in culture, such as differences in physical appearance, language, and interpersonal communication styles, in every interaction, they are more likely to engage in reflection. However, there are also disadvantages. Since consultants are hired on the understanding that they have knowledge and training on the international standards and that they will share their expertise with local professionals who themselves assume the consultant will assist them to implement these standards, it can be extremely difficult to engage in reflection, especially in terms of the appropriateness

Home–School Collaboration    295

of one’s professional recommendations. The next section examines some of the basic differences on disability between developed and developing countries, relating to resources, language and interpersonal communication styles, and values. Differences Relating to Resources

In developing countries, poverty can lead to disability, and when people become disabled, they are less likely to be employed and, therefore, more likely to become or remain poor (Eide & Ingstad, 2011). Many people, especially low-income families, become disabled because they have very limited or no access to basic health care.1 If children do not receive proper immunization, they become vulnerable to communicable diseases, such as polio, which can result in orthopedic impairments; girls run the risk of contracting rubella when they become pregnant, which can result in the baby becoming hearing-impaired. Limited access to basic health care also means that untreated ear and eye infections can become chronic conditions leading to permanent hearing or visual disabilities. While maternal malnutrition, as a result of the family being unable to afford nutritious food and supplements for the pregnant woman, can cause intra-uterine growth retardation (Persha & Rao, 2003), child malnutrition can lead to developmental delay (Vachon, 2006). Other factors beyond income-based inequity in health care affect incidence rates. Orthopedic and visual impairments being the most visible are the most easily identified, while children with less visible conditions like hearing impairments or mild developmental delay may remain unidentified (Kalyanpur, 2008a; 2010). There are few formal assessment instruments calibrated to local cultural norms of behavioral and intellectual expectations; out-of-school children may not face the challenges of acquiring literacy and numeracy skills that often result in them being labeled as having a learning disability. Differences in perceptions of disability can also make a difference in terms of identification and categorization of disabilities (see Eide & Ingstad, 2011). For example, consistently undernourished poor children in rural India who are mildly developmentally delayed are often not characterized as having intellectual disabilities within their communities (Mitra, 2005). Another factor that creates differences between developed and developing countries is the availability of material and human resources (Kalyanpur, 2008b; WHO, 2011). By definition, governments in developing countries are poor and have fewer resources; people living in these countries may not have access to wheelchairs or other assistive and rehabilitation equipment they might need to enable them to go to school, have a job and otherwise participate in society. There may also be a lack or shortage of technical personnel, such as psychologists, therapists, or special education teachers, because these professions require technical training not available in their countries.

296   Kalyanpur

Additionally, because of an overall shortage of teachers, classroom sizes may be large with high pupil to teacher ratios. In classrooms where there are already 50 to 75 students, teachers may feel overwhelmed about having a student with disabilities and might choose not to admit them to the class (WHO, 2011).They are supported by the fact that their country may have inadequately enforced or provided no legislation safeguarding the rights of children with disabilities to an education, due to limited government resources (Bines & Lei, 2007; Kalyanpur, 2008b). Differences Relating to Language and Interpersonal Communication Styles

Differences in language and interpersonal communication styles directly affect parent–professional interactions at an individual level. Relying on translators when the family and the consultant speak different languages means that the communication or conversation will be only as good as the translator (Kalyanpur, 2014). Translation of conceptually complex terms like “person-centered planning,” and “self-determination,” for example, is problematic because their meaning is very specific to the field. The direct and open communication style that most Americans prefer is also very culturally-specific and would be seen as extremely rude if practiced in other cultures (Kalyanpur & Harry, 2012). A study of middle-class South Indian families of children with disabilities found that while the parents sought information on the internet and had differing opinions from the professionals, they would not question the professionals’ decision or point of view (Kalyanpur & Gowramma, 2007). Differences Relating to Values

The idea that a child with disabilities has the right to an education emerged in the U.S. in the 1970s almost 100 years after universal primary education was introduced (Bellah et al., 2007). By then, the role of child as a student, instead of, say, helper on the family farm or laborer in a factory was well-established. Although the notion that a child with disabilities also had the right to the same lifestyle as a non-disabled child was revolutionary at that time, it fitted well into its context. In other words, it was easier to advocate for children with disabilities to access an education because all other children were doing so. This situation does not prevail in many developing countries as yet. Many governments are struggling to achieve the goal of EFA by 2015. For instance, the EFA Global Monitoring Report 2010 noted that both India and Cambodia would fail to meet this goal (UNESCO, 2010). In contexts where many nondisabled children cannot access an education, primarily because of poverty, it is harder to make the case for education for children with disabilities. When lowincome parents must triage which child to send to school because they cannot

Home–School Collaboration    297

afford an education for all of them, the decision is often in favor of the male, non-disabled child. If children have to walk considerable distances along unpaved country roads to get to school, parents are compelled to keep their child with orthopedic disabilities at home. Although professionals often misinterpret this hesitation by parents as not valuing education, a study of families of children with intellectual disabilities revealed that even parents in remote areas took advantage of the services offered by a local NGO when they became available (Ayala Moreira, 2011). The focus on rights that prevails in the West is also much less dominant in many developing countries. For instance, families may believe that, in the social hierarchy, group concerns take precedence over individual concerns. In the belief that societal harmony, interdependence, and cooperation are the overarching goals, rather than the individual pursuit of happiness, families might prefer a collectivistic approach to co-existence (Killion, 2005). Such parents might not advocate on behalf of their disabled children using the language of rights or by demanding services, but might request change by stressing the obligatory and interdependent nature of social responsibilities among members of a community (Ayala Moreira, 2011; Kalyanpur, 2009; Rao, 2014). Noting that about 92% of adults with disabilities live with their spouse and/or other members of their family, and based on his personal experiences with rehabilitation services after his spinal cord injury, Ahluwalia (2004) stressed the need to include the family in designing a program even for adults, because “in Indian culture, an individual is not that important as the whole family; any major decision taken for an individual in many cases comes from a collective decision” (p. 315). Studying the perspectives of parents whose children with disabilities were attending inclusive schools, Kalyanpur (2006) noticed that both parents and teachers justified inclusion based on local cultural values of acceptance and cooperation rather than on rights. Professionals receive a great deal of respect, as being the repositories of knowledge and expertise on disability and special education, which behooves professionals to respect parents in turn. Many Asian families also believe that karma, the retribution for one’s sins from a previous life, has caused the disability in their child’s life (Vanleit, Channa, & Prum, 2007). This has been attributed as much to a sense of resignation in parents that prevents them from seeking help as a response of acceptance whereby parents recognize the additional care needed for the child with disabilities (Ayala Moreira, 2011). Similarly, Singh and Ghai’s (2009) study of Indian children with mobility impairments indicates that parents use a belief in an afterlife to generate hope for the future: “As [a research participant] puts it, ‘my parents say it’s good that this happened to you in this life (janam), which will pass. In the next life, you will be able to walk.’ ” (p. 137). Some conditions are also attributed to spiritual causes rather than medical. For example, seizure disorders may be viewed as a manifestation of a distressed spirit (Ayala Moreira, 2011).

298   Kalyanpur

Parents may seek traditional or spiritual treatment and/or cures. Ayala Moreira’s study of Cambodian families (2011) found that half the parents sought shamans and home remedies for their children’s intellectual disability, and that, of those parents who went to a hospital or a clinic first, 50% later resorted to traditional sources when there appeared to be no improvement from modern medical techniques. In Singh and Ghai’s (2009) study, some parents were willing to consider a dip in holy waters if it provided hope of a cure. Parent involvement also has very specific roles (Joshi & Taylor, 2005; Kalyanpur & Gowramma, 2007). Studying preschool parent–professional interactions in India, Joshi and Taylor (2005) noted that communication tended to be in one direction from teachers to parents, and parents who complied with the rules and fulfilled their specified responsibilities as classroom volunteers or assistants were perceived as “good parents” (p. 348). Kalyanpur and Gowramma’s (2007) study found that even middle-class parents who might have equal social status with professionals were reluctant to make inquiries about their children unless the professionals volunteered information, and they were, in some cases, treated quite rudely by the professionals. Many agencies provide parent training based on the perception that parents need to be taught how to work with their children (Ayala Moreira, 2011).

Implications for Practice Within an international framework, consultants must not only gain an understanding of the differences in the school systems from what they are familiar with, but also of differences in parental perceptions. Towards this, consultants need to (a) move from a deficit to a strengths-based model, (b) apply a participatory rather than a top-down approach, and (c) identify culturally responsive alternatives to professional practice. The next section gives examples of each redefinition of consultant roles.

Moving from a Deficit to a Strengths-Based Model One factor affecting the quality of the Cambodian educational system is the high dropout rates among poor students in early primary grades (Kalyanpur, 2011). A common reason professionals in NGOs, the government, and international development agencies give to explain this is that families do not value education (see Kalyanpur et al., 2007). This deficit model of parenting skills enables service providers and policy makers to blame the ineffectiveness of the educational system, to some extent, on the parents’ inability or unwillingness to understand the benefits of completing school.

Home–School Collaboration    299

On the contrary, Robertson’s study (2006) found that, in fact, low-income families often made sacrifices to forgo potential earnings from their children in order to send them to school. However, knowing that jobs that matched higher levels of education were not available in the rural areas they lived in, but in urban areas, they decided that the children would study until Grade 3 and acquire sufficient literacy and numeracy skills to navigate life as adults, and then drop out to start earning for the family. In the long term, the more money earned, the better the family’s chances of emerging from poverty. Like middle-class families, they too valued education, but unlike middle-class families, they could not afford to defer earnings until the child finished school.

Moving from a Top-down to a Participatory Approach In 1992, two NGOs established themselves in Cambodia to provide services for the Deaf. Both NGOs found that there was no indigenous or national sign language and that Deaf people had lived such isolated lives in their own provincial towns or villages that there was no Deaf community. Deaf people had developed their own “family signs” to communicate within their small communities, and, over the years, a few Deaf people had come together to put these signs together to make a common language, but the process was slow and unsystematic. Faced with the situation of having to give Deaf children an education but lacking the means to do so, one NGO decided to be practical and introduced American Sign Language (ASL) to communicate with and teach the children.While this top-down approach provided expedient access to education for the children, it taught them a language that had little to no cultural connection or context with their own culture. For example, the sign for “girl” in ASL involves drawing a thumb down one’s cheek to indicate bonnet strings, which had no meaning within the Cambodian culture where girls did not wear bonnets. Advocating against this top-down approach, the second NGO contacted several Deaf people and, with help from a linguistics professor, began to involve them in collecting existing signs systematically, getting consensus on their meaning and structure, and developing new signs towards building a Cambodian sign language (CSL). Although this participatory process took several years, the NGO and the Deaf adults succeeded in putting together a dictionary of CSL words that emerged contextually from the local culture.This group of Deaf adults coalesced into a Deaf community, advocating for themselves and other Deaf adults across the country, while developing job skills as part of the NGO’s vocational training activity. In the meantime, students from the first NGO had graduated school, fluent in ASL, and were now looking for jobs. They came to the second NGO where the Deaf adults were fluent in CSL. Because of the second NGO’s original participatory

300   Kalyanpur

approach, which had empowered the Deaf adults, a cross-pollination occurred that eventually resulted in the ASL students learning CSL, while they, in turn, helped to expand it further by creating new, contextually-based signs drawn from their own more extensive vocabulary.

Identifying Culturally Responsive Alternatives to Professional Practice In addition to factors such as job availability, aptitude, and having the appropriate skills, the process of identifying appropriate jobs for adolescents with disabilities in India often must also consider caste, the traditional socio-economic marker of status, to be successful (Kalyanpur & Gowramma, 2007). Although less strong in contemporary India, upper caste members are still likely to consider unskilled occupations the domain of lower castes and would be unwilling to allow their children, however severe the disability, to learn the skills for or to work in such jobs. Whereas an American adolescent with moderate disabilities might train to clean tables and floors in a restaurant, a high-caste Indian family of a young adult with a disability might perceive this job as unsuitable. In Thressiakutty and Govinda Rao’s study (2001), the efforts of professionals to find a job for a 17-year-old boy with mild mental retardation and cerebral palsy suitable to the socioeconomic status of his upper middle class family resulted in his being placed in his father’s company, issuing receipts.

Implications for Research and Training The Council of Exceptional Children (CEC) and the National Association of School Psychologists, as the flagship professional organizations in special education and psychology respectively, include collaboration within their competencies and expect professionals to uphold and advance the principle of “developing relationships with families based on mutual respect and actively involving families and individuals with exceptionalities in educational decision making” (CEC, 2012, p. 1). In addition to its primary component as a code of professional conduct, this dispositions requirement also has a secondary component as a tool for selfreflective professional development, in that professionals are expected to reflect on their interactions with families. The advantages of assigning self-reflection as a dispositions-based competency are obvious: it emphasizes the importance of metacognitive professional development, provides an opportunity to deconstruct special education practice and identify imbedded values, enables its application as a

Home–School Collaboration    301

tool for advocacy, and facilitates the development of culturally reciprocal interactions and the empowerment of culturally and linguistically diverse families of children with disabilities. However, most teacher educator programs do not emphasize this competency in either primary or secondary components. Studying relationships between parents and regular education teachers, Lawrence-Lightfoot (2003) found that teachers receive little training on working with families. Because of the legal mandate for parents’ rights ensuring their participation in the special educational decision-making process, there needs to be a stronger focus in teacher training on working with families. Although UNESCO has provided guidelines presumably to assist consultants and local professionals to enable developing countries towards constructing a teacher code of conduct (Poisson, 2009), there is no equivalent expectation within the international arena for this professional code of conduct for consultants themselves. Further, the specific expectations for conduct towards parents are very broadly defined as needing to “emphasize the social responsibility and public accountability of the profession towards pupils, parents and beyond the classroom to the community at large” (Poisson, 2009, p. 17). However, it is facile to suggest that an international code of professional conduct would ensure reciprocal relationships between international consultants and families. Dispositional expectations for consultants in developing countries are often stated in terms of the ability to work in crosscultural and/or collaborative environments, and rarely, if ever, is there an expectation of the ability to self-reflect or develop reciprocal relationships, even in cases where an international consultant may be required to interact directly with families, for research purposes or service provision. At issue here is the assumption within the field of international development that international consultants “know it all” and can bring their expertise into a context completely different from their own and have it work. What is needed is a critical analysis of international development through a process of deconstruction to question its very purpose.We need to question the assumptions that (a) all countries must follow the same path to development that necessitates establishing international standards; (b) educational systems and professional behavior that prevail in one context are applicable in other contexts with different socio-political, historical, and economic circumstances; and (c) professionals from resource-rich countries, merely because they have these experiences, have the expertise and disposition to learn the circumstances that prevail in resource-strapped countries.Teacher training programs in developed countries that do engage in this process may be more likely to produce international consultants who are sensitive to the differences between their own practice and that of the country in which they are working as well as the differences within that country between school and home cultures.

302   Kalyanpur

Conclusion International consultants are ambassadors for their own countries.Therefore, when bringing their technical expertise to another country, it behooves professionals to be willing to respect the strengths of the culture.When learning about the differences in the educational system, consultants also need to be aware that parents’ perceptions may differ and they should engage in self-reflection by applying cultural reciprocity towards the eventual aim of building empowering relationships with families.

Note 1 Poverty can be a factor in developed countries as well. For instance, in the U.S., low-income Americans have less access to basic medical care and face more physical health problems than middle- or high-income groups (“In US, health disparities,” 2010; Subramanian & Kawachi, 2004). However, the difference is in scale as there are more poor people in developing countries than in the U.S., in proportion to its population.

Resources Discussion Questions 1. This chapter notes that being a consultant has both advantages and disadvantages. The advantage is that being out of one’s comfort zone facilitates self-reflection of one’s professional and personal assumptions and biases. The disadvantage is that consultants are assumed to be the experts and are not expected to self-reflect. As a professional trained in the U.S. who might also want to work in your field outside the U.S., how would you expect to reconcile this conflict? How would you respond to consultants who may not be willing to see the strengths of other cultures or even a local culture? 2. Draw on an example from your own consulting experience to apply the process of cultural reciprocity.What imbedded values from your professional or personal culture could you identify or what values that you espouse were in conflict with those in the situation? What were the imbedded values of the other party? How did/would you proceed to develop a dialogue and a compromise that was/would be acceptable to both parties? 3. Most international consultants recognize that they need to learn and understand the culture of the educational system that may be different from that which they are familiar. However, the chapter notes that consultants also need to recognize that a child’s home culture may be different from the school culture, which presents an additional challenge when working with families. Would

Home–School Collaboration    303

you agree? As a consultant, how would you go about trying to persuade local officials and professionals of the need to understand parents’ perspectives as well?

Professional Organizations World Bank Disability and Development Program UNESCO

Additional Readings Community-based rehabilitation (CBR) was initiated in the mid-1980s as a multi-sector strategy that empowers persons with disabilities to access and benefit from education, employment, health and social services towards enhancing the quality of life for people with disabilities and their families, meeting basic needs and ensuring inclusion and participation. The guidelines can be downloaded at .

References Ahluwalia, H. P. S. (2004). Future challenges in rehabilitation of persons with disabilities. In C. S. Mohapatra (Ed.), Disability management in India: Challenges and commitments (pp. 311–318). Secunderabad, India: National Institute for the Mentally Handicapped. Armstrong, A. C., Armstrong, D., & Spandagou, I. (2010). Inclusive education: International policy and practice. London, UK: Sage. Artiles, A. J. & Dyson, A. (2009). Inclusive education in the globalization age: The promise of comparative cultural-historical analysis. In D. Mitchell (Ed.), Contextualizing inclusive education: Evaluating old and new historical perspectives (pp. 37–62). London, UK: Routledge. Ayala Moreira, R. (2011). Intellectual disability in rural Cambodia: Cultural perceptions and families’ challenges. Phnom Penh, Cambodia: New Humanity. Bellah, R. N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W. M., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S. M. (2007). Habits of the heart: Individualism and commitment in American life. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Bines, H. & Lei, P. (2007). Education’s missing millions: Including disabled children in education through EFA FTI Processes and national sector plans. Milton Keynes, UK: World Vision. Chen, X. & Rubin, K. H. (Eds.). (2011). Socio-emotional development in cultural context. New York, NY: Guilford Publications. Council for Exceptional Children (2012). Special education professional ethical principles and practice standards for special education professionals. Retrieved from .

304   Kalyanpur

Eide, A. H. & Ingstad, B. (Eds.). (2011). Disability and poverty: A global challenge. Portland, OR: Policy Press. Gallup Wellbeing. (October 18, 2010). “In US, health disparities across incomes are wideranging”. Retrieved from . Ingraham, C. L. (2000). Consultation through a multicultural lens: Multicultural and crosscultural consultation in schools. School Psychology Review, 29(3), 320–343. Ingraham, C. L. & Meyers, J. (2000). Introduction to multicultural and cross-cultural consultation in schools: Cultural diversity issues in school consultation. School Psychology Review, 29(3), 315–320. Joshi, A. & Taylor, A. (2005). Perceptions of early childhood teachers and parents of teacher–parent interactions in an Indian context. Early Child Development and Care, 175(4), 343–359. Kalyanpur, M. (2006). Inclusion in India: Cultural influences and the transfer of Western special education technology in conflict. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), San Francisco, CA. Kalyanpur, M. (2008a). The paradox of majority under-representation in special education in India: Constructions of difference in a developing country. Journal of Special Education, 42(1), 55–64. Kalyanpur, M. (2008b). Equality, quality and quantity: Challenges in inclusive education policy and service provision in India. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 12(3), 243–263. Kalyanpur, M. (2009). Cultural variations on the construct of self-advocacy in the context of India. In M. Alur & V. Timmons (Eds.), Crossing boundaries and sharing ideas: Inclusion education (pp. 331–341). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kalyanpur, M. (2010). Inclusion of children with disabilities in Cambodia. Journal for Disability and International Development, 2(1), 12–21. Kalyanpur, M. (2011). Paradigm and paradox: Education For All and the inclusion of children with disabilities in Cambodia. International Journal on Inclusive Education, 15(10), 1053–1071. doi:10.1080/13603116.2011.555069. Kalyanpur, M. (2014). Distortions and dichotomies in inclusive education for children with disabilities in Cambodia in the context of globalization and international development. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 61(1), 80–94, doi:10.1080/ 1034912X.2014.878546. Kalyanpur, M. & Gowramma, I. P. (2007). Cultural barriers to South Indian families’ access to services and educational goals for their children with disabilities. Journal of the International Association of Special Education, 8(1), 69–82. Kalyanpur, M. & Harry, B. (2012). Cultural reciprocity in special education: Building reciprocal family-professional relationships. Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Kalyanpur, M., Un, S., Kong, V., Kong, K., Lek, K., Bo, V., & Eng, M. (2007). Evaluation of disability-responsiveness in FTI education policy and programs in Cambodia. Milton Keynes, UK: World Vision. Killion, M. U. (2005). China’s amended constitution: Quest for liberty and independent judicial review. Washington University Global Studies Law Review, 4(43), 43–80. Lawrence-Lightfoot, S. (2003). The essential conversation: What parents and teachers can learn from each other. New York, NY: Random House.

Home–School Collaboration    305

Mitra, S. (2005). Disability and social safety nets in developing countries. Washington, DC: World Bank. Persha, A. J., & Rao, V. R. P. S. (2003). Early intervention to intra-uterine growth retardation (IUGR) children at risk for developmental delay. Secunderabad, India: National Institute for the Mentally Handicapped. Poisson, M. (2009) Guidelines for the design and effective use of teacher codes of conduct. Paris, France: UNESCO. Rao, S. (2014). Colloquial language and disability: Local contexts and implications for inclusion. In S. Rao & M. Kalyanpur (Eds.), South Asia and disability studies: Redefining boundaries and extending horizons (pp.171– 193). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Robertson, K. (2006). Why grade 3? A study on primary school dropout in Kampot province, Cambodia. Phnom Penh, Cambodia:Voluntary Service Overseas. Shakespeare, T. (2012). Disability in developing countries. In N. Watson, A. Roulstone & C. Thomas (Eds.), Routledge handbook of disability studies (pp. 271–284). London, UK: Routledge. Singh, V., & Ghai, A. (2009). Notions of self: Lived realities of children with disabilities. Disability & Society, 24(2), 129–145. Subramanian, S. V. & Kawachi, I. (2004). Income inequality and health: What have we learned so far? Epidemiologic Review, 26(1), 78–91. doi:10.1093/epirev/mxh003. Thressiakutty, A.T. & Govinda Rao, L. (2001). Transition of persons with mental retardation from school to work. Secunderabad, India: National Institute for the Mentally Handicapped. United Nations (2007). The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Retrieved from . United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (1994).The Salamanca Statement. Retrieved from . UNESCO (2004a). Changing teaching practices: Using curriculum differentiation to respond to students’ diversity. Paris: UNESCO: Retrieved from . UNESCO (2004b). Embracing diversity: Toolkit for creating inclusive, learning-friendly environments. Bangkok, Thailand: Author. UNESCO (2006). Positive discipline in the inclusive, learning-friendly classroom: A guide for teachers and teacher educators. Bangkok, Thailand: UNESCO. UNESCO (2010). EFA Global Monitoring Report: Reaching the marginalized. London: Oxford University Press/UNESCO. Vachon, M. (October 11, 2006). “Basic child remedies are often overlooked in Cambodia”. The Cambodia Daily, p. 20. Vanleit, B., Channa, S. & Prum, R. (2007). Children with disabilities in rural Cambodia: An examination of functional status and implications for service delivery. Asia Pacific Disability Rehabilitation Journal 18(2), 53–68. World Health Organization (2011). World report on disability. Malta: World Health Organization/World Bank.

17

Systemic Approaches to Addressing Disproportionality of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students in Special Education Amanda L. Sullivan, Alfredo J. Artiles, and David Hernandez-Saca

Special education has been critical to ensuring educational access and participation among students with disabilities who historically were systematically excluded from public education (Sullivan & King-Thorius, 2010). Special education is a paradox, however, because although it ensures basic inclusion and access to services, it may also lead to stigmatization, segregation, and exposure to inadequate opportunities for learning (Donovan & Cross, 2002). Further, recent research suggests that, at least among children and youth with mild impairments, the average student with special needs would have been better off having not received services (Morgan, Frisco, Farkas, & Hibel, 2010; Sullivan & Field, 2013), echoing early studies showing students with disabilities performed better in general education classes than special education classes (Dunn, 1968). Given the mixed benefits and risks of special education, there has long been concern about differential identification, particularly the misdiagnosis of culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students for special 306

Approaches to Disproportionality   307

education.This chapter provides an overview of the theoretical and empirical literature on disproportionality in special education and describes how this educational problem can be addressed through systemic change.

Theoretical and Research Basis Disproportionate representation has been defined as “unequal proportions of culturally diverse students in special education programs,” referring to both overand under-representation (Artiles & Trent, 2000, p. 514). Scholars have advanced several explanations of disproportionate representation over time. Many of them have not been based on empirical evidence because most studies have been conducted in the last 15 years (Waitoller, Artiles, & Cheney, 2010). Some of these explanations could be construed as a justification for disproportionality, whereas others grapple with its complexities. Although all explanations rely, one way or another, on particular conceptualizations of culture (i.e., the customs, beliefs, and attitudes of a given group), these perspectives on culture range from narrow deficitoriented models (i.e., cultural deprivation vis-à-vis detrimental group practices and beliefs) to dynamic historically-grounded perspectives that stress people’s production and reproduction of cultural practices (Artiles, Kozleski,Trent, Osher, & Ortiz, 2010). Waitoller and colleagues (2010) identified three main explanations for disproportionality in their systematic review of the research published between 1968 and 2006. Most commonly, prior researchers focused on technical aspects of disproportionality. Specifically, 62% of studies in this period explored the influence of professional practices, including professional biases in perceptions of students or referral decisions, assessment (e.g., test bias), and eligibility decision-making processes (e.g., mis/uses of evidence, consideration of linguistic/cultural factors). With few exceptions, these studies lacked an explicit theoretical framework. The second most common research focus observed in approximately one third of studies was sociodemographic traits of students, their families, and communities. Investigators analyzed “environmental, sociodemographic, health, economic, and academic variables, that relate to children’s educational outcomes and special education placement” and reported a complex web of significant findings contingent upon a number of variables, including student race, social class, disability category, and school location (Waitoller et al., 2010, p. 36). Because most of these studies were not explicitly grounded in theoretical formulations or guided by conceptual frameworks, it is difficult to articulate sound interpretations of many findings in this body of work. In general, poverty (as indexed at the student, school, or community levels) was associated with disability. It is important to note, however, that this relationship was moderated by other factors, like student race, and that groups with high levels of poverty were not overrepresented at the national level (e.g., Latinos), or in some

308   Sullivan, Artiles, and Hernandez-Saca

cases, the relations between poverty and disability risk were inverse. This evidence suggests that poverty alone does not explain disproportionality. Some scholars have interpreted the findings on the relations of school structural characteristics (e.g., enrollment, resources) as indication of systemic bias but this was not linked to a particular theory of disproportionality (e.g., Coutinho, Oswald, & Best, 2002). Finally, Waitoller and colleagues (2010) found that about 5% of the studies in their review examined how power and structural racism contribute to disproportionality.These studies were theoretically-based and published in sociology journals, although recently this type of work has appeared in education journals (e.g., Sullivan & Artiles, 2011).These scholars, drawing on structural theory, posit that the roots of disproportionality reside in social structures shaping group relations (e.g., competition for resources), and, consequently, educational practices (Sullivan & Artiles, 2011). It is clear, therefore, that although the research community has tended to privilege two perspectives of the problem (i.e., technical explanations and demographic differences), there is an urgent need to refine the theoretical formulations that guide empirical studies of this complex predicament.The next section provides a closer review of the research produced to date.

Disproportionality Research Disproportionality research has addressed both under- and over-representation in special education. Although these phenomena are equally problematic, most researchers have focused on over-representation of racial minority students (Losen & Orfield, 2002). For several decades, scholars have been concerned about the unequal representation of different racial and class groups in classes for students with disabilities, beginning with Dunn’s (1968) estimation that as many as 80% of CLD students in special education were inappropriately identified as disabled. In the decades that followed, numerous researchers reported differential group risk of disability identification at the district and state levels, such that Black students were frequently over-identified with cognitive impairments (CI) or emotional disabilities (ED; Waitoller et al., 2010) and were more likely than White students with similar disabilities to be in restrictive educational settings (Skiba et al., 2008). Researchers have studied disability identification of Latino, American Indian, and Asian students less frequently, but the evidence suggests that disparities are common. Generally, state-level special education enrollments show that Latino students tend to be proportionately represented in most disability categories except ED, where they are substantially under-identified (Donovan & Cross, 2002). District- or school-level enrollments show significant under- and over-representation in specific learning disabilities (SLD), speech-language impairment (SLI), and CI (Sullivan & Artiles, 2011; Sullivan & Bal, 2013;Valenzuela et al., 2006). Schools also

Approaches to Disproportionality   309

tend to differentially identify American Indian students with a variety of disabilities (Donovan & Cross, 2002) and primarily under-identify Asian American and Pacific Islander students, although they have the highest likelihood of school-based identification of autism (Sullivan, 2013). Recently, disproportionality research has expanded to English language learners (ELLs) who, nationally, have little chance of receiving special education services but who are significantly overrepresented in some states and districts (Artiles et al., 2005; Sullivan, 2011;Valenzuela et al., 2006). The widespread underrepresentation may be related to utilization of inappropriate assessment practices (Ochoa et al., 2004), practitioners’ difficulty teasing apart language acquisition from learning problems (Artiles & Klingner, 2006), and informal policies precluding simultaneous classification as limited English proficient and disabled (Zehler et al., 2003). For Asian American students in particular, the model minority stereotype may deter educators’ recognition of mild disabilities (Chhuon & Sullivan, 2013). Although the special education disproportionality literature has emphasized disparities in the identification of the milder, high-incidence categories (i.e., LD, ED, CI) because of the presumed subjectivity of these diagnoses relative to lowerincidence categories, research in medicine and psychiatry underscores the subjectivity and bias present in even the low-incidence disabilities (e.g., Rosenberg et al., 2009). For instance, in the diagnosis of autism, clinicians rarely agree on specific cases, are less likely to diagnose the disorder in children from low-income backgrounds than those from higher income homes, and require more time to recognize symptoms in children of color (Durkin et al., 2010; Fountain, King, & Bearman, 2011; Mandell et al., 2002; Williams, Atkins, & Soles, 2009). Thus, it appears that bias may not be localized to special education but rather, may be generally inherent in the diagnosis of disorders. This suggests the need to attend to assumptions and knowledge relevant to the general construction of disability, rather than focusing on a particular eligibility category. Although there are few recent studies addressing special education eligibility processes, early research suggests it is highly arbitrary and sometimes unrelated to legal criteria or assessment data (Singer et al., 1989; Ysseldyke et al., 1982). Some early scholars showed that students’ race affected teachers’ perceptions of their learning problems and likelihood of referral to special education (Zucker, Prieto, & Rutherford, 1979), but that gender and class did not (Ysseldyke et al., 1981). Since then, disproportionality scholars have highlighted potential contributions of teacher attitudes, stereotypes, and multicultural knowledge, pre-referral practices, and inappropriate use of tests and assessment data in identifying disabilities (Blanchett, 2006; Skiba, Knesting, & Bush, 2002). Skiba and colleagues (2008) noted that “unexamined assumptions and stereotypes” influence referral for special education (p. 15); other scholars emphasize ability stereotypes in particular (Losen & Welner, 2002). Research has also indicated that the multidisciplinary team process in which

310   Sullivan, Artiles, and Hernandez-Saca

special education eligibility is determined is highly unreliable (e.g., MacMillan, Gresham, & Bocian, 1998; Shepard & Smith, 1983; Singer et al., 1989), with professionals often poorly integrating data in decision-making and failing to apply eligibility criteria (Ysseldyke et al., 1982). School psychologists sometimes make eligibility decisions unsupported by evaluation data (Huebner & Cummings, 1986). Given that most students referred for special education will be placed (Algozzine, Christenson, & Ysseldyke, 1982), sometimes regardless of the data, there is a need for more research on how educators and school psychologists make educational decisions for students suspected to have special education needs in order to understand how bias may enter the process and how to prevent inappropriate identification. Disproportionality researchers have focused on district and state characteristics predicting differential group risk of disability identification (e.g., school and community sociodemographics, teacher characteristics, building and district academic resources and performance [Coutinho, Oswald, & Best, 2002; Skiba et al., 2005; Sullivan & Artiles, 2011]) but findings are often conflicting. Recent multilevel linear modeling of student and school characteristics related to disability risk suggested gender disparities were fairly invariant, but that socioeconomic factors attenuated racial disparities (Hibel, Farkas, & Morgan, 2010; Shifrer, Muller, & Callahan, 2011; Sullivan & Bal, 2013) and school policies related to discipline and retention may exacerbate racial disproportionality (Skiba et al., 2005; Sullivan & Bal, 2013). Skiba and colleagues (2008) emphasized that no single variable accounts for the observed disparities. Instead, it is apparent that disproportionality results from the interaction of multiple conditions that affect subpopulations uniquely. Thus, disproportionality results from systemic factors in general education subjecting CLD students to inequitable treatment (Losen & Welner, 2002). Skiba and colleagues (2008) reviewed the disproportionality literature and inferred that the observed patterns resulted from the confluence of a variety of general education characteristics including disparate opportunities to learn, inequitable access to educational resources (e.g., competent teachers, materials), ineffective classroom management, and cultural differences or bias. Consequently, numerous interventions have been proposed to reduce these special education disparities—court mandates, teacher professional learning, improved pre-referral intervention procedures (e.g., protocols), response to intervention (RtI) framework, and systemic change. Federal and state policies and prominent court cases have shaped policy, research, and practice related to disproportionality. Some of the most important court cases occurred between the 1970s and 1990s (e.g., Diana v. Board of Education, 1970; Guadalupe Organization v. Tempe Elementary School District No. 3, 1992; Larry P v. Riles, 1984; PASE v. Hannon, 1980). Early cases focused on assessment and identification issues germane to disproportionate representation, but more recent litigation addressed treatment equality (Artiles et al., 2010).

Approaches to Disproportionality   311

Although these cases impacted practice, the outcomes of them have been equivocal, ranging from banning certain tests for diagnostic purposes with certain racial groups (i.e., IQ tests) to determinations that disproportionate representation does not constitute discrimination (Artiles et al., 2010). Given decades of evidence of racial minority disproportionality in special education, the 1997 and 2004 amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act required states to monitor districts’ racial disproportionality; determine whether significant disparities were due to inappropriate educational policies, practices or procedures; and implement statewide improvement activities. Most states have reported use of professional development in special education procedures and RtI (Sullivan, Kozleski, & Smith, 2008). More than a decade later, it appears that these policies have only negligibly improved racial disparities in special education (Albrecht et al., 2012), underscoring the need for more coordinated, systemic approaches. Interventions solely addressing students’ needs, changing individual teachers’ behaviors, or ensuring adherence to special education procedures, leave intact the structural lack of opportunities that minority communities experience daily that mediate disproportionality (U.S. Department of Education, 2013). These structural issues include lower education funding, lower personnel quality, minimal access to economic investment opportunities, poor transportation infrastructures that could expand access to higher-paying jobs, and absence of school and community enrichment programs and recreational facilities that boost quality of life, among others (Anyon, 2005; Klingner et al., 2005).

Implications for Practice In one of the earliest articles on this topic, Lloyd Dunn (1968) noted that responsibility for disproportionality rests not with special education, but in the systemic response of educational systems to students perceived as difficult to teach, particularly because of cultural difference. Special education is intended to serve students with true disabilities, not any student deemed at-risk, failing, problematic or unwanted, and, as such, the system has not been equipped to deal appropriately with such students. Resolving disproportionality requires addressing the root of this problem. Accordingly, systemic change is described to address the disproportionate representation of CLD students in special education.

Restructure Policy, Practice, and Procedures for Equity Reconceptualizing the basic structures in educational systems to support equitable educational opportunities and outcomes is critical to rectify disproportionality.

312   Sullivan, Artiles, and Hernandez-Saca

Systems change seeks to transform schools’ policies, practices, and procedures to foster conditions responsive to diversity (Klingner et al., 2005). In particular, this approach can be used to promote equitable, culturally responsive systems through critical/revolutionary praxis that confronts the power and privilege in education that advantage certain groups while disadvantaging others (Allman, 2007). This reform necessitates looking beyond basic daily practices and technical solutions (e.g., pre-referral checklists) to consider carefully the assumptions underpinning those practices to ensure that professional behaviors are grounded in nondiscriminatory attitudes and beliefs such that unfounded educational decisions (e.g., inappropriate referral to special education) are avoided. Thus, the process of restructuring policies and procedures entails careful examination of the norms, values, assumptions and related practices that underlie instruction, discipline, and other educational processes. The process necessitates consideration of which structures, procedures, and practices may benefit some groups while disadvantaging others. Critical examination should then guide system restructuring. Accordingly, systemic change for equitable education is sensitive to the local sociocultural contexts in which culture and identity (e.g., sexual-orientation, language, dis/ability, race, ethnicity, immigrant status) influence students’ educational experiences and outcomes. Disability identification and service cannot be separated from the context in which students, educators, families, and communities live and interact.These contexts are part of local, district, state and federal cultural-historical systems comprised of ideologies and resources shaping students’ educational experiences (Kozleski & Smith, 2009). Restructured practices should be responsive to the diversity in the school community rather than forcing assimilation or exclusion via discipline or segregation in lower tracks and special education. Culturally responsive practices acknowledge and capitalize on the diverse experiences and knowledge of students throughout the school community, rather than only that of the dominant or mainstream group. Examples of culturally responsive practices include (a) high expectations for all, (b) actively engaging students in learning through critical thinking that connects the academic material to students’ lives and builds new knowledge within academic subject areas (Kozleski, 2011), (c) fostering family and community engagement in educational decisions and processes, (d) individualizing assessment to account for students’ cultural and experiential backgrounds in order to bolster the validity of inferences, and (e) tailoring interventions to students’ needs and cultural characteristics to ensure effectiveness and social validity. A systems change perspective shifts the focus from changing students to fit particular behavior norms and standards to changing the school’s social context. For example, schools may rearrange the social structure of classrooms to create communities of learners where teachers also learn from students in less hierarchical

Approaches to Disproportionality   313

relationships. Schools should “build students’ capacity to handle new material, solve complex problems and develop new skills by scaffolding their learning from what they already know through a series of increasingly complex experiences that shift the locus of control” to the student (Kozleski, 2011, p. 6). All students should be actively engaged in a meaningful, challenging curriculum that emphasizes differentiated instruction and inclusive education rather than segregating students. Given the continued rapid growth of racial minority and immigrant populations throughout the U.S. and unremitting achievement gaps, structuring systems to support the learning of CLD students is of particular relevance to school systems nationwide. School psychologists engaged in organizational consultation can facilitate the systems change process by helping to assemble and engage relevant community stakeholders, facilitate critical examination of inequities and disparities within the system, promote multidisciplinary collaboration among members of the school community, guide problem solving and program evaluation through shared decision-making, and design and provide necessary professional development and interventions to support identified changes (Sullivan, Artiles, & HernandezSaca, 2015). In the role of the organizational consultant, the school psychologist’s focus is on the ecological system and the adults within it, tapping the consultant’s understanding of systems theory, culture, social processes, attitudes, behavior change, and interpersonal communication (Sullivan et al., 2015).

Engage Stakeholders throughout the School Community The restructuring process should engage all relevant stakeholders in the school community: administrators, general educators, special educators, support personnel such as school psychologists, families, and community members. It is necessary to consider culture throughout the change process, to identify the norms, values, and priorities of the respective constituents in order to ensure that all voices are integrated in the change efforts. School leaders should not assume universallyshared values, priorities, objectives, or beliefs, but should instead seek to co-construct with stakeholders a vision for equitable educational opportunities based on clearly articulated values, priorities, and objectives. To do so, all professionals in the school community must also collaborate to address curricular and instructional concerns.The school psychologist can assist this process by scaffolding data-based decision-making and consideration of ecological factors affecting student learning and design of instruction, intervention, and assessment.Where an overarching goal of systems change is to reduce disproportionality in special education, educators and service providers must engage across disciplines

314   Sullivan, Artiles, and Hernandez-Saca

(e.g., general education, literacy, special education, bilingual education, school psychology) to identify organizational targets for intervention so that each student’s learning is optimized, classroom management is streamlined, and educational decisions are data-based. As school consultants, an important task for school psychologists is to promote empowerment of parents as advocates and responsiveness of staff to family involvement (Nastasi, 2005). Families and community members can provide valuable insights into the sociocultural context of the community and the needs of their children. Hence, school psychologists should facilitate active engagement of all stakeholders in order to foster commitment to change, collaborative problem analysis, and sustained participation in implementation of system interventions. Specific strategies for facilitating authentic involvement of families in collaborative decision-making has been described in detail elsewhere (e.g., Clare, Jimenez, & McClendon, 2005; Koonce & Harper, 2005; Ochoa & Rhodes, 2005). These strategies include helping parents advocate for children and ensuring that the school’s infrastructure fosters diverse forms of parent engagement and collaborative decision-making.

Ensure Ongoing Evaluation and Continuous Improvement Systemic change is a recursive process based on ongoing data collection and interpretation throughout the problem solving process. These activities should be considered a formative process rather than a summative one, as part of a general orientation towards continuous improvement. This entails ongoing utilization of data to identify potential problems and evaluate intervention efforts at multiple levels (i.e., district, school, program, classroom). Kozleski and Smith (2009) describe five essential foci of practitioners’ professional efforts, and consequently, evaluation: (1) learning standards, (2) instructional design and practice, (3) family engagement, (4) assessment, and (5) group practice. School elements for consideration include leadership structure, use of time, allocation of resources, community relations, orientation to change, and physical environment (Kozleski & Smith, 2009). Stakeholders may use data in these domains to gauge effectiveness of curriculum and instruction, overuse of and disparities in discipline, differential access to programming and resources, and other educational outcomes. School leaders should engage diverse stakeholders in providing feedback about general procedures and processes to identify where policies and practices may be applied differentially. Data can serve as a springboard to questioning why patterns are what they are and directing further evaluation efforts. In addition, throughout the change process, data can be shared with stakeholders not only to gather additional perspectives on

Approaches to Disproportionality   315

patterns but also to celebrate improvement, thus fostering buy-in and boosting morale during the ongoing process of change.

Link Systemic Change to Other Reform Systemic change to address disproportionality should be linked to other reform efforts to conserve time and resources. It is essential that these efforts are not to be perceived as standalone efforts or as a special education-specific issue. Instead, reform should be linked to all dimensions of student services—accountability, RtI, discipline, bilingual education—to provide comprehensive planning and inform resource allocation. For instance, where multi-tiered support frameworks are in place, universal screening data can be used to consider critically the quality of the general learning environment and learning trajectories of subpopulations, consistent with the framework’s notion that all students must be provided with high quality curriculum and instruction. Where evidence suggests that the curriculum and instruction may not be appropriate for most students (e.g., where more than 15% of students struggle), data should be used to spearhead instructional changes in general education and not to shift those students to more intensive instruction/ intervention. RtI is expected to reduce inappropriate referrals to special education and decrease disproportionality in special education.To date, however, the evidence is mixed (VanderHeyden, Witt, & Gilbertson, 2007; Wanzek & Vaughn, 2011). In summary, a key component of integrated reform is asking systems-focused questions, that is, questions that focus on the learning environment, rather than emphasizing student deficits, and using those questions to align initiatives by overlapping objectives under the schools’ mission and vision to support student learning. The overarching goal should be to ensure that all students are provided supportive, stimulating environments through a focus on intentional environmental arrangement and coordinated initiatives (Dunn, 1968).

Implications for Research and Training Schools psychologists need a unique skillset to contribute to systemic change efforts. It is not enough to be competent in the provision of individualized services; practitioners must also be prepared to contribute to the development of equitable, effective educational systems that support the academic and social development of all students.This shifts the emphasis to indirect services, particularly those targeting the entire system or a particular subcomponent thereof (e.g., policies, family engagement procedures). Thus, school psychologists must not only understand how various dimensions of cultural difference (e.g., race, ethnicity, gender, class,

316   Sullivan, Artiles, and Hernandez-Saca

nationality, language, religion, sexuality) influence learning and behavior, but also how they influence educational systems and professional behavior in order to understand better how to design student services and educational environments to be welcoming and supportive to all students. Consequently, school psychologists must be able to identify how ecological and systemic factors advantage or disadvantage children and youth through differential application of school policies and procedures and disparate treatment. This approach is consistent with a transformational approach to multicultural school psychology that embeds commitment to equity throughout a training program to prepare school psychologists to advocate for systemic changes in educational and community settings (Lopez & Burzstyn, 2013). The goal of such training is not to instill discrete knowledge of specific cultural groups, but instead to cultivate critical, reflective thinking about how culture influences learning, behavior, attitudes, and values of students, families, and professionals, and in turn, intersect to influence the educational experiences of children and youth. The section below describes the specific domains of practice relevant to systems change.

Systems Consultation In systems or organizational consultation, the school psychologist consultant engages with representatives of the system (e.g., administrators and teachers) as the consultees to address organizational issues in order to foster more effective organizational functioning of the system (i.e., the client). Rather than analyzing the behavior of individuals, the systems consultant analyzes the functioning of the system (e.g., the formal and informal structures, norms, operations, and policies) in order to identify malleable targets with the goal of identifying areas for change (Harris, 2007). Potential targets may include discrepant instructional practices, discriminatory discipline, biased assessment practices, ineffectual team problemsolving, or ineffective universal prevention efforts (Meyers et al., 2012). Training should foster knowledge of organizational and systems theories and skills applicable to consultation and collaboration with diverse educational professionals and families. School psychologists also need to be cognizant not only of principles of learning and effective instruction, but also of curriculum and school-wide programming so that they can consult on the effectiveness and appropriateness when advising on possible changes to instructional supports (Lopez & Burzstyn, 2013). Pre-service training should also address organizational development strategies necessary to enact identified changes, such as team building activities, structural analysis, assessment and feedback, professional development, coaching, strategic planning, partnering, process observation, participatory action research (Harris, 2007).

Approaches to Disproportionality   317

Program Evaluation School psychologists should also be trained in program evaluation so that they can support use of data to evaluate policies, practice, and procedures in systems problem-solving. In addition to evaluating specific programming, systems change should involve analysis of schools’ ecology, culture, and politics, and should involve diverse stakeholders. Accordingly, school psychologists should be trained in a variety of program evaluation approaches, from traditional methods, to more recent developments such as participatory action research, collaborative evaluation (Brackett & Hurley, 2004) and empowerment evaluation (Goodman & Noonan, 2009).

Population-based Prevention Services Population-based services shift attention from individual risk factors to systemic factors as targets of prevention, assessment, and intervention. School psychologists’ contribution to population-based services requires training in multi-tiered systems of support, with particular attention to universal prevention. Devising effective population-based services requires consideration of ecological factors that contribute to academic success or difficulties, looking not at possible child deficits, but rather at how the school environment fosters or constrains development. School psychologists should be trained to assist in the design, implementation, and evaluation of system-wide programming.

Advocacy Training should acknowledge school psychologists’ ethical imperatives to correct discriminatory systems and advocate for the wellbeing of children above all else. At times, school psychologists may need to confront school-wide discriminatory policies and practices, or discrimination of specific students, even though this advocacy may produce conflicting roles of advocate and employee (Jacob, Decker, & Hartshorne, 2011). As such, training should foster the communication skills necessary to navigate this challenging role as well as effective strategies for advocating at various levels of systems.

Research Future research should be grounded in theory and examine the essential elements and outcomes of systemic change. There is also value in understanding the factors

318   Sullivan, Artiles, and Hernandez-Saca

related to effective systems change, including the effects of specific processes. Researchers might consider the following:What factors promote or hinder systems change? What are the essential processes for systems change to reduce disproportionality? How are data perceived and used in various stages of the process? What policies, procedures, and practices are associated with significant changes in focal student outcomes (e.g., special education referrals, eligibility determinations, placement)? How much time is needed to see significant improvements in specific student outcomes? What system characteristics are needed to foster sustainable changes? Rigorous research designs should be applied to evaluate systems interventions. In addition, scholars should develop and validate tools to inform and guide systemic change. This is of particular relevance to refining our conceptualization of the roles and activities of school psychologists and other professionals in the change process.

Resources Discussion Questions 1. Why is the potential misidentification of special education needs problematic? 2. What aspects of general education environment might contribute to disparities in special education? 3. What types of data might be useful in determining whether disproportionality in special education due to inappropriate policies or practices in a specific school?

Professional Organizations National Association for Multicultural Education Civil Rights Project Equity Assistance Centers Metropolitan Center for Urban Education

Additional Readings Harry, B., & Klingner, J. K. (2006). Why are so many minority students in special education? Understanding race and disability in schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. The authors describe their work in a large, culturally diverse school district by examining the influences of children and families’ experiences, the teacher and schools’ actions, and school climate on special education referrals and identification, concluding with recommendations for improving educational practice, teacher training, and policy.

Approaches to Disproportionality   319

Kozleski, E. B. & King-Thorius, K. (Eds.). (2014). Ability, equity, and culture:The search for the holy grail in urban education reform. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. This book explores schools’ challenges in promoting educational equity. Chapters describe theoretical and empirical bases of efforts to address equity concerns, with an emphasis on case studies of districts and schools involved in urban school reform, policy change, and systems change.

References Albrecht, S. F., Skiba, R. J., Losen, D. L., Chung, C. G., & Middelberg, L. (2012). Federal policy on disproportionality in special education: Is it moving us forward? Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 23, 14–25. Algozzine, B., Christenson, S., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (1982). Probabilities associated with the referral to placement process. Teacher Education and Special Education, 5, 19–23. Allman, P. (2007). On Marx: An introduction to the revolutionary intellect of Karl Marx. Rotterdam/Taipei: Sense Publishers. Anyon, J. (2005). Radical Possibilities. New York: Routledge. Artiles, A. J., & Klingner, J. K. (2006). Forging a knowledge base on English language learners with special needs: Theoretical, population, and technical issues. Teachers College Record, 108, 2187–2194. Artiles, A. J., Kozleski, E. B., Trent, S. C., Osher, D., & Ortiz, A. (2010). Justifying and explaining disproportionality, 1968–2008: A critique of underlying views of culture. Exceptional Children, 76, 279–299. Artiles, A. J., Rueda, R., Salazar, J. J., & Higareda, I. (2005). Within-group diversity in minority disproportionate representation: English language learners in urban school districts. Exceptional Children, 71, 283–300. Artiles, A. J., & Trent, S. C. (2000). Representation of culturally/linguistically diverse students. In C. R. Reynolds & E. Fletcher-Jantzen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of special education (Vol. 1, 2nd ed., pp. 513–517). New York: Wiley. Blanchett, W. (2006). Disproportionate representation of African American students in special education: Acknowledging the role of White privilege and racism. Educational Researcher, 35, 24–28. Brackett, A., & Hurley, N. (2004). Collaborative evaluation led by local educators. San Francisco, CA: Wested. Chhuon,V., & Sullivan, A. L. (2013). Racialization of abilities and disabilities in U.S. schools: Asian American and Pacific Islander students in gifted and special education. Perspectives on Communication Disorders and Sciences in Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Populations, 20, 49–59. Clare, M., Jimenez, A., & McClendon, J. (2005). Toma el tiempo: The wisdom of migrant families in consultation. Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation, 16, 95–117. 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, 49–59. Donovan, M. S., & Cross, C. T. (Eds.). (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

320   Sullivan, Artiles, and Hernandez-Saca

Dunn, L. M. (1968). Special education for the mildly retarded: Is much of it justifiable? Exceptional Children, 35, 5–22. Durkin, M. S., Maenner, M. J., Meaney, F. J., Levy, S. E., Diguiseppi, C., Nicholas, J. S., . . . Schieve, L. A. (2010). Socioeconomic inequality in the prevalence of autism spectrum disorder: Evidence from a U.S. cross-sectional study. PLoS One, 5(7), e11551. Fountain, C., King, M. D., & Bearman, P. S. (2011). Age of diagnosis for autism: Individual and community predictors across 10 birth cohorts. Journal of Epidemiological Community Health, 65, 503–510. Goodman, R. M., & Noonan, R. K. (2009). Empowerment evaluation for violent prevention public health programs. Health Promotion Practices, 11, 11S–18S. Harris, A. M. (2007). Systemic consultation in a multilingual setting. In G. B. Esquivel, E. C. Lopez, & S. G. Nahari (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural school psychology (1st ed., pp. 137–155). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hibel, J., Farkas, G., & Morgan, P. L. (2010). Who is placed into special education? Sociology of Education, 83, 312–332. Huebner, E. S., & Cummings, J. A. (1986). Influence of race and test data ambiguity upon school psychologists’ decisions. School Psychology Review, 15, 410–417. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. Klingner, J. K., Artiles, A. J., Kozleski, E., Harry, B., Zion, S., Tate, W., Zamora-Durán, G., & Riley, D. (2005). Addressing the disproportionate representation of culturally and linguistically diverse students in special education through culturally responsive educational systems. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(38). Available at . Koonce, D. A., & Harper, W. (2005). Engaging African American parents in the schools: A community-based consultation model. Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation, 16, 55–74. Kozleski, E. B. (2011). Culturally responsive teaching matters! Tempe, AZ: Equity Alliance at ASU. Kozleski, E. B., & Smith, A. (2009). The complexities of system change in creating equity for students with disabilities in urban schools. Urban Education, 44, 427–451. Jacob, S., Decker, D. M., & Hartshorne, T. S. (2011). Ethics and law for school psychologists (6th ed). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Lopez, E. C., & Bursztyn, A. M. (2013). Future challenges and opportunities: Toward culturally responsive training in school psychology. Psychology in the Schools, 50, 212–228. Losen, D. J., & Orfield, G. (Eds.). (2002). Racial inequality in special education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Losen, D. J., & Welner, K. G. (2002). Legal challenges to inappropriate and inadequate special education for minority children. In D. J. Losen & G. Orfield (Eds.), Racial inequity in special education (pp. 167–194). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. 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. Mandell, D. S., Listerud, J., Levy, S. E., & Pinto-Martin, J. A. (2002). Race differences in the age at diagnosis among Medicaid-eligible children with autism. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 41, 1447–1453. Meyers, A. B., Meyers, J., Graybill, E. C., Proctor, S. L., & Huddleston, L. (2012). Ecological approaches to organizational and systems change in educational settings. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 22, 106–124.

Approaches to Disproportionality   321

Morgan, P. L., Frisco, M. L., Farkas, G., & Hibel, J. (2010). A propensity score matching analysis of the effects of special education services. The Journal of Special Education, 43, 236–254. Nastasi, B. K. (2005). School consultants as change agents in achieving equity for families in public schools. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 16, 113–125. Ochoa, S. H., & Rhodes, R. L. (2005). Assisting parents of bilingual students to achieve equity in public schools. Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation, 16, 75–94. Ochoa, S. H., Riccio, C., Jimenez, S., Alba, R. G., & Sines, M. (2004). Psychological assessment of English language learners and/or bilingual students: An investigation of school psychologists’ current practice. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 22, 185–208. Rosenberg, R. E., Daniels, A. M., Law, J. K., Law, P. A., & Kaufmann, W. E. (2009). Trends in autism spectrum disorder diagnoses: 1994–2007. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 39, 1099–1111. Shepard, L. A. & Smith, M. L. (1983). An evaluation of the identification of learning disabled students in Colorado. Learning Disability Quarterly, 6, 115–127. Shifrer, D., Muller, C., & Callahan, R. (2011). Disproportionality and learning disabilities: Parsing apart race, socioeconomic status, and language. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44, 246–257. Singer, J. D., Palfrey, J. S., Butler, J. A., & Walker, D. K. (1989).Variation in special education classification across school districts: How does where you live affect what you are labeled? American Education Research Journal, 26, 261–281. Skiba, R. J., Knesting, K., & Bush, L. D. (2002). Culturally competent assessment: More than nonbiased tests. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 11, 61–78. Skiba, R. J., Poloni-Staudinger, L., Simmons, A. B., Feggings-Azziz, R., & Chung, C. G. (2005). Unproven links of poverty: Can poverty explain ethnic disproportionality in special education? Journal of Special Education, 39, 130–144. Skiba, R. J., Simmons, A. B., Ritter, S., Gibb, A. C., Rausch, M. K., Cuadrado, J., & Chung, C. G. (2008).Achieving equity in special education: History, status, and current challenges. Exceptional Children, 74, 264–288. Sullivan, A. L. (2011). Disproportionality in special education identification and placement of English language learners. Exceptional Children, 77, 317–334. Sullivan, A. L., & Artiles, A. J. (2011). Theorizing racial inequity in special education: Applying structural inequity theory to disproportionality. Urban Education, 46, 1526–1552. Sullivan, A. L. (2013). School-based autism identification: Prevalence, racial disparities, and systemic correlates. School Psychology Review, 42, 298–316. Sullivan, A. L., Artiles, A. J., & Hernandez-Saca, D. (2015). Ecologically-based organizational consultation and systems change for special education equity. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 25, 129–147. doi:10.1080/10474412.2014.929969. Sullivan, A. L., & Bal, A. (2013). Disproportionality in special education: Effects of individual and school variables on risk. Exceptional Children, 79, 475–494. Sullivan, A. L., & Field, S. (2013). Do preschool special education services make a difference in kindergarten reading and mathematics skills? A propensity score weighting analysis. Journal of School Psychology, 51, 243–260. Sullivan, A. L., & King-Thorius, K. A. (2010). Considering the intersections of difference among students with disabilities and expanding conceptualizations of multicultural education. Race, Gender & Class, 17, 93–109.

322   Sullivan, Artiles, and Hernandez-Saca

Sullivan, A. L., Kozleski, E. B., & Smith, A. (2008, March). Understanding the current context of minority disproportionality in special education: Federal response, state activities, and implications for technical assistance. Presentation at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, New York, NY. U.S. Department of Education. (2013). For each and every child—A strategy for education equity and excellence. Washington, DC: Author. Valenzuela, J. S., Copeland, S. R., Qi, C. H., & Park, M. (2006). Examining educational equity: Revisiting the disproportionate representation of minority students in special education. Exceptional Children, 72, 425–441. VanderHeyden, A. M., Witt, J. C., & Gilbertson, D. (2007). A multi-year evaluation of the effects of a Response to Intervention (RtI) model on identification of children for special education. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 225–256. Waitoller, F. R., Artiles, A. J., & Cheney, D. (2010). The miner’s canary: A review of overrepesentation research and explanations. The Journal of Special Education, 44, 29–49. Wanzek, J., & Vaughn, S. (2011). Is a three-tier reading intervention model associated with reduced placement in special education? Remedial and Special Education, 32, 167–175. Williams, M. E., Atkins, M., & Soles,T. (2009). Assessment of autism in community settings: Discrepancies in classification. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 39, 600–669. Ysseldyke, J. E., Algozzine, B., Regan, R., & McGue, M. (1981).The influence of test scores and naturally occurring pupil characteristics on psychoeducational decision making with children. Journal of School Psychology, 19, 167–177. Ysseldyke, J. E., Algozzine, B., Richey, L., & Graden, J. (1982). Declaring students eligible for learning disability services: Why bother with the data? Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 37–44. Zehler, A. M., Fleischman, H. L., Hopstock, P. J., Stephenson,T. G., Pendzick, M. L., & Sapru, S. (2003). Descriptive study of services to LEP students and LEP students with disabilities: Policy report—Summary of findings related to LEP and SPED-LEP student. Washington DC: Development Associates, Inc. Zucker, S. H., Prieto, A. G., & Rutherford, R. B. (1979). Racial determinants of teachers’ perceptions of placement of the educable mentally retarded. Exceptional Children Education Resources, 11, 1.

Part VI

Training and Research

18

Preparing School Professionals to Deliver Services Using a Social Justice Framework David Shriberg, Elizabeth M. Vera, and Casey McPherson

The provision of educational and psychological services in schools is confronted by major social challenges. Inasmuch as the problems of our society encroach on the fulfillment of educational goals, a solution to these problems may lie in the manner in which educators—specifically school psychologists—approach their work with students, families, and communities.This chapter argues that the intentional practice of school psychology through a social justice lens enacts the potential of school psychologists who aim to serve as agents of positive change. As an aspirational goal, lens for viewing the world, and as a set of action steps, social justice is increasingly referenced and embedded in school psychology training, research, and practice (American Psychological Association [APA], 2003; National Association of School Psychologists [NASP], 2010a; NASP, 2010b). But what is social justice and how can we best prepare school psychologists to deliver services using a social justice framework? These are the topics explored in this chapter.

325

326   Shriberg, Vera, and McPherson

Theoretical and Research Basis Social Justice Definition and Frameworks While various definitions of social justice have been debated since the writings of Plato and Aristotle, notions of equity and liberty are at the heart of the concept (Bell, 2013). The goal of social justice can be understood as: . . . full and equal participation of all groups in a society that is mutually shaped to meet their needs. Social justice includes a vision of society in which the distribution of resources is equitable and all members are physically and psychologically safe and secure. (Bell, 2013, p. 21) While few would argue against equitable resource distribution, some criticism has been leveled at definitions of social justice that focus on that particular outcome. Modern social justice theorists have argued that the processes that guide decisions related to social equality rather than the outcome itself must be the focus of social justice activism (Young, 2011).Thus, a more contemporary approach to social justice embraced by many scholars in psychology is referred to as a Communitarian model of justice (Young, 2011). In this model of social justice, the process of decision-making and interaction that occurs at both an individual and systemic level, as opposed to the actual distribution of resources, is the focus of interventions and policies. In Young’s conceptualization of social justice, social organization and processes are evaluated to elucidate practices of domination, privilege, and oppression. Thus, redistributing wealth or resources does not solve inequities. Rather, the processes that facilitated unequal outcomes to begin with must be scrutinized and transformed. Over the past several decades, numerous scholars and professional organizations across psychology and education have argued for the application of social justice principles to practice. For example, many in education have been influenced by the decades of scholarship of James A. Banks on multicultural education and social justice. Similarly, within psychology, the work of George Albee, as well as the work of Isaac Prilleltensky and other critical psychologists have played crucial roles in sparking social justice discourse and activism in applied psychology. Although somewhat late to this dialogue, school psychology has been no exception. To date, there have been three empirical studies where school psychologists were asked to provide their opinions on social justice.The first is a Delphi study of 17 cultural diversity experts in school psychology conducted by Shriberg, Bonner, Sarr, Walker, Hyland, and Chester in 2008. In this study, these cultural diversity experts most strongly endorsed a definition of social justice centered on the idea

A Social Justice Framework   327

of “protecting the rights and opportunities for all.” In terms of identifying priority social justice topics, nearly all the experts spoke of the importance of challenging institutional power structures via advocacy, most typically advocacy directly related to elements of cultural diversity (e.g., race, socio-economic status). Similarly, when asked to identify key social justice action strategies, experts emphasized the importance of knowledge (e.g., knowledge of best practices and the law) and action (e.g., advocacy to support children and families). In a follow-up study of 214 randomly selected NASP members conducted by Shriberg, Wynne, Briggs, Bartucci, and Lombardo (2011), respondents provided a definition of social justice essentially identical to the definition provided by the cultural diversity experts. Additionally, 94% of respondents indicated that considerations of institutional power in schools were salient to social justice and school psychology. Respondents rated promoting best practices in school psychology, conducting culturally fair assessments, and advocating for the rights of children and families as the most realistic actions practitioners can take to support social justice. In addition, significant age differences were evident, with younger respondents appearing to be both more apt to report exposure to social justice concepts and also less willing to take personal risks to pursue social justice aims than older respondents. Finally, in a three-year multi-cohort examination of school psychology graduate students’ perspectives on social justice, Moy, Briggs, Shriberg, Jackson, Smith, and Tompkins (2014) highlighted the salience of “Advocacy,” “Awareness,” and “Fairness/Equity” as themes that pervaded discussions of understanding and defining social justice. These themes were also found to be highly relevant to students applying social justice principles to practice.

Connection Between Social Justice and Multicultural School Psychology The aforementioned description of social justice describes aspirational goals and practices that are difficult to oppose. How then might one achieve these goals and practices? One potential answer lies in viewing a social justice framework as a form of “goggles” worn by school psychology practitioners, students, supervisors, and professors. This framework comes directly from multicultural psychology. As noted by several authors, social justice can be seen as the latest development in the evolution of multicultural psychology (Chang, Crethar, & Ratts, 2010;Vera & Speight, 2003).This evolution has been marked by three primary stages. In the first stage, the struggle centers on the acceptance of topics that can be broadly labeled as “cultural diversity topics” germane to scholarship and practice. For example, might the way that children typically experience the world be affected by factors

328   Shriberg, Vera, and McPherson

such as race/ethnicity, nationality, gender, socio-economic status, sexual orientation, and/or religion? Summarizing trends in counseling psychology that could also apply to school psychology,Vera and Speight (2003) noted: It is a sure sign of progress that we are no longer reading articles that argue whether diversity is important, but instead have a developing body of literature that allows for scholarly debate regarding how to integrate multiculturalism into our research, training, and practice. (Vera & Speight, 2003, p. 253) Having established that issues related to cultural diversity are important, the second stage involves establishing cultural competencies for practice. Within school psychology, there have been numerous efforts towards providing models of culturally competent practice and training (e.g., Martines, 2008). Additionally, culturally responsive practice is both a stated and an implied goal in the most recent version of NASP’s practice model (NASP, 2010a) and the APA’s Multicultural Guidelines (APA, 2003). Although defining and working towards cultural competence are important goals, critics (e.g., Prilleltensky & Nelson, 2002; Vera & Speight, 2003) argue that separating multicultural competencies from a commitment to social justice results in psychologists maintaining the status quo rather than working towards social change.This is an important distinction. For example, suppose that in a given school 90% of English language learners are referred for special education evaluation. A school psychologist may conduct these evaluations in a manner consistent with culturally responsive practice, but if this person is not on some level working to question why such a large proportion of English language learners are being referred for special education, this person is likely falling short of her/his potential to act as an agent of social justice. Thus, the third stage of multicultural psychology is engaging in social justice advocacy.

Implications for Practice In its most recent Principles of Professional Ethics document, NASP (2010b) states: School psychologists consider the interests and rights of children and youth to be their highest priority in decision making, and act as advocates for all students. These assumptions necessitate that school psychologists ‘speak up’ for the needs and rights of students even when it may be difficult to do so. (p. 2)

A Social Justice Framework   329

How then can school psychologists be prepared to “speak up” for social justice? In order for school psychology to achieve its social justice potential, individual and collective actions are both required and inseparable. However, in terms of thinking about how best to prepare school psychologists to advance social justice in practice, this section will focus primarily on school psychologists as individuals. In particular, the following core components—critical self-reflection, commitment to action, and thinking and acting systemically—will be highlighted.

Critical Self-Reflection School psychologists are not a representative sample of the population. By definition, all practitioners are highly educated. If a school psychologist is working full-time, then this school psychologist by definition is in a different place than an unemployed or underemployed individual and likely making an income above the national median. Additionally, as has been documented for decades, school psychology—as reflected by NASP membership—is a field that is disproportionally white and female (Castillo, Curtis, & Gelley, 2013).This is not to say that just because someone is white, well-educated, employed, and/or affluent that this person is not capable of being an agent of social justice. Rather, it is to highlight the value of critical selfreflection of one’s biases and privileges as a precursor to action. For example, Miranda, Boland, and Hemmeler (2009) write about the importance of a grappling with privilege in all forms as an essential component of practice.

Commitment to Action Central to virtually all contemporary models of teaching for social justice is Paulo Freire’s (1990) concept of praxis, which he defined as, “reflection and action upon the world in order to change it” (p. 33). Rogers and O’Bryon (2008) believe that social justice advocacy requires “a rethinking of our social responsibilities and a rechanneling of some of our professional energies, expertise, and actions from the familiar role as advocate into the reformulated role as social justice advocate” (p. 495). In a chapter centered on social justice advocacy in school psychology, Briggs (2012) provided several advocacy strategies that can be used across the public health prevention tiers. As a prelude to social justice advocacy, she offers the following reflection questions to consider before deciding if and how one might act in accordance with social justice principles: 1. Am I acting on behalf of others because it is easier or because it is necessary? 2. Is immediate change critical in order to prevent harm, or can I take the time to empower others to advocate for themselves?

330   Shriberg, Vera, and McPherson

3. If I advocate on behalf of others, what will happen when I am not around to lead advocacy efforts? Will change be institutionalized; will the process continue, or will my efforts disappear with me? (p. 300) Challenging bureaucracy within a school is a daunting task, and activities such as empowering students and staff are not always highly regarded. However, even challenging the status quo in small ways can lead to change (Johnson, 2013). Commonly, there is resistance from the many professionals who are not accustomed to engaging in such efforts or who have been trained in more traditional, reactive or remedial intervention strategies. Fortunately, there is an increasing literature (e.g., Bemak & Chung, 2008; Singh et al., 2010) that speaks to strategies for overcoming these potential barriers. Love (2013) discussed a model of social justice transformation, which she referred to as liberatory consciousness. This model consists of four elements. The first element is awareness. Love argues that injustice exists all around us, and being willing to pay attention to the many manifestations of it is analogous to being awake. Second, it is important for individuals to analyze the world around them. A large element of this analysis involves critical thinking about why injustices exist and what can be done about them.Third is the element of action. Action, however, is not limited to direct intervention, but also may include encouraging others, participating in community organizing, locating resources, or influencing policy. Finally, the last element of this model is accountability and ally-ship. Love emphasizes the importance of working and cooperating with others who are committed to combating social injustice. Ally-ship may be a particularly important concept for school-based professionals who work in interdisciplinary settings with professionals who have access to various components of the system (e.g., administrators, parents, teachers).

Thinking and Acting Systemically There is no simple formula for facilitating systemic change.This process may begin with one or two members of the staff or administration who are effective change agents. These individuals typically have already broken through the cycle of socialization and begun the cycle of liberation. These individuals can help to shape a norm where ally behavior is the expectation (Caldwell & Vera, 2010). Change typically involves forming effective partnerships.As a school psychologist, joining different committees at the school level not only helps to establish the practitioner as someone who is a key fixture in the school, it also helps to add credibility to his or her name when beginning to ask for change. Practitioners can and should also involve the parents and the community when trying to create

A Social Justice Framework   331

systemic change (Li & Vazquez-Nuttall, 2009). These key stakeholders provide a strong base of support for policy change and will often be a part of the population you are hoping to advocate with and for. By helping to facilitate a climate where all voices are heard and respected, individual and collective strengths and resources are maximized, which in turn is helpful for preventing further injustices. There are a number of ways in which practitioners can facilitate large and small acts that have the potential for systemic impact. For example, on a more universal level school psychologists can offer panel discussions or other opportunities to engage in group discussions of personal stories of injustice. In these discussions, topics such as the history of race can be analyzed and primary and secondary students can learn how to see and challenge stereotypes and prejudice. Practitioners could also invite staff to serve as advocacy mentors for students. In this position the mentors could help to provide exposure to injustices as well as discussions and opportunities for correcting those injustices such as writing letters to policy makers at the school, town, state, and federal levels. School psychologists themselves may have the opportunity to personally challenge the status quo with school policy makers by advocating for the implementation and monitoring of Response to Intervention practices, and advocating for the implementation of social justice into the general curriculum. History class could turn into more than just a lesson on American history, but also a conversation on the impact of slavery or immigration, and English class could begin with a conversation of To Kill a Mockingbird and end with a discussion on the understanding of mental illness. In the end, challenging the status quo should happen not just on the individual level, but also on a systemic level so that all students and staff can be reached.

Implications for Research and Training Successful manifestations of applied social justice likely will look different in every graduate program because every program has its own challenges and utilizing an emancipatory framework implies that the key determinants are participant voice and expertise, not the application of a predetermined curriculum. Using social justice as a framework is a way to actively resist unfairness and inequity while guiding students in an exploration of their own identity and how they view and interact with the perceived identity of people around them. Using a social justice framework to create change means knowing about and utilizing evidence-based practices that help to create fair opportunities within the school. It also means not only changing what we teach but also how we teach it. What then are some desirable practices for social justice preparation? Within school psychology,“Teaching for Social Justice in School Psychology” was the focus

332   Shriberg, Vera, and McPherson

of a special topic issue of Trainers’ Forum in 2009. Three articles co-authored by school psychology graduate students and faculty described their respective programs’ efforts to embed social justice into their training model and practice. In the first piece, Radliff, Miranda, Stoll, and Wheeler (2009) identified five key areas central to infusing social justice into their program. These key areas are: (1) mission statement, (2) student body, (3) program courses and experiences, (4) community partnering, and (5) community-based projects. Similarly, in the second piece Li et al. (2009) described a three-pronged approach to teaching for social justice: (1) integrating social justice into courses, (2) engaging students in social justice scholarship and research, and (3) faculty and students collectively acting in concert with their core values and ethical standards for the purpose of improving the lives of others in real world settings. Finally, Briggs, McArdle, Bartucci, Kowalewicz, and Shriberg (2009) presented the results of a focus group with advanced school psychology graduate students regarding how they experienced this program’s social justice education. Among the primary findings was that the students identified service learning as an activity that significantly advanced their capacity to be an agent of social justice. Based on this finding, a new social justice course with service learning as the primary assignment was created. In a book chapter on teaching for social justice in school psychology, Shriberg (2012) offers several recommendations. The first recommendation is to engage in dialogue with participants regarding why social justice matters, particularly if talking about social justice is new or uncommon. If your efforts in preparing students for social justice are being done in collaborations with others (e.g., other faculty members within a graduate training program), it is also critical for those involved to talk together about how they are defining social justice, why they feel social justice is important, and the best way to develop an integrative, skill-building, and consciousness-raising approach to teaching for social justice. The second recommendation is to develop a mission statement and core preparation goals related to social justice. These can provide a central framework from which individual and systemic decisions can be made and can work against the danger of social justice simultaneously meaning everything and nothing due to the breadth of the term. Relatedly, it is important to have core goals and assumptions to frame the content and experiences that you have organized. The third recommendation is to embed meaningful experiences that help make “applied social justice” a real thing, not simply a theoretical construct or feel-good slogan. Social justice is a verb! This suggestion is particularly important given the knowledge that attitudes consistent with social justice principles do not necessarily translate to behaviors consistent with social justice. For example, McCabe and Rubinson (2008) found graduate students in school psychology and education reported non-prejudiced attitudes towards students who are not straight, but these attitudes did not appear to translate to ally behavior. Moy et al. (2014) conducted

A Social Justice Framework   333

seven focus groups over three years with school psychology graduate students in which participants were asked about formative experiences that shaped their desire and ability to act as agents of social justice. Service-learning opportunities that afforded students the opportunity to move out of their personal cultural comfort zone were cited as particularly impactful. In the context of graduate education in school psychology “applied social justice” might take the form of seeking “traditional” (e.g., schools) and “non-traditional” (e.g., homeless shelters) sites for students to obtain meaningful experiences. The fourth recommendation is to work to provide a safe and supportive forum for eliciting voice and engaging in constructive dialogue. While several didactic approaches to teaching social justice are likely to be effective, it is difficult to imagine an impactful social justice preparation experience where the facilitator did all the talking and multiple viewpoints were not considered. Burnes and Singh (2010) speak to the importance of creating an educational space and opportunity to explore what social justice might look like from different perspectives, including the individual perspective of each student in a course. For this reason, a common recommendation for social justice instruction is to be sure to provide one or more forums (e.g., verbal, written) for reflection (O’Brien et al., 2006). For example, some individuals may put into writing thoughts that she/he might not share verbally with the group. Others may be open to sharing a particular impactful experience. Reflection can be a powerful conduit for eliciting voice and sharing ideas. Instructors play a critical role in this process, both as individual models and as facilitators of challenging yet supportive dialogue where students feel safe to express their feelings and opinions.When instructors are able to speak to their own self-perceived limitations that can help provide a space for students to do the same. In a qualitative study of social justice educators in counseling education, Odegard and Vereen (2010) found that in a well-designed social justice course students are likely to experience several “awakenings” and/or paradigm shifts.These awakenings can take several forms. For example, many students may state or write that they realize that they have been acting in ways that they now consider to be “unjust.” For others, there may be a strong educational component, where they state or write that they “didn’t know what I didn’t know” until exposed to specific readings, discussions, and/or experiences in the course. Additionally, some students may feel inspired towards action on a larger scale, such as community advocacy and/or working to change school psychology practices. There are many models of multicultural competence that speak to these kinds of awakenings and most of these models take a stage approach. In this approach, different students may be at different stages of awareness at different points in time. Invariably, students and the course instructor(s) may feel some discomfort, anger, and/or embarrassment as part of this learning process, and there may be many instances of student resistance to the content. There likely will be times when

334   Shriberg, Vera, and McPherson

students and/or the instructor say or do something that others may experience as a poorly phrased statement or action at best, or a micro-aggression at worst. How these types of situations are handled is a challenge to all instructors, but the core element repeated again and again in the literature is that social justice growth experiences in education require that the student voice is valued and that a safe and respectful class atmosphere is created.Typically this requires the creation of ground rules developed by the students and instructor together, at or near the start of a course, as well as a commitment in word and deed by the instructor that what students have to say truly matters and that the goal is not for students to agree with the instructor’s views on any particular topic, but for there to be an atmosphere where divergent opinions are valued and respected. Relatedly, it is critical that mechanisms for ongoing and summative feedback from students/attendees regarding the course, the instructor, and the intended outcomes are put into place and utilized. Finally, all of the above is predicated on the assumption that the instructor has achieved a certain level of self-awareness and cultural competence. If the course instructor is not able to model the practices associated with applied social justice, then social justice instruction is severely compromised.

Developing Students as Allies A primary goal of teaching for social justice is enhancing the capacity of all students to be effective advocates, including helping students who are in positions of power to serve as allies. If ally-ship is important, what are some predictors of who is more likely to become an ally? Nilsson and Schmidt (2005), in examining the attitudes of 154 graduate students in counseling psychology, found that having an interest in politics and having a desire to become involved in social activism were the best (and only amongst the variables studied) unique predictors of actual involvement in social activism. Caldwell and Vera (2010), also studying graduate students in counseling psychology, examined key components of individuals engaged in social justice advocacy. These components were: (a) Influence of Significant Persons (e.g., mentors, parents), (b) Exposure to Injustice (i.e., personal and vicarious), (c) Education/Learning (i.e., training experiences), (d) Work Experiences (e.g., working with clients who lived with injustices), and (e) Religion/Spiritual Orientation. When asked to rank order the importance of these various critical incidents, Exposure to Injustice most frequently received the top rank. In 2011, Beer, Spanierman, Greene, and Todd used mixed methods to examine psychology graduate students’ perceptions of social justice commitment in their training, the role of social identity, spirituality, and training environment in predicting social justice commitments of the participants. The findings revealed that social identity, more specifically, experiences of marginalization (both one’s own

A Social Justice Framework   335

and those of significant others), was a significant factor in predicting social justice commitment. However, in addition to the activism orientation that was predicted by these experiences, training experiences also impacted social justice commitment indirectly through self-efficacy, as did religious/spiritual beliefs of the activists. Hence, these findings suggest that personal (i.e., pre-existing) dispositions related to social justice awareness in combination with training experiences that foster self-efficacy may be critical to promoting a social justice commitment in psychology graduate students. Miller and Sendrowitz (2011) examined predictors of social justice engagement with particular attention to the role of training environment and personal moral imperatives in a sample of 240 psychology trainees enrolled in graduate programs in counseling.Their findings suggested that social justice training environment and personal moral imperative were significant predictors of social justice commitment; however, the nature of their impact differed. Whereas the social justice training environment worked indirectly to shape social justice commitment (i.e., by bolstering self-efficacy), personal moral imperative worked directly and indirectly to shape social justice commitment. This set of findings suggests that training opportunities to address social justice issues (e.g., through supervised practica) can enhance social justice commitment by increasing students’ confidence to engage in such work. However, pre-existing dispositions that are not related to training experiences are also significant predictors of social justice commitment. Taken together, one could argue that both student selection (i.e., finding students who have appropriate dispositions) and providing appropriate training experiences are key to promoting social justice commitment in future professionals. These studies lend support for the conceptualizations of social justice commitment or conversion offered by Love (2013). The findings as a group suggest that exposure to injustice, most powerfully when it is one’s own experience or the experience of a significant other, is critical in developing a commitment to social justice. Second, these studies’ findings suggest that having mentorship and guidance (e.g., supervision) during training experiences that foster self-efficacy in doing social justice work are also important elements. These studies, then, suggest that training programs that wish to promote a commitment to social justice must have training experiences that help trainees to learn appropriate skills (and foster self-efficacy). They also suggest, however, that dispositional elements are important motivational factors that may be related to an ongoing commitment to the work.

Research From a research perspective, the most direct indicator that progress has been made in school psychology related to social justice would be the publication of a wide

336   Shriberg, Vera, and McPherson

range of scholarship related to practice and training that fleshes out these concepts. Unfortunately, a recent examination of research articles in major school psychology journals found that of the 1,190 manuscripts examined over a four year period only 159 (13.4%) met criteria as addressing a core area of social justice and only 9 (0.8%) used the term “social justice” (Graybill et al., 2015). The key distinction will be separating out the ideas from these works from a broader, more sanitized, conceptualization of “best practices” in the field. Existing evidence suggests that social justice entails a more robust questioning of the status quo when that status quo supports injustice than has been evident to date (Speight & Vera, 2009). For example, what does the field have to say about white privilege (Miranda et al., 2009)? What are some of the common institutional barriers that inhibit social justice and how might these be overcome (Williams and Crockett, 2012)? What might “socially just” approaches to core school psychology functions such as assessment, consultation, mental health support, behavioral issues in the classroom, and family–school–community collaboration look like from a research perspective and how do these approaches vary from “best practice” models (Shriberg et al., 2012)? Additionally, as school psychology continues to expand its international reach (Jimerson et al., 2009), given the predominant influence of the United States and other “first world” and Western nations, it becomes imperative that efforts are made to ensure that key research that might guide these efforts reflects culturally responsive practice. Put another way, is the expansion of school psychology research across the globe leading to the importation of white, male, Christian, heterosexist, Western privilege, or will school psychology be able to adapt to the needs and values of different cultures and countries? One answer to this question will be found from whether persons living in non-“first world” countries report that school psychology is being done to them or with them. Similarly, as the field becomes increasingly professionalized in the U.S. and abroad and as professional standards and assumptions regarding the role and function of school psychologists continue to be institutionalized, will leaders in the field of school psychology have the wisdom and foresight to find areas of common ground for the benefit of all children or will future research and professional standards and guidelines documents provide a listing of diffuse skills that may or may not connect to an overarching framework in support of rights and justice? If it is the case that school psychology research (and practice) is being exported and promoted in a manner that does not respect local traditions and values, then by definition these practices do not reflect social justice. Conversely, if researchers, trainers, and practitioners are able to embrace these frameworks and approach expansion and change with a sense of humility, openness, and a commitment to praxis, it becomes much more likely that the future of school psychology will result in an expansion not only of the number of school psychologists, but of the social utility of the profession.

A Social Justice Framework   337

Given the likely widespread support for the broad goals of social justice, one would hope that the future of school psychology will see accelerated movement towards these aims. However, this of course is not a given, particularly given the real risks that taking stances in support of social justice would require. While undoubtedly there are many, many individual school psychologists who have displayed the willingness both to challenge the status quo and to work together as allies to build alliances around common core goals in support of all children, this is challenging work that requires sustained effort and attention. As such, moving forward, there is an urgent need for a broader base of scholarship and professional networks that overtly reference and build upon existing knowledge in social justice. The field of school psychology also needs many more research-based practice examples that continue to flesh out what “applied social justice” looks like and how these frameworks can enhance practice. School psychology has fought long and hard to achieve the strong heartbeat it has as a respected and valued profession.A more overt and nuanced commitment to social justice has the potential to nurture the field’s soul.

Resources Discussion Questions 1. What is your personal definition of social justice? 2. What social justice topics most strongly inspire you to action? 3. What are some ways in which school psychologists can advocate for social justice?

Professional Organizations Child Rights Education for Professionals (CRED-PRO)

Additional Reading Website for the book Readings for Diversity and Social Justice available at . This book is now in its third edition, and contains a wealth of resources, such as videos, discussion questions, and suggested teaching activities that can be downloaded free of charge.

338   Shriberg, Vera, and McPherson

References American Psychological Association (2003). Guidelines on multicultural education, training, research, practice, and organizational change for school psychologists. American Psychologist, 58, 377–402. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.58.5.377. Beer, A. Spanierman, L., Greene, J., & Todd, N. R. (2011). Counseling psychology trainees’ perceptions of training and commitments to social justice. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59, 120–133. Bell, L. A. (2013). Theoretical foundations. In M. Adams, W. J. Blumenfeld, C. Castañeda, H. W. Hackman, M. L. Peters, & X. Zúñiga (Eds.), Readings for diversity and social justice (3rd ed.), pp. 21–26. New York, NY: Routledge. Bemak, F., & Chung, R. C. Y. (2008). New professional roles and advocacy strategies for school counselors: A multicultural/social justice perspective to move beyond the nice counselor syndrome. Journal of Counseling & Development, 86, 372–381. Briggs, A. (2012). The school psychologist as social justice advocate. In D. Shriberg, S. Y. Song, A. H. Miranda, & K. M. Radliff (Eds.), School psychology and social justice: Conceptual foundations and tools for practice (pp. 294–310). New York, NY: Routledge. Briggs, A., McArdle, L., Bartucci, G., Kowalewicz, E., & Shriberg, D. (2009). Students’ perspectives on the incorporation of social justice in a school psychology graduate program. Trainer’s Forum, 28(4), 35–45. Burnes, T. R., & Singh, A. A. (2010). Integrating social justice training into the practicum experience for psychology trainees: Starting earlier. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 4, 153–162. doi:10.1037/a0019385. Caldwell, J. C., &Vera, E. M. (2010). Critical incidents in counseling psychology professionals’ and trainees’ social justice orientation development. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 4, 163–176. doi:10.1037/a0019093. Castillo, J. M., Curtis, M. J., & Gelley, C. D. (2013). Gender and race in school psychology. School Psychology Review, 42, 262–279. Chang, C. Y., Crethar, H. C., & Ratts, M. J. (2010). Social justice: A national imperative for counselor education and supervision. Counselor Education & Supervision, 50, 82–87. Freire, P. (1990). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum. Graybill. E. C., Baker, C. N., Cloth, A., & Fisher, S., (2015, February). An analysis of social justice research in school psychology. Symposium presented at the National Association of School Psychologists Annual Convention, Orlando, FL. Jimerson, S., Stewart, K., Skokut, M., Cardenas, S., & Malone, H. (2009). How many school psychologists are there in the world? International estimates of school psychologists and school psychologist-to-student ratios. School Psychology International, 30, 555–567. doi:10.1177/0143034309107077. Johnson, A. G. (2013). What can we do? In M. Adams, W. J. Blumenfeld, R., Castañeda, M. L. Peters, and X. Zúñiga (Eds.), Readings for diversity and social justice, pp. 612–618. New York, NY: Routledge. Li, C., Kruger, L., Mulé, C., Lippus, K., Santora, K., Cicala, G., Smith, B., & Cataldo, J. (2009). Including social justice in the training of school psychologists. Trainers’ Forum, 28(4), 24–34. Li, C., & Vazquez-Nuttall, E. (2009). School consultants as agents of social justice for multicultural children and families. Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation, 19, 26–44. doi:10.1080/10474410802462769.

A Social Justice Framework   339

Love, B. J. (2013). Developing a liberatory consciousness. In M. Adams, W. J. Blumenfeld, R. Castañeda, M. L. Peters, and X. Zúñiga (Eds.), Readings for diversity and social justice (pp. 601–605). New York, NY: Routledge. Martines, D. (2008). Multicultural school psychology competencies: A practice guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. McCabe, P., & Rubinson, F. (2008). Committing to social justice: The behavioral intention of school psychology and education trainees to advocate for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered youth. School Psychology Review, 37, 469–486. Miller, M., & Sendrowitz, K. (2011). Counseling psychology trainees’ social justice interest and commitment. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58, 159–169. Miranda, A. H., Boland, A., & Hemmeler, M. (2009). Understanding privilege in America. In J. M. Jones (Ed.), The psychology of multiculturalism in schools: A primer for practice, training, and research (pp. 67–82). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists. Moy, G., Briggs, A., Shriberg, D., Jackson, K., Smith, P., & Tompkins, N. (2014). Developing school psychologists as agents of social justice. Journal of School Psychology, 52, 323–341. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2014.03.001. National Association of School Psychologists. (2010a). Model for comprehensive and integrated school psychological services. Bethesda, MD: Author. National Association of School Psychologists. (2010b). Principles for professional ethics. Bethesda, MD: Author. Nilsson, J. E., & Schmidt, C. K. (2005). Social justice advocacy among graduate students in counseling: An initial exploration. Journal of College Student Development, 46, 267–279. O’Brien, K. M., Sheetal, P., Hensler-McGinnis, N., & Kaplan, J. (2006). Empowering undergraduate students to be agents of social justice: An innovative service learning course in counseling psychology. In R.Toporek, L. H. Gerstein, N. A. Fouad, G. Roysircar, & T. Israel (Eds.), Handbook for social justice in counseling psychology: Leadership, vision, and action (pp. 59–73). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Odegard, M. A., & Vereen, L. G. (2010). A grounded theory of counselor educators integrating social justice into their pedagogy. Counselor Education and Supervision, 50, 130–149. Prilleltensky, I., & Nelson, G. (2002). Doing psychology critically: Making a difference in diverse settings. London, England: Palgrave Macmillan. Radliff, K. H., Miranda, A. H., Stoll, S., & Wheeler, A. S.,(2009). A conceptual framework for infusing social justice in school psychology training. Trainers’ Forum, 28(4), 10–22. Rogers, M. R., & O’Bryon, E. C. (2008). Advocating for social justice: The context for change in school psychology. School Psychology Review, 37, 493–498. Shriberg, D. (2012). Graduate education and professional development. In D. Shriberg, S. Y. Song, A. H. Miranda & K. M. Radliff (Eds.), School psychology and social justice: Conceptual foundations and tools for practice (pp. 311–325). New York, NY: Routledge. Shriberg, D., Bonner, M., Sarr, B. J., Walker, A. M., Hyland, M., & Chester, C. (2008). Social justice through a school psychology lens: Definition and applications. School Psychology Review, 37, 453–468. Shriberg, D., Song, S.Y., Miranda, A. H., & Radliff, K. M. (2012). School psychology and social justice: Conceptual foundations and tools for practice. New York, NY: Routledge. Shriberg, D., Wynne, M. E., Briggs, A., Bartucci, G., & Lombardo, A. (2011). School psychologists’ perspectives on social justice. School Psychology Forum: Research in Practice, 5(2), 37–53.

340   Shriberg, Vera, and McPherson

Singh, A. A., Urbano, A., Haston, M., & McMahon, E. (2010). School counselors’ strategies for social justice change: A grounded theory of what works in the real world. Professional School Counseling, 13, 135–145. Speight, S. L., & Vera, E. M. (2009). The challenge of social justice for school psychology. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 19, 82–92. Vera, E. M., & Speight, S. L. (2003). Multicultural competence, social justice, and counseling psychology: Expanding our roles. The Counseling Psychologist, 31, 253–272. doi:10.1177 /0011000003031003001. Williams, S. A. S., & Crockett, D. P. (2012). Institutional barriers: Poverty and education. In D. Shriberg, S. Y. Song, A. H. Miranda, & K. M. Radliff (Eds.), School psychology and social justice: Conceptual foundations and tools for practice (pp. 137–154). New York, NY: Routledge. Young, I. M. (2011). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

19

Qualitative Research with Multicultural Populations in Educational Settings Sherrie L. Proctor

Note:  The author would like to thank Bria J. Brown for her assistance.

Qualitative research held a prominent place in the work of early psychologists who were influential in shaping the field (Ponterotto, 2010). Much of Piaget’s work, for example, involved presenting young children with problems to solve, observing their problem-solving strategies, and engaging in in-depth interviewing to understand the processes children used to arrive at solutions (Miller, 2011). This work, which utilized common qualitative data-gathering methods of observations and interviews, resulted in Piaget’s stages of cognitive development and initiated the first significant body of research on children’s thinking (Miller, 2011). Other accounts of qualitative research, such as Freud’s case study of Little Hans, were also present during the early 1900s (Borgogno, 2008). Although procedures to increase the extent to which one can have confidence in a qualitative study’s findings or trustworthiness were not well delineated during those early days, Piaget and Freud’s work demonstrates some of the techniques that can be utilized in qualitative research.Today, qualitative research in the social sciences has advanced significantly, yet varying definitions and ways of conceptualizing qualitative research prevail (Hays & Singh, 2012). Given this, it is important to define qualitative research in a way that is broad enough to be inclusive of different qualitative approaches without losing the essential characteristics that exist across approaches. Thus, this chapter uses Creswell’s (2007) definition of qualitative research: 341

342   Proctor

Qualitative research begins with assumptions, a worldview, the possible use of a theoretical lens, and the study of research problems inquiring into the meaning individuals or groups ascribe to a social or human problem. To study this problem, qualitative researchers use an emerging qualitative approach to inquiry, the collection of data in a natural setting sensitive to the people and places under study, and data analysis that is inductive and establishes patterns or themes. The final written report or presentations includes the voices of participants, the reflexivity of the researcher, and a complex description of the problem, and it extends the literature or signals a call for action. (Creswell, 2007, p. 37) Creswell noted that the way in which researchers make sense of data is rooted in the cultural, social, class, gender, and personal politics the researcher brings to the research process. A key principle of qualitative research is the rejection of the idea that researchers are free of bias and preconceived notions that would be required to achieve true scientific objectivity (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). In fact, qualitative research methods guide researchers to identify their underlying biases at the onset of a study; monitor how such biases influence data collection; acknowledge how these same biases may impact understanding, interpretation, and reporting of findings; and inform readers in written products of the processes engaged for acknowledging and monitoring biases related to the topic under investigation (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Creswell & Miller, 2000; Moustakas, 1994).This represents a notable epistemological (i.e., the nature of knowledge) difference between quantitative and qualitative research (see Arghode, 2012, for in-depth discussion of the philosophical differences between qualitative and quantitative research). That is, most quantitative research traditions view knowledge construction as an objective process that yields a single, measurable, and observable truth. In contrast, most qualitative traditions conceptualize knowledge construction as subjective and maintain that knowledge is socially constructed based on multiple realities and truths (Arghode, 2012; Morrow, 2005).

Why Engage in Qualitative Research with Multicultural Populations in Educational Settings? The characteristics and epistemological stance of qualitative research discussed above make it an excellent choice for conducting research in educational settings with multicultural populations. Of course, the selection of research methodology depends on the research question(s) posed, but often issues pertaining to multicultural populations in educational settings can be best understood using context-specific

Qualitative Research Methods   343

research approaches (e.g., case study, ethnography) that provide an emic perspective (i.e., perspective from one who participates in the culture being studied) from those who experience the phenomenon under exploration. For instance, recent research has revealed that African American and Hispanic/Latino males who attend public schools in the United States (U.S.) experience more frequent and harsher schoolbased disciplinary sanctions compared to their White peers (see Chapter 15, this edition). However, few studies explore this issue from the perspective of those African American and Hispanic/Latino males who are on the receiving end of these sanctions and inequitable practices. Noltemeyer, Proctor, and Dempsey (2013) highlighted the importance of using qualitative approaches to study these and other issues related to race and ethnicity in school settings. Yet, there is a paucity of qualitative research in psychology in general (Ponterotto, 2010). This is also the case in school psychology specifically. For example, Powell et al. (2008) found that from 2001 through 2005 only six (1.37% of total articles) qualitative studies appeared in the top four school psychology journals (i.e., Journal of School Psychology, Psychology in the Schools, School Psychology Quarterly, and School Psychology Review). Additionally, in their content analysis of articles that focused on race and ethnicity issues in school psychology, special education, and professional school counseling journals from 2008 through 2010, Noltemeyer et al. (2013) did not find any qualitative studies in the top three school psychology journals (i.e., Journal of School Psychology, School Psychology Quarterly, and School Psychology Review). These researchers did find higher percentages of qualitative articles related to race and ethnicity in special education (26.1%) and professional school counseling (41.5%) journals. The low percentage of published qualitative studies in school psychology related to race and ethnicity is concerning given the American Psychological Association’s (APA) call for expanded ways of conceptualizing and conducting research in response to changing U.S. population demographics (APA, 2002). More specifically, the APA’s Guidelines on Multicultural Education, Training, Research, Practice, and Organizational Change for Psychologists state that psychologists should recognize the importance of conducting culture-centered research as well as utilize approaches that consider the worldview of diverse groups (APA, 2002). One approach the APA suggests is qualitative methods. Thus, this chapter advocates for the use of qualitative research approaches to explore issues relevant to multicultural populations in educational settings, ranging from elementary schools to universities. Consistent with the Guidelines (APA, 2002), multicultural is defined in this chapter in terms of ethnicity, race, gender, language, sexual orientation, age, disability, education, religious orientation, socioeconomic status, class, and other dimensions of human diversity. The chapter’s remaining content begins with a discussion of qualitative paradigms and philosophical assumptions that can guide researchers’ conceptualization,

344   Proctor

implementation, and, in some cases, analyses and contextualization of qualitative studies that focus on multicultural populations in educational settings. Next, the chapter details five qualitative research approaches that are suited for research with multicultural populations in educational settings. Finally, implications for practice, research, and training are delineated to guide practitioners and researchers in their effort to conduct and publish qualitative research that gives voice to multicultural populations across a range of educational settings.

Theoretical and Research Basis The following discussion describes qualitative paradigms—sets of beliefs that influence a researcher’s actions—commonly associated with multicultural research. Then, philosophical parameters that include the values held by the researcher, how the researcher views reality and understands the sources and limits of knowledge, the procedures used to conduct the research, and the language used to present research, will be explored in the context of qualitative research conducted with multicultural populations in educational settings. Finally, five approaches to qualitative research—or qualitative research traditions—are reviewed with attention to the characteristics of each that are especially useful for research with multicultural populations in pre-K to university settings.

Qualitative Paradigms for Multicultural Research Creswell (2007) described a paradigm as a basic set of beliefs that guide action, while Chilisa (2012) noted that a research paradigm is a worldview shaped by researchers’ philosophical assumptions, ways of knowing, and value systems. Ponterotto (2010) underscored the importance of understanding the paradigms and philosophical assumptions underlying qualitative research in order to conduct strong qualitative studies. This is relevant to those initiating qualitative studies in educational settings with multicultural populations because the selection of a research paradigm guides all aspects of a study—from conceptualization to the reporting and contextualization of results. Ponterotto described three research paradigms that undergird multicultural qualitative research: postpositivism, constructivism-interpretivism, and critical theory. Postpositivism, which most closely mimics a positivist paradigm (i.e., asserts one universal truth that can be directly observed and objectively measured yielding generalizable findings), contends that the social world is ordered and that relationships can be discovered and tested using quantifiable and reliable strategies (Creswell, 2007). A demonstration of this in qualitative research is when researchers

Qualitative Research Methods   345

use closed-ended or structured data collection strategies to compare and contrast participants’ responses using frequency counts of keywords, concepts, or ideas expressed (Meyers et al., 2013). Using this paradigm, researchers who conduct qualitative research in educational settings with multicultural populations might collect data using structured interview protocols, develop and use a code book to facilitate rigorous coding of transcribed qualitative interviews, engage in a series of inter-coder reliability checks, and use multiple analysts to code data (see Proctor & Truscott, 2012 for an illustration of these procedures). Essentially, researchers who embrace this paradigm explore relationships and increase studies’ rigor using structured and systematic procedures (Creswell, 2007; Ponterotto, 2010). Constructivism-interpretivism purports that reality is socially constructed and that problems can be understood through the exploration of individuals’ experiences and/or perceptions of the issue or problem under investigation. Researchers who adhere to this paradigm while conducting a study in an educational setting with multicultural populations would acknowledge the possibility of multiple realities based on participants’ interactions with the environment. Klingner and Harry’s (2006) study of the special education referral and decision-making process for English Language Learners (ELLs) offers an example of a study with prominent features of a constructivism-interpretivism paradigm. For instance, along with other data-gathering techniques such as observations, the researchers conducted interviews with ELL students, parents of ELL students, school-based personnel (e.g., teachers, counselors, principals), and district personnel to gain their perspective of the special education decision-making and referral process for ELLs. Using this interviewing method, it is possible that those within the same stakeholder group will detail similar views and/or experiences or may express contradictory views. In either case, the researcher acknowledges the validity of each participant’s view and/ or experience because the quest is not for one universal truth. Instead, like data analyses conducted by Klingner and Harry, the aim is to identify concepts or themes within and/or across groups that will help to explain how those who are impacted make meaning of the problem (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Importantly, participant involvement in the entire research process is highly valued in the constructivism-interpretivism paradigm; in fact, participants sometime assist with identifying what problems should be studied and how to study identified problems (Hays & Singh, 2012). Similar to Klingner and Harry’s (2006) methods, a researcher who uses this paradigm might construct an interview protocol that begins with an open-ended interview question regarding the issue or problem under investigation, and develop subsequent interview questions based on data that emerges from responses to the open-ended question (Creswell & Miller, 2000). Finally, researchers take extra efforts to acknowledge their biases, assumptions, and preconceived notions regarding the topic under investigation (see Morrow [2005] for in-depth discussion on researcher bias).

346   Proctor

Critical theory paradigm also asserts that reality is socially constructed and research problems and/or social issues can be understood through investigating the experiences and perceptions of individuals.Yet, this paradigm highlights the role that social, cultural, political, economic, ethnic, and gender status play in creating an individual’s reality, and views research as a mechanism for emancipation and transformation (Creswell & Miller, 2000; Ponterotto, 2010). This paradigm would be particularly relevant for researchers doing studies in educational settings with groups who have been historically marginalized, disenfranchised, and/or oppressed (Hays & Singh, 2012; Ponterotto, 2010). An example of a study grounded in a critical theory paradigm is Salas (2004). Salas used qualitative methods to study Mexican American mothers who resided on the Mexico/U.S. border participation in Individual Education Plan (IEP) meetings. Salas noted that one intention of the study was to give voice to those who had little opportunity to speak for themselves. This was particularly relevant for the mothers who participated in the study since many spoke little English, and reported feeling language alienation and a lack of respect from the predominantly White and English-speaking IEP team members. Like Salas, researchers using a critical theory paradigm hold values that acknowledge injustice and support social change (Hays & Singh, 2012). A researcher in educational settings utilizing this paradigm with multicultural populations might ask:What influences do various forms of oppression (e.g., sexism, racism, heterosexism, and so on) have on the problem under investigation? And, how might the use of qualitative research approaches help to initiate change for participants and others in similar situations? (Hays & Singh, 2012). In this paradigm, (a) knowledge is co-constructed between the participant and researcher; (b) the researcher ensures that the methods selected do not take advantage of participants in any way; and (c) participants’ voices are central in the reporting of results (Hays & Singh, 2012; Morrow, 2005). Transformative Paradigm

Chilisa (2012) discussed critical theory as part of another paradigm—transformative— that is important to discuss in relation to qualitative methods and multicultural populations in educational settings. This paradigm assumes that people, including research participants, have multiple realities shaped by social, cultural, political, economic, racial, ethnic, gender, disability, and sexual orientation values. What makes the transformative paradigm especially useful for research with multicultural populations is that it encourages social justice, human rights, and respect for cultural values and pushes the researcher to question whose version of reality is privileged based on gender, race, ethnicity, disability, socioeconomic status, age, religion, or sexual orientation (Mertens, 2010). Research designed using the transformative paradigm centers participants’ voices throughout the research process and contains an agenda for reform, including a specific plan for addressing injustices for participants who often are members of marginalized groups (Creswell, 2007). The

Qualitative Research Methods   347

transformative paradigm is also informed by other critical theories including critical race theory (CRT), feminist theory, and queer theory (Chilisa, 2012). Below, CRT and queer theory are described along with two qualitative studies that used these theories to facilitate greater understanding of multicultural populations’ experiences in educational settings. Critical Race Theory (CRT)

CRT, which focuses on how race and racism is embedded within American society, began in the legal studies field, but quickly spread to other disciplines (Creswell, 2007; Delgado & Stefancic, 2001). For instance, today some educators consider themselves critical race theorists and use CRT to understand issues related to school discipline, tracking, IQ and achievement-testing (Delgado & Stefancic, 2001). CRT has three primary aims: (a) to present stories about discrimination from people of color’s viewpoint, (b) to eliminate racial subordination while encouraging awareness that race is a social construct, and (c) to address other areas of difference such as gender, class, and socioeconomic status (Creswell, 2007). Researchers using CRT center race in every aspect of the research process, challenge the traditional research paradigms and theories used to explain the experiences of people of color, and offer solutions to racial, class, and gender subordination in America and its institutional structures (Creswell, 2007). Jay (2009) used CRT to examine the everyday work experiences of five African American educators who taught in predominantly White schools. Individual interviews and a focus group using phenomenological methods, which is discussed later, revealed that the educators experienced racial discrimination, subordination, and isolation in their daily work lives. More specifically, their experiences included feelings of hypervigilance at times and invisibility at other times, being targets of racial micro-aggressions, and having to prove their worth to White students and parents. According to Jay, the study’s findings confirmed key principles of CRT, including the contention that racism is pervasive in America and it routinely exists in America’s institutions such as schools. Jay noted that CRT is a good theoretical lens to use because it directly challenges dominant ideas about race and racism in education. As with much other work done in a critical theory paradigm, Jay’s recommendations, if implemented by school administrators, would lead to sociallyjust outcomes (e.g., improved work environments) for African American educators and push others to critically reflect on how race and racism affects the daily lives of people of color. Queer Theory

Two goals of queer theory are to question conceptions of normalcy regarding gender and sexuality and to provide a way to analyze what is normal and abnormal

348   Proctor

through deconstructing issues of sexuality in society (Love & Tosolt, 2013). Hays and Singh (2012) noted that queer theory attends to how as a participant characteristic, sexual orientation impacts sexual minority individuals’ experiences of phenomena under investigation. Queer theory has been critical in acknowledging the ways in which lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning (LGBTQ) students experience formal schooling (Love & Tosolt, 2013). Love and Tosolt provide an example of how queer theory can be used as a lens for understanding the experiences of sexual minority students. They interviewed three queer females to examine the ways they negotiated the heteronormative and religious environments of all-girls Catholic high schools. Like many studies related to the LGBTQ student population, this study was retrospective given that participants included an 18-, 19-, and 33-year-old who each reflected on their schooling experiences. Participants described school environments and policies that supported heterosexual norms (e.g., girls inviting boys only to school dances and banning girls from hugging to prevent LGBTQ-identified girls from public displays of affection), while marginalizing homosexual behaviors. Using queer theory as a lens, it is clear to see how heterosexual normative behaviors were privileged and those whose behavior fell outside of those norms experienced “othering.” A theoretical lens is important in qualitative studies focused on multicultural populations in educational settings. For instance, without the lens of queer theory, Love and Tosolt (2013) may not have connected their participants’ experiences to an emerging body of salient research—research that views sexual minority individuals’ experiences through a lens that acknowledges their “othering” in the context of a society that favors and rewards heteronormative behaviors, values, and ways of being. The use of critical theories helps contextualize studies’ findings so that readers gain a more complex understanding of participants’ experiences and perspectives. Using critical theoretical lens, such as those described here, also offer researchers a way to bring to light societal inequities and to use their findings to advocate for systems and institutional change. Importantly, qualitative paradigms and theories (see Figure 19.1) are used in combination with philosophical parameters to guide conceptualization and implementation of qualitative studies, as well as interpretation of findings. Therefore, philosophical parameters to consider when conducting qualitative research with multicultural populations in educational settings are discussed next.

Philosophical Parameters Ponterotto (2010) also noted five philosophical parameters that represent additional consideration for researchers interested in conducting qualitative work with multicultural populations in educational settings.These philosophical parameters include:

Qualitative Research Methods   349

Philosophical Paradigms

Postpositivism

ConstructivismInterpretism

Philosophical Parameters

Critical! Transformative

Critical Theories

Ontology

CRT Axiology

Disability

Epistemology

Queer Theory Rhetorical Structure

Methodology

Critical Whiteness

Feminist Theory

Case Study Ethnography Research Approaches

Phenomenology Grounded Theory PAR

FIGURE 19.1  Paradigms, Parameters, and Approaches to Qualitative Research with Multicultural Populations in Educational Settings

(1) ontology, how the researcher views the nature of reality; (2) epistemology, how the researcher understands the sources and limits of knowledge; (3) axiology, the values held by the researcher, study hypotheses, and study framework; (4) rhetorical structure, the language used in presenting the research; and (5) methodology, the procedures used to conduct the research. These parameters not only guide

350   Proctor

conceptualization, but also implementation and interpretation of qualitative studies’ results. To illustrate, Proctor and Truscott (2012) conducted a phenomenological study in which they used a series of interviews to explore the reasons seven African Americans left school psychology graduate programs. At the onset of the study, the researchers held an ontological view of reality as being shaped by individuals’ social environment and interactions. Because Proctor and Truscott viewed reality in this way, they adopted an epistemological stance that regarded African Americans who experienced the phenomenon of leaving school psychology graduate programs as valid holders of knowledge. In terms of axiology, the researchers acknowledged that they value diversity in the field of school psychology and this value influenced their interest in selecting the research topic and the research questions posed. The rhetorical structure involved the presentation of direct quotes in the results write-up, which served to highlight the importance of their participants’ voices. Methodology included elements of post-positivism, constructivism-interpretivism, and critical theory, including conducting semi-structured interviews, using a process for inter-coder reliability, reporting data using direct quotes from participants, and promoting social justice in their role as researchers. As demonstrated by Proctor and Truscott, researchers who conduct qualitative research with multicultural populations in educational settings may borrow from multiple research paradigms when conceptualizing, conducting, and reporting the findings of a qualitative study.

Qualitative Research Approaches In the discussion below, five approaches (also often referred to as qualitative research traditions) to qualitative research are highlighted. These specific approaches were selected because they are recognized approaches to qualitative research and because each approach lends itself to work with multicultural populations in educational settings. These five are not, however, exhaustive of qualitative research approaches. Yet, discussion of other approaches is beyond the space limitations of this chapter so readers are referred to Hays and Singh (2012) for further reading. Case Study

Case study is an approach to qualitative research that facilitates exploration of a phenomenon within the context that it occurs using multiple data sources (e.g., archival records, direct observations, interviews, physical artifacts, questionnaires, etc.) (Hamilton & Corbett-Whittier, 2013; Merriam, 1998). Researchers typically select case study approaches when they need to answer “why and how” questions and when contextual conditions are important for understanding the phenomenon under investigation (Hays & Singh, 2012). Researchers have multiple options

Qualitative Research Methods   351

regarding types of case studies to utilize (see Hamilton & Corbett-Whittier, 2013, for more in-depth discussion). In addition, most case studies in the field of education draw from other qualitative approaches (e.g., grounded theory and ethnography; see Zabloski & Milacci, 2012, for example of case studies that use a phenomenological approach) and incorporate theories from other disciplines (Merriam, 1998; Meyers et al., 2013). Researchers using case studies with multicultural populations in educational settings will need to identify a problem or issue to examine and then consider what the case is prior to beginning a study. A case can be an individual, process, setting, or event (Hays & Singh, 2012). Roso (2013), for instance, used a case study approach to investigate how a Jewish Day School taught character education. To understand the context for teaching character education, Roso reviewed school documents and records, observed classrooms, and interviewed teachers and administrators. This illustrates the bounded nature of case studies; they are typically restricted by time period, activity, and/or place (Hays & Singh, 2012). Roso’s case study; for example, is bound by the school and the activities that took place within the school during the study. Researchers conducting studies of multicultural populations in educational settings may find case studies useful because they allow for in-depth investigation of problems or issues within the context of the environment where the problem under investigation exists. Further, because multiple data sources are often used, case studies can produce rich descriptions and comparisons to help deepen understanding of issues and problems that can impact multicultural populations in educational settings. Ethnography

Ethnography is a qualitative research approach that facilitates an in-depth understanding of a culture from the perspective of the culture’s group members (Varjas et al., 2005). There are numerous types of ethnography (e.g., cultural studies, feminist, postmodernism, etc.), but all are concerned with describing and interpreting the shared and learned patterns of values, behaviors, beliefs, and language of a cultural group (Creswell, 2007). To collect data, the researcher becomes immersed in the day-to-day life of participants by completing observations and in-depth interviews and by examining artifacts and/or permanent products to gain an insider perspective of the phenomenon under examination (Hays & Singh, 2012; Varjas et al., 2005). For researchers interested in how to analyze ethnographic data, Varjas et al. (2005) detailed how a six-step deductive-inductive process was used to analyze data from an ethnographic study of a school-based mental health promotion project in Sri Lanka. In the U.S, ethnographic approaches have been used in pre-K to 12 educational settings to study culture in relation to school-based processes. For example,

352   Proctor

Knotek (2003) used an ethnographic approach to study the special education prereferral process in two predominantly African American elementary schools. Knotek was specifically interested in the language used by the Student Support Team (SST) members to discuss students’ problems during the pre-referral process. Based on fieldwork completed over two years, including observing SST meetings, Knotek, who was the psychologist at both schools, found that descriptions of students’ problems varied depending on the teams’ social interactions. These descriptions included, for example, teachers using language that characterized students’ academic and/or behavioral problems as residing “within” the child and examples provided by other SST members that mirrored and validated the presenting teachers’ initial description of the problem. Knotek also observed that the social status and power of certain SST members influenced how students’ problems were discussed. These social interactions shaped the language used to discuss and conceptualize students’ problems and resulted in limited hypotheses for students’ difficulties and a restricted range of pre-referral interventions (Knotek, 2003). As indicated by Knotek, ethnography offers a mechanism for examining how cultural variables influence and interact with the systemic and institutionalized structures within educational settings. Thus, ethnography may be a useful research approach for those conducting qualitative research with multicultural populations. Phenomenology

The purpose of phenomenology is to describe the meaning of a phenomenon for a small number of individuals who have experienced it, giving careful attention to uncovering what the shared understanding of the phenomenon is across individuals (Creswell, 2007). A main goal of researchers who conduct phenomenological studies is to uncover the essence of a phenomenon for participants (Moustakas, 1994). The essence represents a universal understanding of what participants experienced and how they experienced it. Researchers can ask two broad questions to help uncover the essence of their participants’ experiences: What have you experienced in terms of the phenomenon under investigation? And, what contexts or situations have typically affected your experiences of the phenomenon? (Creswell, 2007). To uncover the essence of their participants’ lived experiences, researchers mostly rely on in-depth interviews with multiple individuals, but other types of data (e.g., journals, observations, art, poetry, music, etc.) can also be collected (Creswell, 2007). For example, McCartney, Harris, and Farrow (2012) used a phenomenological approach to study the experiences of ten non-English speaking Hispanic high school students who were recent immigrants to the U.S. These researchers provided a detailed description of how they used interviews, journals, researcher field notes, and observations to discover the essence of their participants’ experiences living and attending high school in the U.S.

Qualitative Research Methods   353

Several types of phenomenology exist (e.g., existential, hermeneutic, interpretative), but Moustakas (1994) offers a structured approach for conducting a phenomenology and analyzing data that may be helpful to researchers working with multicultural populations in educational settings. Moustakas’ approach to phenomenology is particularly relevant because it underscores the importance of researchers engaging in a process of self-reflection. For instance, the first step—epoche—in Moustakas’ phenomenological approach requires researchers to acknowledge and bracket their biases and own experiences with the phenomenon under investigation prior to beginning a study. This is useful for work with multicultural populations in educational settings because as Creswell (2007) noted, researchers bring preconceived assumptions and biases to the research process that are influenced by their own sociocultural experiences. Moustakas’ approach forces the researcher to think about his or her assumptions and biases and attempt to be open to seeing a phenomenon as it is described by participants. This is important for researchers conducting studies with multicultural populations in educational settings since biases against different groups can operate at a subconscious level. Grounded Theory

Grounded theory was developed in 1967 by sociologists Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss with the intent of moving beyond descriptions of how individuals experience phenomena to theory building (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Creswell (2007) described grounded theory as “a qualitative research design in which the inquirer generates a general explanation (a theory) of a process, action, or interaction shaped by the views of a large number of participants” (p. 63). Grounded theory is good to use when not much is known about a phenomenon or an existing theory does not help explain a process. Early grounded theory (i.e., Glaser & Strauss, 1967) has been viewed as a qualitative approach that falls within the postpositivism paradigm because of the systematic and prescribed procedures it employs to facilitate the generation of a theory (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Strauss and Corbin (1998) later developed a grounded theory methodology that provides systematic analytic procedures, but allows for more flexibility in interpreting collected data within the framework of an existing theory (Hays & Singh, 2012). More recently, Clark (2005) and Charmaz (2006) offered conceptualizations of grounded theory that move further away from a postpositivism paradigm and place more emphasis on developing theories (based on data obtained in the field) in ways that are more consistent with the constructivism-interpretivism paradigm. These later conceptualizations of grounded theory are particularly appealing for use with multicultural populations in educational settings given their intense focus on understanding participants’ social world and interactions in efforts to make sense of a phenomenon.

354   Proctor

Ellis and Chen (2013) is an example of a study that used grounded theory to examine the identity development of 11 English-speaking undocumented immigrant college students in the U.S. As part of their methods discussion, Ellis and Chen explained that they selected grounded theory because it is rooted within the constructivism-interpretivism paradigm and allowed them to center their participants’ lived experiences. Ellis and Chen noted: “. . .the grounded theory method is well tailored to a multicultural perspective in that it seeks to understand participants by examining how members of marginalized groups in society derive meaning from their experiences” (p. 253). For researchers interested in studying multicultural populations in educational settings, grounded theory is an excellent choice because most theories in psychology and education are based on Eurocentric paradigms (see Chapter 20, this edition) that do not account for the worldview or experiences of those deemed “other.” Indeed, grounded theory has several features that make it useful for research with multicultural populations in educational settings. These features include the use of a recursive process wherein stages of the research process can be revisited, as needed, to facilitate a comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon under investigation. For instance, while engaged in interviews participants might bring up issues the researcher had not considered at the beginning of the study, which may lead to a need for the researcher to add additional questions or prompts to the study’s interview protocol despite the study already being in progress (see Goldbach & Steiker, 2011). Similarly, the use of constant comparison methodology, a simultaneous process of collecting and coding data, offers qualitative researchers the ability to continuously interact with the data to gain an understanding of participants’ views and experiences throughout the study. These aspects of grounded theory help researchers develop deep understanding of multicultural populations in educational settings under local conditions (Meyers et al., 2013). Participatory Action Research (PAR)

PAR is a type of action research that views the research process as a vehicle for social change (Ponterotto, 2010). Using PAR, the research serves as a way for researchers and participants to investigate the root causes of a problem and take action for change. Participants are instrumental to planning and implementing the research study, and they share power with the researchers throughout the research process (Hays & Singh, 2012). A main goal of PAR is to empower participants to problem solve and intervene in a way that will emancipate, transform, and improve the quality of their lives (Hays & Singh, 2012; Ponterotto, 2010). PAR has been used in a range of work with multicultural populations in educational settings including with students with disabilities (e.g., Ostemeyer & Scarpa, 2012), their parents (e.g., Ditrano & Silverstein, 2006), and urban youth (e.g.,

Qualitative Research Methods   355

Tuck, 2009). Stoecker (as cited in Hays & Singh, 2012) suggested that researchers considering the use of PAR answer the following three questions: Who is the community? Is conflict or cooperation involved in the issue that the researcher is interested in exploring? And, is the PAR approach biased in relation to the perspectives that are represented or not represented in the collaborative research process? Researchers who choose PAR use a variety (e.g., interviews, focus groups, participant observation, etc.) of data gathering techniques. Because PAR has less structured procedural and analytic guidelines than grounded theory or Moustakas’ (1994) phenomenology, it may be a more difficult approach for novice researchers to use in educational settings with multicultural populations. Additionally, PAR methods align with the critical theory paradigm; both encourage transformative action and change. As a result, researchers working with multicultural populations in educational settings, particularly pre-K to 12, need to ensure that the consequence of the research does indeed improve the participants’ circumstances, as oppose to create a hostile or punitive environment. Carefully planned studies using PAR have resulted in youth from multicultural backgrounds feeling empowered to make important changes in their lives (Tuck, 2009).Thus, depending on the skill of the researcher and local research conditions, PAR is a viable qualitative approach to research with multicultural populations in educational settings. The next section highlights implications for practice related to conducting qualitative research with multicultural populations in educational settings.

Implications for Practice Qualitative research provides a way to gain insight about educational issues and problems that may be experienced by an increasingly diverse and multicultural U.S. population. With proper training and competence related to conducting research and working with multicultural populations, researchers and practitioners can engage in this type of research. Both will need to develop and nourish relationships with educational institutions and organizations that serve multicultural populations. Those within these institutions must be willing to engage researchers and practitioners who ask research questions that will push the boundaries of what is currently available in the literature and that is related to pressing educational issues regarding multicultural populations. Researchers and practitioners who access understudied multicultural populations—whose voices and perspectives are rarely presented in the literature—have a responsibility to conduct well-designed qualitative studies that do not exploit participants in any way. When appropriate, borrowing aspects of constructivism-interpretivism and critical theory paradigms to conceptualize studies will encourage study implementation that is respectful of participants and the context or setting within which the research takes place.

356   Proctor

There are systemic barriers that must be considered when conducting qualitative research with multicultural populations in educational settings. First, gaining access to educational institutions to research multicultural issues related to youth may prove challenging. For instance, Goldbach and Steiker (2011) noted difficulty conducting school-based research with LGBTQ youth due to age and consent issues, along with concerns about maintaining confidentiality for those who have yet to come out. Further, once entry is gained into an educational setting, the researcher may encounter resistance from participants who are leery of researchers interested in investigating multicultural issues related to race, ethnicity, sexuality, and so forth.This speaks to the challenge of establishing trust with participants and others within the research setting. Given the scientific community’s historical abuse of disenfranchised populations (see Skloot, 2011, for an engaging and informative read about such scientific abuses), researchers and practitioners should be aware of the importance of engaging research practices that are worthy of participants’ trust and should consider methodology that honors participants as co-researchers. Additionally, the extensive time it takes to conduct quality qualitative research represents another challenge. Researchers and practitioners conducting qualitative studies in educational settings with multicultural populations will need to ensure adequate time to conduct such studies, which can be a considerable issue in pre-K to 12 school settings wherein teachers are often rushed for time to complete core instructional activities. Finally, practitioners and researchers may find funding a significant challenge given recent priority for funding studies that investigate evidence-based practices coupled with the recent fiscal downturn in the U.S. that has resulted in less funding in general for educational research. To address some of the challenges noted above, researchers and practitioners who do not have pre-existing relationships may benefit from cultural brokers who can help them establish relationships and gain trust from those within educational settings (Hall, 2016). Whether researchers or practitioners are internal or external to an educational setting, to encourage trust and collaboration when doing research with multicultural populations, they must be open to broadening the scope of any predetermined research questions to include explorations that are important to stakeholders—including students who may serve as participants. This increases the chance that all involved will be invested in the goals of the research. Additionally, including relevant educational stakeholders in study design and implementation will provide researchers with insight into challenges unique to the specific educational setting (i.e., time constraints, space limitations, individuals who may be resistant and pose barriers to exploration of certain issues, etc.). As a result, such challenges can be considered during study conceptualization and accounted for during study design and implementation planning. In addition to issues related to engaging qualitative research with multicultural populations in educational settings, there are also considerations in terms of future research and

Qualitative Research Methods   357

practice. Thus, the next and final discussion addresses implications for future research and training.

Implications for Future Research and Training The limited use of varied methodologies in school psychology research is notable and of concern because there is the potential that the field is missing out on opportunities to gather rich qualitative data that can provide insight into issues impacting multicultural populations in educational settings (Noltemeyer et al., 2013). As previously discussed, Noltemeyer and colleagues examined issues related to race and ethnicity in school psychology and related disciplines’ journals from 2008 to 2010 and found zero qualitative articles in school psychology journals. However, there is a need for more data regarding the state of qualitative studies that address multicultural issues in school psychology. More specifically, content analyses of the school psychology research that examine broader dimensions (e.g., sexual orientation, linguistic diversity, religion, etc.) of multiculturalism via qualitative approaches would provide future researchers with direction regarding populations in educational settings whose voices are absent in the literature. Those who conduct qualitative studies with multicultural populations in educational settings should also consider using a theoretical lens to frame their qualitative studies. In addition to the theoretical lenses discussed earlier in this chapter, disability, critical whiteness, feminist, and relational-cultural theories (see Hayes and Singh, 2012 for further discussion) all offer additional ways of situating and contextualizing studies of multicultural populations in educational settings. For qualitative work conducted in the field of school psychology in particular, use of critical theoretical lenses will add a depth, richness, and interdisciplinary perspective that, to date, are largely missing from the school psychology literature. An interdisciplinary perspective presents the opportunity to connect the school psychology literature to the broader literature in education and psychology that is focused on issues of equity and social justice in relation to multicultural populations. Researchers and practitioners who conduct qualitative research in educational settings with multicultural populations are enacting recent calls for school psychologists to adopt a social justice orientation to field-based work (Shriberg, Vera, & McPherson, this edition). This is particularly true when these researchers and practitioners utilize aspects of all three qualitative paradigms—postpositivism, constructivism-interpretivism, and critical paradigms—to develop rigorous studies that challenge and transform inequitable educational processes for traditionally disenfranchised populations. However, one barrier to getting such work published is journal editors’ and reviewers’ lack of understanding of qualitative methods and the characteristics of strong qualitative work. This is compounded by the position

358   Proctor

some take that social justice work simply represents “best practice,” missing the point that one intent of social justice practice and research is to break down institutional structures that maintain unequal outcomes. To rectify this, editorial boards must become more inclusive of those within the field who (a) have expertise conducting strong qualitative work, (b) investigate issues of social justice, and (c) engage in research with multicultural populations. Additionally, school psychology journal editors might encourage more interdisciplinary perspectives by inviting scholars from fields (e.g., counseling psychology, education, sociology) that have a history of engaging in social justice-oriented qualitative work to join editorial boards. Finally, because high quality qualitative studies require rich, thick descriptions that often include in-depth observations, detailed descriptions of settings, and lengthy participant quotes, journal editors should allow for more journal space to encourage submission of qualitative research that aims to move social justice forward in the field. It may be the case that few qualitative studies exist in the school psychology research because graduate students are not being trained to use qualitative approaches. In fact, Powell et al. (2008) noted that only 3.5% of school psychology programs required students to enroll in a qualitative or mixed methods research course. In order to prepare practitioners and researchers to conduct qualitative research with multicultural populations in educational settings, psychology graduate programs will need to make instruction in qualitative research methods available to current graduate students. Since it is unlikely that school psychology programs offer such training within their programs, cross-disciplinary collaborations with other academic departments (e.g., anthropology, education, sociology) that offer qualitative methods courses may be required. Additionally, developing opportunities for graduate students to interact (e.g., research assistantships, colloquia, crosslisting of courses) with scholars in other disciplines who are studying sociocultural issues may also expand the lens through which future school psychologists view multicultural populations in general. In turn, this may help prepare practitioners and researchers in school psychology who are versed in critical theories and pedagogies that can be used to frame their qualitative work with multicultural populations in school settings. Finally, graduate education program faculties must be willing to ask difficult questions regarding issues of equity, fairness, and social justice, and encourage their graduate students to do the same. This will require challenging some aspects of current school psychology practice, research, and training.This includes supporting students through qualitative dissertations (e.g., enlisting a qualitative methodologist for a student interested in conducting a qualitative dissertation); teaching students to challenge their inherent biases, prejudices, and preconceived notions while conceptualizing (and conducting) studies that are focused on multicultural populations; and being advocates for students who ask questions that the field has not

Qualitative Research Methods   359

traditionally posed and use methods that are not generally employed. If we visualize our work within a social justice orientation, school psychology faculty must be leaders in creating and shaping this vision (Proctor & Truscott, 2012). Ultimately, we must expand our ways of knowing, value multicultural populations as “knowers” of their truths, and embrace multiple methods to research, including qualitative approaches, to develop a deeper understanding of relevant and pressing issues related to multicultural populations in educational setting from pre-kindergarten to university.

Resources Discussion Questions 1. (a) What are some similarities and differences between postpositivism, constructivism-interpretivism, and critical theory qualitative paradigms? (b) Which paradigm do you think is best for research with multicultural populations in educational settings? 2. Which approach to qualitative research do you think is most suitable to study multicultural issues in PK–12 school settings and why? 3. What are some challenges and benefits to conducting qualitative research in educational settings with multicultural populations?

Professional Organizations Critical Race Studies in Education Association The Odum Institute at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Qualitative Research Summer Intensive The University of Pennsylvania’s Ethnography in Education Research Forum

Additional Readings Nastasi, B. K., Moore, R., & Varjas, K. (2004). School-based mental health services: Creating comprehensive and culturally specific programs. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. This book presents Participatory Culture-Specific Intervention Model—a participatory action research model—as a guide for the creation, implementation and evaluation of mental health programs in diverse schools and communities. The authors provide stepby-step guidance for program development for multicultural populations.

360   Proctor

Nastasi, B. K., & Schensul, S. L. (2005). Contributions of qualitative research to the validity of intervention research. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 177–195. doi:10.1016/j.jsp. 2005.04.003. This article discusses the role of qualitative research in establishing the basis for evidencebased practices. The article also discusses the criteria for reviewing qualitative methods used in intervention studies delineated by the Interdisciplinary Qualitative Research Subcommittee.

References American Psychological Association. (2002). Guidelines on multicultural education, training, research, practice, and organizational change for psychologists. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Arghode, V. (2012). Qualitative and quantitative research: Paradigmatic differences. Global Education Journal, 4, 155–163. Borgogno, F. (2008). An “invisible man?” Little Hans updated. American Imago, 65, 23–40. doi:10.1353/aim.0.0005. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage. Chilisa, B. (2012). Indigenous research methodologies. Los Angeles: Sage. Clark, A. E. (2005). Situational analysis: Grounded theory after the postmodern turn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. L. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Creswell, J.W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39, 124–130. doi:10.1207/s1530421tip3903-2. Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2001). Critical race theory: An introduction. New York, NY: New York University Press. Ditrano, C. J., & Silverstein, L. B. (2006). Listening to parents’ voices: Participatory action research in schools. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 37, 359–366. doi:10.1037/ 0735-7028.37.4.359. Ellis, L. M., & Chen, E. C. (2013). Negotiating identity development among undocumented immigrant college students: A grounded theory study. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60, 251–264. doi:10.1037/a0031350. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Pub. Co. Goldbach, J.T., & Steiker, L. K. H. (2011). An examination of cultural adaptations performed by LGBT-identified youth to a culturally grounded, evidence-based substance abuse intervention. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 23, 188–203. doi:10.1080/105387 20.2011.560135. Hamilton, L., & Corbett-Whittier, C. (2013). Using case study in education research. London: Sage. Hall, G. C. N. (2016). Multicultural Psychology (2nd Ed.). New York: Routledge.

Qualitative Research Methods   361

Hays, D. G., & Singh, A. A. (2012). Qualitative inquiry in clinical and educational settings. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Jay, M. (2009). Race-ing through the school day: African American educators’ experiences with race and racism in schools. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 22, 671–685. doi:10.1080/0951830903333855. Klingner, J. K., & Harry, B. (2006). The special education referral and decision-making process for English Language Learners: Child study team meetings and staffings. Teachers College Record, 108, 2247–2281. Knotek, S. E. (2003). Bias in problem solving and the social process of student study teams: A qualitative investigation. Journal of Special Education, 37, 2–14. doi:10.1177/00224669 030370010101. Love, B. L., & Tosolt, B. (2013). Go underground or in your face: Queer students’ negotiation of all-girls Catholic schools. Journal of LGBT Youth, 10, 186–207. doi:10.1080/1936165 3.2013.799901. McCartney, C., Harris, S., & Farrow,V. (2012). Experiences of secondary Hispanic immigrant students: Their stories of challenge and triumph. Journal of School Leadership, 22, 26–54. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education: Revised and expanded from case study research in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Mertens, D. M. (2010). Transformative mixed methods research. Qualitative Research, 16, 469–474. doi:10.1177/1077800410364612. Meyers, J., Truscott, S. D., Meyers, A. B., Varjas, K., & Kim, S. (2013). Qualitative and mixed methods designs in consultation research. In W. P. Erchul & S. M. Sheridan (Eds.), Handbook of research in school consultation: Empirical foundations for the field (2nd Ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Miller, P. H. (2011). Piaget’s theory: Past, present, and future. In U. Goswami (Ed.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of childhood cognitive development (2nd Ed.), pp. 649–672. Chichester, NY: Wiley-Blackwell. Morrow, S. L. (2005). Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 250–260. doi:10.1037/0022-0167. 52.2.250. Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Noltemeyer, A. L., Proctor, S. L., & Dempsey, A. (2013). Race and ethnicity in school psychology publications: A content analysis and comparison to related disciplines. Contemporary School Psychology, 17, 129–142. Ostemeyer, K., & Scarpa, A. (2012). Examining school-based social skills program needs and barriers for students with high-functioning autism spectrum disorders using participatory action research. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 932–941. doi:10.1002/pits.21646. Ponterotto, J. G. (2010). Qualitative research in multicultural psychology: Philosophical underpinnings, popular approaches, and ethical considerations. Cultural Diversity and Minority Psychology, 16, 581–589. doi:10.1037/a0012051. Powell, H., Mihalas, S., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Suldo, S., & Daley, C. E. (2008). Mixed methods research in school psychology: A mixed methods investigation of trends in the literature. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 291–309. doi:10.1002/pits.20296. Proctor, S. L., & Truscott, S. D. (2012). Reasons for African American student attrition from school psychology programs. Journal of School Psychology, 50, 655–679. doi:10.1016/j. jsp.2012.06.002.

362   Proctor

Rausch, M. K., & Skiba, R. J. (2017). Addressing disproportionately high rates of disciplinary removal for students of color: The need for systemic interventions. In E. C. Lopez, S. G. Nahari, & S. L. Proctor (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural school psychology: An interdisciplinary perspective (2nd Ed.), pp. 276–290. New York, NY: Routledge. Roso, C. G. (2013). Culture and character education in a Jewish Day School: A case study of life and experience. Journal of Research on Christian Education, 22, 30–51. Salas, L. (2004). Individualized education plans (IEP): Let’s talk about it. Journal of Latinos and Education, 3, 181–192. Shriberg, D., Vera, E. M., & McPherson, C. (2017). Preparing school professionals to deliver services using a social justice framework. In E. C. Lopez, S. G. Nahari, & S. L. Proctor (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural school psychology: An interdisciplinary perspective (2nd Ed.), pp. 325–340. New York, NY: Routledge. Skloot, R. (2011). The immortal life of Henrietta Lacks. New York, NY: Broadway Paperbacks. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Tuck, E. (2009). Re-visioning action: Participatory research and indigenous theories of change. Urban Review, 41, 47–65. doi:10.1007/s11256-008-0094x. Varjas, K. M., Nastasi, B. K., Moore, R. B., & Jayasena, A. (2005). Using ethnographic methods for development of culture-specific interventions. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 241–258. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2005.04.006. Zabloski, J., & Milacci, F. (2012). Gifted dropouts: Phenomenological case studies of rural gifted students. Journal of Ethnographic & Qualitative Research, 6, 175–190.

20

Conducting Multicultural School Psychology Research Using Quantitative Methods Amado M. Padilla

School psychology has a long history that intersects with other branches of psychology (Frisby & Reynolds, 2005; Gutkin & Reynolds, 2009). For instance, early studies which influenced teaching and learning focused on the intellectual assessment and school achievement of African American, immigrant, and other ethnic minority students (Valencia & Suzuki, 2001). This research is now well known for its failure to consider variables that are critical in the assessment of students’ abilities (Valencia & Suzuki, 2001). For example, in the assessment of intelligence, IQ tests were given a special status—it was assumed that standardized instruments such as the Stanford Binet Test could uncover differences in innate intellectual ability between individuals or racial groups. Few acknowledged that in the development of IQ tests minority children were not included in standardization samples. Further, in research on differences between groups on IQ tests, little, if any, attention was paid to social class, English language proficiency, or cultural differences between the groups being compared. There exists a set of assumptions inherent in the earlier intelligence studies that are still apparent today in research involving ethnic minorities. These traditional assumptions are: (1) the Caucasian, middle-class American is the standard against which other groups are compared; (2) the instruments used for assessing achievement and/or performance are universally applicable across racial and cultural groups, with 363

364   Padilla

perhaps only minimal adjustments for cultural and linguistically diverse populations; and (3) sources of potential variance such as social class, educational attainment of parents, and proficiency in English are relevant, but often ignored by educational researchers. Changes in the demographics of the United States (U.S.) force us to take a critical look at research methods and how research is conducted in multicultural contexts. To understand how demographics are changing American schools, it is important to know that of the approximately 319,000,000 million individuals in the U.S. in 2014, about 42,000,000 or 13% were born in a foreign country. In addition, 38% of the U.S. population consists of members of racial/ethnic minority groups (Colby & Ortman, 2014). Another important demographic consideration is the 72 million children under the age of 18; and of these 45% live in poverty. Further, 65% of African American and Hispanic children and 63% of American Indian children are poor compared to 31% Caucasian and 32% Asian American children (Addy, Engelhardt, & Skinner, 2013). Finally, one in four school age children are either first- or second-generation immigrants and for many, English is a second language (Addy et al., 2013). These demographics are important because they influence how school-based researchers think about their work and its value for educational practice. Good quantitative research must be grounded in a deep understanding of the culture, language, social class, and history of the people being studied. Older research frameworks must be re-thought with multicultural lenses so that scientifically sound teaching practices and educational policies take into account the changing U.S. demographics. This will become increasingly important as the U.S. becomes even more diverse. This chapter challenges traditional research assumptions previously described and offers suggestions for improving quantitative research (i.e., controlled experiments, quasi-experiments, surveys, and correlational studies) in multicultural contexts. Initially, the chapter examines how the construction of knowledge has proceeded in school psychology, specifically, and education more generally, and what impact this has had on the study of culturally diverse populations. Specific questions and challenges are directed at Eurocentric paradigms that have dominated the accumulation of scientific facts in education and psychology. A critique of Eurocentric paradigms is relevant because such approaches have resulted in interpretations that reflect specific biases inherent in the paradigms themselves that favor the dominant social group (Frisby, 2005). The final section explores multicultural approaches to research, including eliminating confounding variables in quantitative research, understanding within group heterogeneity and linguistic barriers in research, and properly describing sample populations.

Quantitative Research Methods   365

Theoretical and Research Basis Universalistic Versus Relativistic Approach In a discussion of quantitative research within a multicultural context, it is important to examine the paradigms researchers use to define their approach. The distinction between universalistic and relativistic methods is a starting point. Allport (1937) framed the central tenets of these two methods with respect to their use in psychology, but the distinction continues to be relevant today in social and educational research since researchers in various disciplines employ essentially the same paradigms. The universalistic approach seeks confirmation of general truths that extend across cultural groups, while the relativistic approach seeks to uncover a particular truth that is confined to a single culture or social group. Since the formulation of the universalistic-relativistic dichotomy the debate has been recast in terms of etic and emic principles (Stankov & Lee, 2009). The relativistic or emic view suggests that not all concepts and behaviors have universal validity, and that they may be appropriate only within a narrow range of cultural groups. On the other hand, the universalistic or etic view maintains that certain concepts and behaviors are valid across many different cultures. According to the universalistic approach, theory and hypothesis testing should guide research. Thus, quantitative methods are employed and statistical inferences are used to draw conclusions that support the universal principles with little regard for cultural differences between research participants. In addition, advocates of a universalistic approach also employ a research strategy that calls for the logic of controlled experimentation and random assignment of subjects to experimental and control groups (Dehue, 2001). However, a controlled experimental approach is not always possible in the real world of schools, children, and large-scale societal problems. For example, differences in English language proficiency of immigrant children or the effects of class size on educational achievement do not lend themselves neatly to experimental research. Stuart and Rubin (2008) demonstrated that quasi-experiments could be designed in natural contexts with varying degrees of experimental and/or statistical control and where the necessary statistical assumption of random assignment of respondents to groups could be maintained. The important concern here is that the universalistic approach in contrast to the relativistic approach denies the importance of variables such as cultural, linguistic, or social class background. Instead, the emphasis is placed on a treatment versus non-treatment comparison regardless of potentially important participant variables. The underlying belief of this approach is that universal principles can be uncovered only by a comparative approach to research.There is nothing wrong with a universalistic approach to research if the groups being compared are equivalent on

366   Padilla

important demographic characteristics including social class, cultural background, and proficiency in English. Since it is expected in quantitative research training and practice to employ a comparison design where at least two groups are compared, this methodological strategy from the perspective of multicultural research is discussed next.

Comparative Research Approach The comparative research framework requires a statistical test between at least two groups that have been equated on all variables known to have an influence on the behavior in question (Salkind, 2014). Although not always stated explicitly, in educational research the standard is frequently a Caucasian middle-class student and any deviations are interpreted negatively as deficits or differences that possibly require intervention. No less than three potentially harmful consequences can be identified when the standard is a majority group student rather than a minority group member: (1) overgeneralizations of findings that benefit members of the “norm” group, (2) exaggeration of differences that extend beyond the true nature of the between group difference, and (3) explicit or implicit evaluations of deficiency or deficit attributed to low-status minority group members. When doing comparative research, studies driven by a universalistic approach have the potential of blinding the researcher to important extraneous variables between groups that must be controlled for before group differences can be adequately assessed. For instance, many minority students are subjected to institutionalized practices of overt or covert racism (e.g., academic tracking, attendance at low performing schools, higher suspension and expulsion rates) that often have the effect of devaluing self-esteem, sense of belonging to the school community, and subsequent academic achievement (Padilla, 2008). As a result, between group differences in academic performance as measured by such indices as grade point average or standardized test scores might be more a reflection of unmeasured variance (e.g., unequal educational opportunity) due to extraneous factors not taken into account by researchers (Lee, 2002; Padilla, 2004). Next, the practical challenges and implications of conducting research in multicultural situations are delineated.

Implications for Practice There can be numerous difficulties when conducting research in a multicultural context such as a school or community setting. Researchers unfamiliar with the cultural background of their potential research population frequently overlook many of these challenges. Such challenges can include: (1) confounding culture and

Quantitative Research Methods   367

social class when selecting a sample, (2) failure to recognize the heterogeneity (e.g., differences in acculturation and social class) that exists within ethnic groups, (3) handling linguistic barriers, and (4) adequately describing a sample. Each of these issues is discussed next.

Confounding Variables Confounding is a serious problem in research and may be even more problematic in studies involving members of different ethnic groups who vary in culture and/ or social class. Confounding occurs when the researcher fails to control, or eliminate, an extraneous (or a third variable) that unknowingly explains an observed relationship between an independent and dependent variable. When a study is confounded, it is impossible to interpret the results of the study with any certainty. To avoid confounding, participants should be randomly assigned to treatment conditions. For example, if a researcher wishes to compare student learning on a technology-enriched science unit to a more traditional textbook approach to teaching science, the recommended strategy would be to randomly assign students to both learning conditions. If students were homogeneous in ability and background experience then we can safely assume that confounding is minimized. However, if one group is overrepresented by students whose initial science background knowledge is weaker because they attend an inner-city school with scarce resources for science labs and if this group performed significantly lower than the other group, there is no way of knowing whether the difference was due to the treatment or if prior science knowledge contributed to the differential performance.Thus, the study is confounded and no clear interpretation is possible. Culture

Culture and social class are often confounded and they need to be understood to avoid errors frequently made in research. Culture is the sum total of knowledge produced by a people that is transferred from one generation to the next. At a minimum, this knowledge includes: language and literary expressions of every form; values and beliefs that serve as the basis of laws and ways of interacting with family, friends, and strangers; history, customs, artistic forms of expression, and ways of knowing; ways of rearing children; and strategies for transmitting culture to succeeding generations. Culture is dynamic and continuously changing with the acquisition of new information and/or contact with other cultures. A reality stemming from the diversity of the U.S. population is that many individuals identify with more than one culture (i.e., they are bicultural). A bicultural person can function in behaviorally competent ways with members of two different

368   Padilla

cultures (Padilla, 2006). For instance, bicultural individuals may manifest all the behaviors of mainstream Americans at school or work but, in their home and personal life, they may embrace a different culture. Biculturalism is a hallmark of immigrant communities, and because immigrants vary in their length of residence in the U.S. and the age at the time of immigration they may differ widely on an acculturation continuum. Many immigrants may prefer their heritage culture while still demonstrating biculturalism. If the role of culture is not taken into account when a researcher plans a study that involves respondents from different cultural backgrounds, it is entirely possible for extraneous factors to be introduced into the study’s outcomes. Of course, there are studies for which culture may have absolutely no bearing on the outcome, but there are other studies where the cultural background of the subjects could play a role. Studies that involve beliefs, values, and interpersonal styles of interaction may be especially vulnerable to the hidden influences of culture. Social Class

Social class refers to household income, occupation of the principal wage earner, and educational level of head of household. According to Lott (2002), poverty in America is a major determinant of our society and needs to be considered in every aspect of our life. Despite the economic advantages of life in the U.S., there are still great economic disparities between the top income earners and those individuals who find themselves falling deeper into poverty daily, especially single mothers and marginalized ethnic minority individuals and their families (Lott & Bullock, 2007). Lott (2002) argued that researchers have largely distanced themselves from the poor in their work and our knowledge of the poor is shallow and shaped by biases and stereotypes. She maintained that by including social class as a variable, researchers gain a better understanding of how social class contexts affect the values and behaviors of all Americans. In a review of the effects of poverty on child development, Evans (2004) showed how the poor, regardless of ethnic group or race, are disadvantaged in multiple ways because of the dire consequences of poverty. Evans (2004) urged researchers to include family income as an integral part of a study, not just added to describe the samples or incorporated as a statistical control (i.e., covariate) with the focus of the study on other variables. Thus, it is important to take note of both the culture of the respondents as well as their social class when conducting research in multicultural contexts. One way to think about this is to envision social class as nested in culture when designing a research study. For example, in comparing samples of Caucasian, Latino, and Asian students from different schools for a project on middle-school math, researchers should, at a minimum, gather information on differences in the numbers of children on free/reduced lunch plans and numbers of English language learners (ELLs) by

Quantitative Research Methods   369

ethnic/racial background. If the schools differ markedly on percentages of students on free/reduced lunch plans and ELLs, then this needs to be considered in the statistical analysis and cautionary note taken in any interpretation of the findings if the groups vary by math scores. Why is it important to distinguish between social class and culture? The major reason, of course, is to be certain that the outcome is due to culture, social class, or their interaction, but not confused with each other. For instance, if a researcher is interested in parenting practices among respondents from several different ethnic groups, it is important to gather information on culturally sanctioned practices toward child rearing, and whether the practices are the same or different by the gender of the parent and the gender of the child. Assume the researcher wants to correlate child-rearing practices to attitudes toward higher education for children. In this situation the researcher should gather information on the social class of the informants to ensure that, if there are social class differences within an ethnic group, this is controlled because such differences may have an effect on attitudes toward higher education. For example, all informants, regardless of cultural group, may be in agreement that higher education is a desirable outcome for their children. Hypothetically, low income and unacculturated parents may also hold the belief that if scarce financial resources are to be spent on education, it would be better to make such an investment on the education of males, rather than female children. Thus, it is important that differences in cultural practices toward education are measured uncontaminated by whether or not respondents can afford to pay for education. Lott (2002) and Evans (2004) maintained that researchers must come to terms with the ecological reality of poverty and study its effects on behavior with the same persistence that they study other important variables. It is important to move beyond seeing poverty as merely a possible confounding variable to be controlled statistically while we study variables that are more attractive. Researchers often fail to understand that poverty imposes constraints on the choices that a person or family has available to them. Poverty often limits the educational, social, and recreational choices that a family can give their children, so it should not be a surprise that poor children often do less well academically than middle-class children. The fact that low socioeconomic status (SES) results in limited educational choices is frequently overlooked when between ethnic groups comparisons are made and SES is not controlled.

Within-Group Heterogeneity Similar to the problem of confounding is the lack of understanding by many researchers of the heterogeneity within ethnic minority populations. Leong et al. (2007)

370   Padilla

noted that one major criticism of the research on Asian Americans is researchers’ failure to take the heterogeneity of the different Asian groups into account. Asian Americans differ by national origin, language differences, duration of residence in the U.S., and circumstances surrounding their immigration (e.g., voluntary versus refugee status). Simply indicating that a study includes Asians without additional details is unacceptable in multicultural research (Leong et al., 2007). Similarly, the designation of “Hispanic” or “Latino” lumps together Central American refugees and white-collar, professional South Americans; recent Mexican immigrants with fourth or fifth generation Latino residents of the Southwest; and Puerto Ricans with their own diversity including whether the person was born and raised on the U. S. mainland or on the island of Puerto Rico. Additionally, there are Caribbean and Latin Americans, who come from differing mixtures of indigenous, African, and European origins; this is why Hispanics can be of any race (Torres, 2004). There is also large variation among people living in multicultural contexts with respect to acculturation, income, marital status, religious affiliations, fertility patterns, educational level, and women’s participation in the labor force (Thierren & Ramirez, 2001). In view of the diversity within and across subgroups, labels such as Latino, Asian American, African American, and American Indian are not meaningful without, at a minimum, delineation into national-origin-based subgroups or by important demographic and social stratification variables such as education, recency of immigration, urbanization versus suburban residence, and socioeconomic class. Also of importance is the growing number of inter-racial marriages in the U.S. Thus, we see an ever-increasing number of mixed ethnic/racial heritage individuals in schools. It is important for school-based researchers to be aware of mixed heritage individuals when conducting research because often these students have loyalties to both of their heritage backgrounds and cultures (Shih & Sanchez, 2009). The demographic and cultural characteristics of mixed ethnic/racial populations are not always easy to obtain, but unless a meaningful effort is made, multicultural research will remain elusive and research will lack the very things desired from research— clear findings, meaningful interpretations, generalization to a larger population, and replication.

Linguistic Barriers Linguistic barriers can also be challenging for researchers. For example, Spanish is not the same in different Hispanic communities.While Latinos from different countries may be able to communicate with one another, there are dialect differences that should be reflected in letters of introduction, human subject consent forms, questionnaires, and other written and oral forms of communication with the group

Quantitative Research Methods   371

of interest. Similarly, Asian Americans are even more heterogeneous in many respects as discussed earlier, and certainly language differences may present significant issues when working with a diverse group of Asian American participants. Often it is taken for granted by researchers that a native speaker can be hired to translate instruments or transcribe and translate interviews from a non-English language to English with little thought regarding the translator’s actual ability level and/or familiarity with the local dialect of the participants. More recently, some researchers have turned to Google Translate only to learn that the translated products are not always useful without additional human refinements. Typically, the central requirement in a translation process is to ensure linguistic equivalence between the English instrument and the translated document. However, Peña (2007) discussed the pros and cons of relying on translation techniques for establishing a linguistic equivalence through translation techniques. Linguistic equivalence or literal translation refers to translating a text by finding equivalent words and phrases from the source language to the language that the material is being translated into. Peña shows that mere translation for linguistic equivalence is often insufficient to guard against threats to the validity of the newly translated instrument. In addition to linguistic equivalence, cultural equivalence is also important in translation. Cultural translation refers to maintaining the cultural features of the source language intact when a text is translated into a new language. Attention to these layers of “equivalence” demonstrates that much more is involved in the translation of instruments than mere word-for-word translation. Some cultural and language barriers can be surmounted by including members of the community on the research team (Padilla, 2004). However, when conducting a study of urban Latino immigrant parents and children, the mere inclusion of a bilingual Mexican American graduate student raised in a middle-class suburban neighborhood who learned Spanish in high school does not constitute inclusion of an informed community member in the research project. Similarly, a highly acculturated second-generation Filipino American may have difficulty collecting data from recently arrived Filipinos on attitudes toward schooling. Unless researchers are culturally aware of traditional customs, they could ask questions in a way that offends their respondents or promotes inaccurate responses. Thus, to minimize linguistic barriers, it is necessary to have a thorough linguistic and cultural understanding of the target population. The challenges inherent in carrying out meaningful quantitative research in multicultural contexts are considerable. This is not intended to imply that only minority researchers can and should conduct research in minority communities. However, unless the researcher knows the community well and has earned the respect and trust of key members of the community, it may be critical to include parents or other members of the community as partners in the research study and not just as translators, interviewers, or data coders. Often community leaders are

372   Padilla

more vested in the research to be conducted in their neighborhood or school than the actual researcher. Community leaders often want to see research that has an immediate benefit to the community, not just to the researcher’s career or the interests of the sponsoring agency. For this reason, it makes practical sense to identify community advocates and to find ways to incorporate them as legitimate partners in the research process. In this way they can offer more than just advice on translation of instruments and strategies for data collection.

Describing a Sample Population Generalization of findings beyond the sample studied and replication of a study are hallmarks of good quantitative research. To achieve both of these, it is important to understand the characteristics of the ethnic group being studied. Without this knowledge, generalization and replication are not possible (Knight, Roosa, & Umaña-Taylor, 2009). However, many studies do not describe their sample population sufficiently to enable replication.Two examples are presented to illustrate how lack of information hampers the ability of subsequent researchers to conduct a true replication of a study. First, in a study by Dobbs-Oates and Robinson (2012) on preschoolers’ math skills and behavior using the third wave of the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study— Birth Cohort (ECLS-B), the researchers stated: “This study included all children in center-based child care during the third data wave . . . the sample consisted of approximately 5,400 children . . . Additional information about the demographic characteristics of the participants is listed in Tables 1 and 2” (p. 375). Upon inspection of Tables 1 and 2, we learn that for Child Race, 55.7% of the sample was “minority” with no further explanation; 20% of the sample came from a non-English speaking home; and household income ranged from $200,000. Without more precise information about the sample in terms of race, ethnicity, languages spoken in the home, and income levels by racial/ethnic breakdowns, this paper has little to offer the reader who is interested in learning about early math skill development in African American, Hispanic, Asian, and Caucasian children. Second, in a study of parent involvement in the transition from pre-kindergarten to first-grade academic outcomes, Powell et al. (2012) described their sample as . . . comprised of approximately 90 children and their parents or primary caregivers recruited from public prekindergarten classrooms in a large urban school district in the Midwest . . . more than half of the children represented racial/ethnic minority backgrounds, and about 55% of mothers had a high school diploma or less . . . (p. 281)

Quantitative Research Methods   373

The reader is referred to Table 1 where 40 children are described as European American, 30 as African American, ten as other, and ten as not reported. Further, 20 mothers are listed as having less than a high school education, but no follow-up information is provided about race or ethnicity of these mothers or whether any spoke a language other than English. There is also a social class distinction that is hinted at, but not made explicit with 40 mothers having some post-secondary education, with 20 of these mothers reporting a bachelor’s degree or higher. This sample description lacks precision and the findings are even more obscure when one of the variables used in the hierarchical regression analysis is “child minority status” but the racial or ethnic composition of these children is not clear from the authors’ description. In each of these participant descriptions, there is the basic information about number of students, gender, age, social status, and ethnicity. However, the information is much too general and it is not known whether the social class of the nonHispanic Caucasian students was similar to that of the other ethnic groups, or whether the Hispanic students were from English- or Spanish-speaking homes. A problem with the generic term “Hispanic” is that it does not inform us if the participants are, for example, of Mexican, Cuban, Puerto Rican, or Guatemalan heritage, or whether the participants are bi-racial. Similarly, does a sample of students described as coming from diverse social backgrounds include children from homeless families or children living below the poverty level? What about single-parent versus two-parent families? In the latest edition of the APA Publication Manual (American Psychological Association, 2010) authors are given very explicit guidelines about the detail required when describing participants in a study: Describe the sample adequately. Detail the sample’s major demographic characteristics, such as age; sex; ethnic and/or racial group; level of education; socioeconomic, generational, or immigrant status; disability status; sexual orientation; gender identity; and language preference as well as important topic-specific characteristics (e.g., achievement level in studies of educational interventions). As a rule, describe the groups as specifically as possible, with particular emphasis on characteristics that may have bearing on the interpretation of results. Often, participant characteristics can be important for understanding the nature of the sample and the degree to which results can be generalized. (APA, 2010, pp. 29–30) Clearly, this level of detail cannot always be obtained. However, when researchers know beforehand that they are going to employ a diverse and multicultural participant pool in their research they can make provisions to collect demographic

374   Padilla

information that can be used to enhance their description of the population studied. This has two benefits. First, by gathering important demographic information the researcher is in a better position to interpret the findings in terms of the context of culture, social class, acculturation level, length of residence in the U.S., and so on. Second, by adequately describing the participant population, other interested researchers can replicate the study by using a comparable participant population. Replication allows researchers to test the robustness of findings and thereby adds an element of validity to the findings if replication results in similar outcomes (Knight et al., 2009). Unfortunately, it is commonplace to find little information regarding culturally diverse participants in a method section of an article. Authors must ensure that they have provided all critical information regarding a participant population in their research reports. Further, peer reviewers and journal editors need to ensure that a sample is described as fully as possible in the Methods section of a research study. Otherwise, critical and important insight into how different cultural groups respond in different research conditions is lost.

Conclusion It is important to recognize the multiple layers of diversity represented in the U.S. population when doing research with multicultural populations. Educational researchers need to take seriously the challenges of confounding variables such as social class and culture, the racial/ethnic heterogeneity that can exist within a sample, and the potential linguistic barriers that can take place during the research process. When these challenges are not seriously considered the validity of the research findings may be comprised resulting in misleading interpretations.

Implications for Research and Training Although multicultural research is difficult, it can also be extremely rewarding when done well. This research by definition means having a good understanding of culture and its importance in multicultural contexts, and the role that culture plays in behavior. In essence, the multicultural researcher should first be knowledgeable of the social, cultural, and linguistic heterogeneity found within schools and wherever else children and youth are found. The type of research being advocated here is much more than simply understanding research design and statistical analysis. There are courses that are the mainstay of any graduate problem that teach the technical side of research, as well as the psychometrics of instrument design and use. The content offered by these courses is critical to doing sound quantitative research. The shortcoming often is

Quantitative Research Methods   375

that the materials used in these courses and the instructors themselves may not be familiar with the challenges that are evident when conducting research in complex multicultural contexts. Culture, language and social class are often missing when research methods are discussed. Thus, researchers must understand the importance of ensuring that culture and social class are included in the research design of any school or community based research study. Faculty in school psychology graduate programs can instruct students in multicultural research strategies by either embedding content within quantitative and research methods courses or by offering specialized courses, seminars, or research practicums in multicultural research methods. Some examples of seminar or practicum experiences might include: designing a demographic survey to maximize understanding of the heterogeneity of a community, adapting instruments to ensure that cultural or social class biases are eliminated, engaging with community members around a specific topic of interest to them and participating in a community action project with the community. These examples might seem daunting at first, but they can be quite educational and useful to graduate students who can then go on to design projects of their own for masters’ theses or doctoral dissertations. Another entry point into multicultural research is the development of reading lists that can be used for teaching purposes in courses or seminars. There are now many professional peer-reviewed journals that can be consulted for relevant materials. Some of these journals include: Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology,Asian American Journal of Psychology, Journal of Black Psychology, and Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences. Other materials that can be included in research courses can be obtained from professional associations such as the American Psychological Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the American Education Research Association. These associations also sponsor graduate student mentorship programs, student research workshops at national and regional meetings, and fellowship opportunities, which provide opportunities for students to interact with researchers who specialize in multicultural research. Importantly, school psychologists and others can use valid multicultural research to inform school practices and policies. This is particularly relevant to quantitative research where practitioners and policy makers want research findings in easily consumable formats. Researchers are improving their ability to translate findings for lay audiences. Training for this can begin at the graduate school level. For example, a graduate seminar at Stanford’s Graduate School of Education requires students to take one of their own completed research projects and rewrite the findings as a practitioner or policy brief or op ed newspaper article. A similar activity can be integrated into courses that teach students to conduct multicultural research. There is an old expression among researchers,“Garbage in, garbage out,” meaning that no matter how sophisticated the analysis, findings are entirely dependent on

376   Padilla

the quality of the data. This chapter’s intent is to facilitate school psychologists’ knowledge about gathering the best possible data when conducting research with culturally, linguistically or economically disadvantaged participants. Although multicultural research has vastly improved over the last several decades, its relevance and importance must continue to be emphasized at every level of professional training in education and psychology.

Resources Discussion Questions 1. What concerns would you have if a colleague intended to take a universalistic approach to comparing different ways in which iPads and other mobile devices could be used to teach middle-school students algebra in several urban and suburban schools that are known to differ by social class? What recommendations would you give this researcher about her intended study? 2. There are many ways in which diversity manifests itself in a school community— as a researcher with a quantitative orientation what are the questions you would ask about the students and parents prior to designing your study? 3. Multiculturalism is multifaceted and complex; what essential knowledge and skills do you believe are essential for you to acquire the competencies necessary to be a well-trained school psychologist interested in conducting research in a multicultural context?

Additional Readings American Psychological Association. (2000). Guidelines for research in ethnic minority communities. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Presents a series of thoughtful suggestions compiled by experienced minority researchers for planning and conducting research in ethnic minority communities. The guidelines are useful for novice researchers who want a quick set of  “do’s and don’ts” when thinking of entering into a community-based research project. Knight, G. P., Roosa, M. W., & Umaña-Taylor, A. J. (2009). Studying ethnic minority and economically disadvantaged populations: Methodological challenges and best practices. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. This book is an outstanding resource for graduate students and seasoned researchers who wish to conduct research with minority populations. The authors are experienced researchers who provide a wide range of first-hand ideas and strategies for overcoming research challenges, from recruiting and sampling diverse populations to suggestions for selecting instruments and translating materials for use in research.

Quantitative Research Methods   377

References Addy, S., Engelhardt, W., & Skinner, C. (2013). Basic facts about low-income children: Children under 18 years, 2011. National Center for Children in Poverty. New York, NY. Retrieved from . Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York, NY: Holt. American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th Ed.). Washington, DC: Author. Colby, S. L., & Ortman, J. M. (2014). The baby boom cohort in the United States: Population estimates and projections. U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved from . Dehue, T. (2001). Establishing the experimental society: The historical origin of social experimentation according to the randomized controlled design. American Journal of Psychology, 114, 283–302. Dobbs-Oates, J., & Robinson, C. (2012). Preschoolers’ mathematics skills and behavior: Analysis of a national sample. School Psychology Review, 41, 371–386. Evans, G.W. (2004).The environment of childhood poverty. American Psychologist, 59, 77–92. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.59.2.77. Frisby, C. L. (2005). The politics of multiculturalism in school psychology: Part 1. In C. L. Frisby & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of multicultural school psychology (pp. 45–80). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Frisby, C. L., & Reynolds, C. R. (Eds). (2005). Comprehensive handbook of multicultural school psychology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Gutkin,T. B., & Reynolds, C. R. (2009). The handbook of school psychology (4th Ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Knight, G. P., Roosa, M. W., & Umaña-Taylor, A. (2009). Studying ethnic minority and economically disadvantaged populations. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Lee, J. (2002). Racial and ethnic achievement gap trends: Reversing the progress toward equity. Educational Researcher, 31, 3–12. Leong, T. L., Ebreo, A., Kinoshita, L., Inman, A. G., Yang, L. H., & Fu, M. (Eds.). (2007). Handbook of Asian American psychology (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Lott, B. (2002). Cognitive and behavioral distancing from the poor. American Psychologist, 57, 100–110. Lott, B., & Bullock, H. E. (2007). Psychology and economic injustice: Personal, professional and political intersections. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Padilla, A. M. (2004). Quantitative methods in multicultural educational research. In J. A. Banks & C. A. Mcgee Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (2nd Ed., pp. 127–145). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Padilla, A. M. (2006). Bicultural social development. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 28, 467–497. doi:10.1177/0739986306294255. Padilla, A. M. (2008). Social cognition, ethnic identity, and ethnic specific strategies for coping with threat due to prejudice and discrimination. In C. Willis-Esqueda (Ed.), Motivational aspects of prejudice and racism (pp. 7–42). New York, NY: Springer. Peña, E. D. (2007). Lost in translation: Methodological considerations in cross-cultural research. Child Development, 78, 1255–1264. doi:10.1111/J.1467-8624 2007.01064x.

378   Padilla

Powell, D. R., Son, S-H., File, N., & Froiland, J. M. (2012). Changes in parent involvement across the transition from public school prekindergarten to first grade and children’s academic outcomes. The Elementary School Journal, 113, 276–300. Salkind, N. J. (2014). Statistics for people who hate statistics (5th Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Sanchez, G. I. (1932). Group differences in Spanish-speaking children: A critical review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 16, 549–558. Shih, M., & Sanchez, D. T. (2009). When race becomes even more complex: Toward understanding the landscape of multiracial identity and experiences. Journal of Social Issues, 65, 1–11. doi:10:1111/j.1540-4560.2008.0158.x. Stankov, L., & Lee, J. (2009). Dimensions of cultural differences: Pancultural, ETIC/EMIC, and ecological approaches. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 339–354. Stuart, E. A., & Rubin, D. B. (2008). Best practices in quasi-experimental designs. In J. Osborne (Ed.), Best practices in quantitative methods (pp. 155–176). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Therrien, M., & Ramirez, R. R. (2001, March). The Hispanic population in the United States. Current populations reports. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Torres, V. (2004). The diversity among us: Puerto Ricans, Cuban Americans, Caribbean Americans, and Central and South Americans. New Directions for Student Services, 105, 5–16. Valencia, R. R., & Suzuki, L.A. (2001). Intelligence testing and minority students: Foundations, performance factors, and assessment issues. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

21

Critical Issues in Training School Psychologists to Work with Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students Margaret R. Rogers and Elisabeth C. O’Bryon

As future school psychologists are trained to meet the needs of our nation’s children, culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) children merit particularly close attention. Propelled by demographic changes and important research findings, the National Association of School Psychologists’ (NASP) Strategic Plan (NASP, 2012a) articulated a commitment to culturally competent service delivery as a core value that is integrated among several strategic priorities. Recent statistics show that CLD students now represent the majority of students attending the public schools (Hussar & Bailey, 2013a). In addition, the demographic projections for 2011 to 2022 suggest a 44% increase in students who identify as two or more races, a 33% increase in Latino students, a 20% increase in Asian/Pacific Islander students, a 2% increase in African American students, and a 6% decrease in White students (Hussar & Bailey, 2013b). These changes are expected to continue into the coming decades, with 57% of the overall United States (U.S.) population projected to represent CLD groups by 2060, and the greatest concentrations expected to be seen first among our nation’s youth (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). 379

380   Rogers and O’Bryon

Demographic Landscape Among Students A close look at recent demographic statistics shows other important trends impacting public school enrollments across the country. Presently, about 13% of the U.S. population are immigrants and 25% of public school children have a parent who is an immigrant (Nwosu, Batalova, & Auclair, 2014). Many of these children speak English as a second language (Nwosu et al., 2014). The children, henceforth referred to as English learners (ELs), not only represent the “fastest growing segment” of school age youth (National Council of Teachers of English, 2008, p. 2) but are present in varying concentrations in every state in the U.S. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013). The 2010 census reported that 21% of the U.S. population over age five speaks a language other than English at home, a percentage that has doubled since the 1980 census.When we look at the preschool population of three and four year olds attending Head Start, about 30% are ELs (National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition, 2011). These data speak to the growing presence of ELs not only in the general U.S. population but also enrolled in, or soon to be enrolled in, our nation’s public schools. The rising numbers of EL students are but one of the current realities schools face with respect to the linguistic diversity of its student body. Indeed, EL students are now widely distributed across the U.S., instead of mainly concentrated in major metropolitan areas. As noted by Flynn and Hill (2005), the rise in EL students in schools that previously enrolled small numbers of EL students are most felt in rural school districts that have few resources to respond to the myriad of new student needs.The changes in enrollment for EL students impact every dimension and layer of the schooling process, from the skills needed by teachers, to the curriculum used, to the ways school personnel interact with families, to the cultural traditions that need to be considered, honored, and accounted for within the school community. These changes must be addressed within the education and training environment for all school psychologists—those practicing already as well as those in the pipeline for practice. CLD children and youth bring to the schools a plethora of strengths, life experiences and histories, competencies, and talents. Within this group, multiple linguistic competencies are often present with the 2010 U.S. census noting over 300 unique languages spoken in the nation. After English, Spanish is the second language most commonly spoken, accounting for about 62% of the U.S. EL population and for about 73% of ELs enrolled in the public schools (U.S. Census, 2013). Spanish is also the most common second language in 43 states (U.S. Census, 2013), yet is eclipsed in the remaining seven states by several other languages, such as Yup’ik in Alaska and Somali in Maine. These reflect indigenous languages as well as those spoken by recent refugees (Batalova & McHugh, 2010).

Training School Psychologists   381

The cultural traditions that CLD students bring to their schools are another strength. Recent examples of how school psychologists have used those strengths to create more meaningful culturally-tailored interventions abound. For example, a recent edition of School Psychology Forum features a number of illustrations from McGoey et al.’s (2016) report of the Mensch Project used in a Jewish urban community school, to Aston and Graves’ (2016) Sisters of Nia cultural project used to empower African American girls. School psychology can build on the strengths that CLD youth bring to the schools by helping to make the public schools more responsive to their needs and by helping training programs to prepare future school psychologists to deliver culturally responsive services. Overall, the latest projections available for public school enrollments suggest that total enrollments will increase by 6% through 2022 (Hussar & Bailey, 2013b). No precise data are currently available about the projections for EL students through 2022. However, it is likely that the EL student population will continue to grow in the near future and shape the corridors of schools for many years to come. And most certainly, CLD students attending the public schools will account for a greater proportion of students than ever before. For school psychologists, who are almost all currently delivering services to a diverse student body, these data provide compelling evidence of the necessity to develop multicultural competencies (Curtis, Castillo, & Gelley, 2012).

Demographics Among Key School Personnel Although the presence of CLD school children is increasing in our nation’s schools, few school personnel share similar cultural and language backgrounds and competencies. Beginning at the top of the school hierarchy with school administrators, statistics indicate that about 6% of superintendents represent a minority group member and approximately 22% are women (Kowalski et al., 2010). Among public school principals, 19% are people of color (Snyder & Dillow, 2013a). At present, no data are available about the second language proficiencies of U.S. school administrators. Among public school teachers, about 17% identify as a person of color, 76% are women, and about 1% are English as a Second Language (ESL) teachers (Snyder & Dillow, 2013b). No information is available about the second language proficiencies of non-ESL public school teachers. For practicing school psychologists, about 78% are women, approximately 9% are people of color (Curtis et al., 2012), and 6% provide services in a second language (Charvat, 2008). Thus, in comparison to the current student body attending public schools, the adults employed within American schools represent far lower levels of racial, ethnic, and linguistic diversity than their students—a state

382   Rogers and O’Bryon

of affairs that can create divides in perceptions, communications, issues, priorities, and the nature of children’s educational experiences

Theoretical and Research Base Since the publication of the first Handbook of Multicultural School Psychology: An Interdisciplinary Perspective in 2007, a number of developments have shaped the milieu of multicultural school psychology and the professional world of school psychologists. First, changes reflected in the 2010 American Psychological Association (APA) and NASP ethical codes have brought greater emphasis to the ethical responsibilities of school psychologists regarding diverse clients and communities. A second development concerns the “Leadership,” “Critical Skills,” and “Advocacy” themes of the Fall 2012 Conference on the Future of School Psychology (Conference on the Future of School Psychology, 2012).These themes drew national attention to the need for all school psychologists to develop skills in cultural competency and advocacy. A third development concerns changes in the models used by the APA in accrediting programs (APA, 2016) and NASP in approving programs (NASP, 2010a) that impact education and training processes of future school psychologists. Within the APA, the transition from “professional psychology” to “health service psychology” has brought with it an emphasis on competency-based training and is reflected in the new accreditation standards that take effect in early 2017. The new standards speak to the need for programs to fully integrate diversity issues into all aspects of doctoral student education and training.The APA Commission on Accreditation Implementing Regulations Section C (2015) states, in part, that: Programs are expected to train students/interns/residents to respect diversity and be competent in addressing diversity into all professional activities including research, training, supervision/consultation, and service. Programs are expected to train students to be competent not only for serving diverse individuals present in their local community and training setting, but also for working with diverse individuals they may encounter when they move to other locations after completion of their training. The program should demonstrate that it examines the effectiveness of its education and training efforts in this area. Steps to revise/enhance its strategies as needed should be documented. (p. 20) Within NASP, the NASP (2010b) Model for Comprehensive and Integrated School Psychology Services has gained widespread acceptance and is being used to shape

Training School Psychologists   383

current education and training at NASP approved programs. Of the ten domains of practice delineated in the model, the domain entitled Diversity in Development and Learning speaks directly to the school psychologists’ responsibilities serving a diverse clientele and is best reflected in the following statement: “School psychologists ensure that their knowledge, skills, and professional practices reflect understanding and respect for human diversity and promote effective services, advocacy, and social justice for all children, families and schools” (NASP, 2010b, p. 3). The latest revision of the NASP training standards (NASP, 2010a) mirrors the Model (2010b) in regard to professional services along ten major domains of education and practice. Within the Model, cultural competence is identified as a “foundational” competency with the expectation that cultural competency will be a driving force behind all other competencies. In the 2010 NASP training standards, the specific areas emphasized are: (a) understanding and applying both research findings and evidence-based strategies pertinent to CLD clientele across contexts, (b) developing professional work characteristics that lead to positive and effective relationships with CLD clients, and (c) providing culturally competent psychological services across all services delivered (i.e., advocacy, assessment, consultation, counseling, program design and evaluation, and so forth). A fourth development, the publication of official statements and resolutions by the leading professional organizations in psychology and school psychology, has educated school psychologists about an array of issues currently affecting diverse clients and their families. Since 2007 statements published by NASP have addressed recruitment of CLD school psychologists (NASP, 2009); service delivery to indigenous youth (NASP, 2012b); racism, prejudice, and discrimination (NASP, 2012c); nondiscrimination and equal opportunity policy (NASP, 2012d); racial and ethnic disproportionality in education (NASP, 2013); and the provision of services to bilingual youth (NASP, 2015). From the APA, resolutions, guidelines, and reports issued since 2007 have addressed resilience in African American youth (APA, Task Force on Resilience and Strength in Black Children and Adolescents, 2008), ethnic minority training (APA, 2009), homelessness (APA, 2010), educational disparities (APA, Presidential Task Force on Educational Disparities, 2012a), discrimination (APA, Presidential Task Force on Preventing Discrimination and Promoting Diversity, 2012b), and immigration (APA, Presidential Task Force on Immigration, 2012c, 2013). Each of these resources has served as a valuable and up-to-date source of information about key topics and, along with other publications, has helped to shape the epistemology and conceptual zeitgeist of the field. A fifth development concerns new books in school psychology that have contributed to the knowledge base about providing culturally responsive services. This includes two editions in the Best Practices in School Psychology series, published

384   Rogers and O’Bryon

in 2008 and in 2014, with the latter containing a new high of ten multiculturallyoriented chapters. Other books include The Psychology of Multiculturalism in the Schools edited by Janine Jones (2009), and within APA, the two-volume (2014) APA Handbook of Multicultural Psychology with Frederick Leong as chief editor. In addition to major books and reports, the published research in the leading school psychology journals deserve note. Journals are a major source of professional development for practicing school psychologists, and as such serve an important role in helping practitioners stay current and develop new competencies. Unfortunately, three recent analyses of the content of major journals show a paucity of multiculturally relevant research. Albers, Hoffman, and Lundahl’s (2009) article examining Journal of School Psychology (JSP), Psychology in the Schools (PIS), School Psychology International (SPI), School Psychology Quarterly (SPQ), and School Psychology Review (SPR) found that just 1% of the research published in these journals focused principally on EL issues. A few years later, Noltemeyer, Proctor, and Dempsey’s (2013) analysis and comparison of school counseling, school psychology (i.e., JSP, SPQ and SPR) and special education journals from 2008 to 2010 showed that school psychology contained the fewest that focus on issues of race or ethnicity, with just 9.2%, in comparison to the other closely related fields. More recently, Grunewald et al.’s (2014) review of Journal of Applied School Psychology (JASP), Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation (JEPC), JSP, PIS, School Psychology Forum (SPF), SPQ, and SPR over the period 2004–2010 showed that 15.5% of articles had a diversity focus.“Diversity” defined in Grunewald et al. (2014) referred to studies in which members of diverse cultural, linguistic, racial/ethnic, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic groups were the main focus. Taken together, these data suggest that issues concerning diverse populations are largely at the margins of the knowledge base published in major school psychology journals. Given the stated multicultural priorities of the profession, diversity issues are not garnering the attention warranted. Perhaps even more dismaying are findings from a recent study of members of the exclusive Society for the Study of School Psychology (SSSP) group. The Society contains present and past APA Division 16 members, school psychology journal editors, senior faculty at leading school psychology programs, and some of the most prolific and influential scholars in the field. In their study, McIntosh et al. (2013) asked SSSP members to identify: (a) what they considered to be the most important research over the preceding 25 years, (b) the most important and exciting research at present, and (c) the most important future research directions for the next 25 years in school psychology. Of the 50% of the SSSP members who responded, six major categories of responses and 17 minor categories emerged. Astonishingly, McIntosh et al. found that no major or minor category identified

Training School Psychologists   385

multicultural issues or working with CLD clients as important to the future of the field. Together, this state of affairs begs the question of how school psychologists can develop cultural competency skills to integrate into their everyday practices if the major school psychology journals do not value, do not include, do not make available, and do not identify as a priority, knowledge about CLD clients—on a systematic basis. Journal articles provide practitioners with low-cost, easy-access opportunities for continued professional development. Yet if knowledge is not easily accessible, is on the periphery, or is simply not there, it leads to an enormous missed opportunity. Such a vacuum of state-of-art information places school psychologists at risk of being ill-prepared to address the needs of CLD clients and at risk of engaging in ethically inappropriate behavior. It also is not in keeping with the highest values and stated priorities of the profession, and is cause for alarm. It is as if many major leaders in school psychology are blind to the demographic, mental health disparities, and sociopolitical realities of CLD clients’ lives, and this blindness has a cascading effect on the over 32,000 school psychologists who practice nationwide (Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, 2016). It would seem that the structures and systems for producing scholarship, for vetting journal articles, and for appointing editorial boards and editors requires a wholesale re-examination to align those systems with the stated priorities and values of the profession. If school psychologists fail to take responsibility and corrective action for this problem, they risk losing their credibility as service providers, they will avoid their fiduciary obligations, and they will fail in their mission as school psychologists.

Implications for Practice Given the uneven state of the multicultural knowledge base and concerns about the priorities of school psychology intellectual leaders, there are a number of issues critical to the multicultural education and training of future school psychologists that deserve attention. Several issues about multicultural school psychology education and training have been raised previously. These include teaching multicultural psychology courses (Rogers & O’Bryon, 2013), establishing relevant applied training opportunities (Lopez & Rogers, 2007), providing culturally-informed internship supervision (Proctor & Rogers, 2013), and helping students develop multicultural competencies during their graduate preparation in a developmental progression (Newell et al., 2010). The remainder of the chapter focuses on training issues not fully discussed in previous multicultural school psychology training literature, but linked to recent demographic and conceptual trends.

386   Rogers and O’Bryon

Systemic Issues of Importance in Multicultural Training Two systemic issues must be considered when implementing multicultural training in school psychology programs. First, it is likely that the quality of multicultural education and training in school psychology programs varies across the country. Although no empirical data are available about this point, programs likely vary in their degree of commitment, stated and unstated missions, policies, priorities, curriculum integration, and faculty expertise in multicultural issues.The realities of demographic changes and the press from professional organizations’ accreditation guidelines aside, experience suggests that programs with a critical mass of faculty with multicultural expertise committed to ensuring students receive systematic training in multicultural issues are more likely to be actively involved in doing so. Given that the sheer volume of school psychology faculty with multicultural expertise is far outstripped by the total number of faculty nationwide, it is likely that most preparation programs face similar systemic and practical hurdles in the execution of their multicultural training. One significant hurdle that programs face concerns faculty and program resistance to incorporating multicultural issues into graduate courses and applied training experiences (Rogers & O’Bryon, 2013). Whether the resistance is based on faculty inexperience, faculty intransigence, or a belief in the priorities of intellectual freedom over the press to adapt to changing paradigms and a changing world, the outcomes are similar for school psychology students in that they are being woefully shortchanged. Students who are not exposed to graduate coursework and applied training experiences that fully integrate multicultural perspectives and scholarship into them will not be prepared to provide services to CLD clients.The weight of scientific evidence is now so significant that programs that do not transform their course content to fully integrate relevant scholarship about CLD clientele should be called out by the accrediting and approval bodies of professional organizations for failing to do so. Programs cannot continue to transmit information to their students in courses and applied training that does not apply to, nor have relevance for CLD clients, as it does not meet the highest standards for training set by the accrediting and program approval requirements. Accrediting bodies need to hold programs accountable and programs that fall short may need to seek outside support to appropriately transform their curriculum and training environments. A second systemic issue concerns the need to provide graduate students with a strong foundation in ecologically, organizationally, and socially conscious paradigms in psychology and education. Public health models (Hoagwood & Johnson, 2003), bioecological models (e.g., Bronfenbrenner, 2005), transactional models (e.g., Sameroff, 2009), critical theory models (Kincheloe & McLaren, 2002), organizational development, and school leadership models (Kramer & Enomoto, 2014)

Training School Psychologists   387

equip students with needed perspectives that can be used to analyze and understand the ecology of children’s behavior, lives, and school contexts. Future school psychologists need to know how the organizations within which they will work influence human behavior at an individual level, at a group level, and on a societal level. They need to learn how to assess the major features of systems and organizations (including organizational structures, stated and unstated missions, policies, etc.), organizational dynamics, and organizational culture and climate. They need to learn how leadership influences change processes and how policies and structures can give rise to isolation, segregation, social hierarchies, and status differentials that influence social climate and processes, behavioral norms, and the culture of the setting (Shofield, 2004). Future school psychologists also need to have knowledge about how power works to influence equity in relationships. CLD children are negatively affected by inequities in many settings, and learning how to decode organizational and systemic processes that play a role in the creation and maintenance of those inequities can provide clues about how to address them. Importantly and relatedly, graduate students need to acquire skills in organizational change such as how to assess readiness for it, how to enlist the participation of the school community in it, and how to execute it effectively. Educational systems become entrenched and dysfunctional for many reasons, and school psychologists need to have an understanding about how to disentangle thorny, multi-level problems that can have deleterious influences on children. Consequently, coursework in school leadership, in organizational development, and in the manifestation and dismantling of oppressive systems (e.g., their structural and institutional features, policies, etc.) is vital.

Other Training Needs of Importance Another major skill development need for future school psychologists and existing school psychologists is learning the complexities of tailoring a full range of psychological services that are culturally relevant and grounded. One part of this entails being informed about available empirically supported practices (ESP), the populations they have been proven effective with, and the conditions and contexts within which they have been used. Then, learning how to take the ESPs and tailor them to fit the culture of specific clients, client groups, and client circumstances is a critically important skill (Kagawa-Singer et al., 2015). Fortunately, at present, the knowledge base in this area is rapidly growing with excellent resources addressing prevention (e.g., Lauricella et al., 2016) and intervention (e.g., Bernal, Jiménez-Chafey, & Domenech Rodríguez, 2009), among other services.

388   Rogers and O’Bryon

Implications for Future Training and Research As we consider key activities that will set up the profession for future success in serving CLD students, it is important to identify specific training and research priorities. We need to carefully consider the following questions: How can we prepare the next generation of practicing school psychologists to effectively and appropriately meet the needs of a growing CLD student population? And, how can we provide timely, meaningful guidance, and professional development to practicing school psychologists to ensure ongoing high quality service delivery to CLD students? Recruiting a CLD workforce is an essential pathway through which to promote the field’s future capacity to effectively meet the needs of a diverse student population. As previously noted, there is a striking mismatch between the demographics of key school personnel and the nation’s student body. A recent study that examined the websites of 250 professional psychology programs found that school psychology programs had less diversity-related content than clinical and counseling psychology programs (Smith et al., 2016). As prospective students increasingly look online for information about graduate programs, and as school psychology programs rely first and foremost on their websites for recruitment (Smith et al., 2013), we must ensure that programs emphasize the ways in which they elevate diversity-related topics. Importantly, diversity-focused recruitment efforts should not only occur online. In another study with important implications for the recruitment of diverse school psychologists, researchers found that students attending Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) reported less knowledge of school psychology programs than all other psychology disciplines (Graves & Wright, 2009). Moreover, HBCU faculty members reported no active recruitment of students by key professional organizations such as APA or NASP. These findings suggest a need for programs to re-prioritize the types of recruitment activities that they engage in. There is a clear need to activate multiple channels to recruit well-qualified, diverse students into the field of school psychology. Pre-service training combining didactic and applied learning experiences aimed at meeting the specific needs of CLD students is a next step in preparing the school psychology workforce for success within the diverse landscape of our nation’s schools. In their review of evidence-based approaches to multicultural training in school psychology, Newell et al. (2010) identified seven key recommendations for training programs. Among others, these include a need for coursework focused on multicultural content; involvement in practical, applied experiences with diverse populations; supervisors with multicultural training; and a need to demonstrate and measure students’ development of multicultural knowledge, attitudes, and skills. A review of these recommendations and thoughtful application of them is suggested

Training School Psychologists   389

for program directors and trainers responsible for the curricula and organization of their school psychology graduate programs. Importantly, graduate programs must consider how to create an integrated, comprehensive multicultural training experience for future school psychologists as the knowledge and skills needed to be successful cannot be taught in one hourlong class, or discrete visits to culturally diverse schools. Short-term applied training experiences should not be considered a “quick fix” that can replace the ongoing learning, reflection, and practice needed to develop multicultural competence. A recent study that compared the intercultural competence of school psychology graduate students before and after an on-campus multicultural training course with the intercultural competence of students who participated in both the training course and short-term study abroad course provides a powerful example (Davies et al., 2015). Contrary to the researchers’ predictions, the group who participated in both the course and the applied training experience did not display more growth in intercultural competence. These findings highlight the need for ongoing, multifaceted multicultural training. A number of efforts are also required to ensure that practicing school psychologists have the resources and support needed to apply best practices for serving CLD youth in their day-to-day work. First, school psychologists must have access to the latest research about and with CLD student populations. Several pathways should be consulted in creating and accessing such research. As a foundational step, the National Institutes of Health’s (2015) guidelines entitled The cultural framework for health: An integrative approach for research and program design and evaluation, offers essential information about how to include culture in research efforts. Other research-based sources are vital. For example, scholarly research can help practitioners learn about cultural adaptations of evidence-based treatments (e.g., Bernal et al., 2009); how to support the social and emotional needs of refugee and immigrant students (e.g., Sullivan & Simonson, 2016); and the need to embed culturally and linguistically responsive practices into the assessment process when working with ELs (e.g., Harris et al., 2015). Unfortunately, as noted above, the availability of such research in the major school psychology journals is limited. Second, school psychologists must have regularly available professional development opportunities that focus on CLD issues. The importance of continuing education as a professional responsibility has been highlighted over time through NASP policy documents, as well as through the professional literature (Armistead et al., 2013). Indeed, a study with bilingual school psychologists found that, in comparison with other training experiences (i.e., coursework, applied training, bilingual supervision), continuing education experiences were the most effective in promoting best practice approaches to serving EL students, including performing language proficiency assessments, selecting assessment measures, and working with interpreters (O’Bryon & Rogers, 2010). Unfortunately, a recent survey of practicing

390   Rogers and O’Bryon

school psychologists found that when asked to rank 13 professional development topical areas, “Diversity in Development and Learning” was the topic least likely to have been covered in school psychologists’ professional development activities, and the second to last topic when asked about topics that they perceived a need for (Armistead et al., 2013).These findings provide a disheartening look at the demand and perceived need for diversity-related continuing education opportunities. School districts must show leadership in this area by hiring school psychologists with cultural and bilingual competencies, and providing culturally relevant professional development opportunities aimed at increasing the cultural competencies for all their practitioners. Perhaps it is time for NASP to require demonstration of diversity-focused continuing education credits for those pursuing NCSP renewal, much as they now do with ethics continuing education. Finally, practicing school psychologists must be proactive in their efforts to seek out both new research and accessible professional development opportunities. From surveying recently published peer-reviewed journal articles to identifying local workshops and conferences, school psychologists must make a decision to prioritize activities through which they can extend their knowledge and skillset related to serving CLD students. And if these resources and opportunities are not available, it is critical that school psychologists advocate for their availability. By clearly communicating their need, we may be able to elevate these topics to the level of importance that they deserve and require if we are to successfully provide service to our nation’s CLD youth.

Resources Discussion Questions 1. Given the concerns about the limited representation of multicultural issues scholarship appearing in school psychology journals (both historically and currently), what steps must be undertaken to change this state of affairs? 2. For practicing school psychologists: What is the extent of your education and training in providing services to CLD children, youth, and their families? What do you know about cultural tailoring of empirically supported practices? What gaps exist in your professional preparation and the services you currently provide? What plans do you have to address those gaps to better serve the CLD clientele in your setting? 3. For school psychology faculty: What is your level of knowledge and expertise in delivering evidence-based, culturally tailored services to CLD clients? How do you incorporate that knowledge into the didactic and/or applied training you are responsible for? If your expertise in this area is limited, what plans do you have to address the existing gaps?

Training School Psychologists   391

Professional Organizations The National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition The American Psychological Association Division 2 Society for the Teaching of Psychology-Diversity-Teach The Civil Rights Project

Additional Readings American Psychological Association. (2008). Resources for the inclusion of social class in psychology curricula. Washington, DC: Report of the Task Force on Resources for the Inclusion of Social Class in Psychology Curricula. Retrieved from . This lengthy, excellent resource contains a compilation of information designed to assist faculty in developing courses about social class issues. It includes course syllabi, classroom exercises, readings, media, and examples of legislation linked to social policy. Goodman, L. A., Liang, B., Helms, J. E., Latta, R. E., Sparks, E. & Weintraub, S. R. (2004). Training counseling psychologists as social justice agents: Feminist and multicultural principles in action. The Counseling Psychologist, 32, 793–837. This article presents an informative description of a counseling psychology program’s efforts to incorporate ecological and social justice models into their practicum training. It serves as a model for school psychology faculty interested in creating innovative applied training opportunities for students.

References Albers, C. A., Hoffman, A. J., & Lundahl, A. A. (2009). Journal coverage of issues related to English language learners across student-specific professions. School Psychology Review, 38, 121–134. American Psychological Association. (2009). APA resolution in support of ethnic minority training in psychology. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from . American Psychological Association. (2016). Standards of accreditation for health service psychology. Washington, DC: Author. American Psychological Association Commission on Accreditation. (2015). Implementing regulations. Section C: IRs related to the Standards of Accreditation. Washington, DC: Author. American Psychological Association, Presidential Task Force on Educational Disparities. (2012a). Ethnic and racial disparities in education: Psychology’s contributions to understanding and reducing disparities. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Retrieved from .

392   Rogers and O’Bryon

American Psychological Association, Presidential Task Force on Immigration. (2012c). Crossroads: The psychology of immigration in the new century. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Retrieved from . American Psychological Association, Presidential Task Force on Immigration. (2013). Working with immigrant-origin clients: An update for mental health professionals. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Retrieved from . American Psychological Association, Presidential Task Force on Preventing Discrimination and Promoting Diversity. (2012b). Dual pathways to a better American: Preventing discrimination and promoting diversity. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Retrieved from . American Psychological Association, Presidential Task Force on Psychology’s Contribution to End Homelessness. (2010). Helping people without homes: The role of psychologists and recommendations to advance research, training, practice, and policy. Retrieved from . American Psychological Association, Task Force on Resilience and Strength in Black Children and Adolescents. (2008). Resilience in African American children and adolescents: A vision for optimal development. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from . Armistead, L. D., Castillo, J. M., Curtis, M. J., Chappel, A., & Cunningham, J. (2013). School psychologists’ continuing professional development preferences and practices. Psychology in the Schools, 50, 415–432. doi:10.1002/pits.21684. Aston, C., & Graves, S. (2016). Challenges and barriers to implementing a school-based Afrocentric intervention in urban schools: A pilot student of the Sisters of Nia cultural program. School Psychology Forum, 10, 165–176. Batalova, J., & McHugh, M. (2010). Top languages spoken by English language learners nationally and by state. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute. Bernal, G., Jiménez-Chafey, M. I., & Domenech Rodríguez, M. M. (2009). Cultural adaptation of treatments: A resource for considering culture in evidence-based practice. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40(4), 361–368. doi:10.1037/a0016401. Bronfenbrenner, U. (2005). Making human beings human: Bioecological perspectives on human development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. (2016). Occupational outlook handbook, 2016–17 edition, psychologists. Retrieved from . Charvat, J. L. (2008). Fluency and use of languages other than English among school psychologists: Data from the NASP membership survey. Retrieved from . Conference on the Future of School Psychology. (2012). School psychology: Creating our future(s). Retrieved from . Curtis, M. J., Castillo, J. M., & Gelley, C. D. (2012). School psychology 2010: Demographics, employment and the context for professional practices. Communique, 40, 28–30. Davies, S. C., Lewis, A. A., Anderson, A. E., & Berstein, E. R. (2015). The development of intercultural competency in school psychology graduate students. School Psychology International, 36, 375–392. doi:10.1177/0143034315592664.

Training School Psychologists   393

Flynn, K., & Hill, J. (2005). English language learners: A growing population. Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning, 1–12. Graves, S. L., & Wright, L. B. (2009). Historically Black college and university students’ and faculties’ views of school psychology: Implications for increasing diversity in higher education. Psychology in the Schools, 46, 616 – 626. doi:10.1002/pits.20402. Grunewald, S., Wheeler, A. S., O’Bryon, E. C., Shriberg, D., Miranda, A. H., & Rogers, M. R. (2014). Examining diversity research literature in school psychology from 2004 to 2010. Psychology in the Schools. 51, 421–433. doi:10.1002/pits.21764. Harris, B., Sullivan, A. L., Oades-Sese, G. V., & Sotelo-Dynega, M. (2015). Culturally and linguistically responsive practices in psychoeducational reports for English language learners. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 31, 141–166. doi:10.1080/15377903.2014. 1002144. Harrison, P. L., & Thomas, A. (Eds.)(2014). Best practices in school psychology (6th ed.). Bethesda, MD: NASP. Hoagwood, K., & Johnson, J. (2003). School psychology: A public health framework. Journal of School Psychology, 41, 3–21. doi:10.1016/S0022-4405(02)00141-3. Hussar,W. J., & Bailey,T. M. (2013a). Figure 3: Actual and projected numbers for enrollment in public elementary and secondary schools, by race/ethnicity: Fall 1997 through fall 2022. Projections of education statistics to 2022. (NCES 2014–051). U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Hussar, W. J., & Bailey, T. M. (2013b). Projections of education statistics to 2022. (NCES 2014– 051). U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics.Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Jones, J. M. (Ed.). (2009). The psychology of multiculturalism in the schools: A primer for practice, training, and research. Bethesda, MD: NASP. Kagawa-Singer, M., Dressler, W. W., George, S. M., & Elwood, W. N. (2015). The cultural framework for health: An integrative approach for research and program design and evaluation. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health. Kincheloe, J. L., & McLaren, P. (2002). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. In Y. Zou & E. T. Trueba (Eds.), Ethnography and schools: Qualitative approaches to the study of education (pp. 87–138). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Kowalski, T. J., McCord, R. S., Petersen, G. J., Young, I. P., & Ellerson, N. M. (2011). The American school superintendent: 2010 decennial study. Lanham, MD: American Association of School Administrators and Rowman & Littlefield. Kramer, B. H., & Enomoto, E. K. (2014). Leading ethically in schools and other organizations: Inquiry, case studies, and decision-making (2nd ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Lauricella, M., Valdez, J. K., Okamoto, S. K., Helm, S., & Zaremba, C. (2016). Culturally grounded prevention for minority youth populations: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Primary Prevention, 37, 11–31. doi:10.1007/s10935-015-0414-3. Leong, F. T. L., Comas-Diaz, L., Nagayama Hall, G. C., McLoyd, V. C., & Trimble, J. E. (Eds.). (2014). APA Handbook of multicultural psychology, volumes 1 & 2. Washington, DC: APA. Lopez, E. C., & Rogers, M. R. (2007). Multicultural competencies and training in school psychology: Issues, approaches, and future directions. In G. Esquival, E. C. Lopez, & S. Nahari (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural school psychology: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 47–67). New Jersey: Erlbaum.

394   Rogers and O’Bryon

McGoey, K. E., Munro, A. B., McCobin, A., & Miller, A. (2016). Implementation of culturally relevant school-wide positive behavior support. School Psychology Forum, 10, 134–141. McIntosh, K., Martinez, R. S., Ty, S.V., McClair, M. B. (2013). Scientific research in school psychology: Leading researchers weigh in on its past, present, and future. Journal of School Psychology, 51, 267–318. doi:10.1016/j.jsp2013.04.003. National Association of School Psychologists. (2009). Recruitment of culturally and linguistically diverse school psychologists [Position statement]. Bethesda, MD: Author. National Association of School Psychologists. (2010b). Model for comprehensive and integrated school psychological services. Bethesda, MD: Author. National Association of School Psychologists. (2010a). Standards for graduate preparation of school psychologists. Bethesda, MD: Author. National Association of School Psychologists. (2012a). Vision, mission, core values and priorities. Bethesda, MD: Author. National Association of School Psychologists. (2012b). Effective service delivery for indigenous children and youth [Position statement]. Bethesda, MD: Author. National Association of School Psychologists. (2012c). Racism, prejudice, and discrimination [Position statement]. Bethesda, MD: Author. National Association of School Psychologists. (2012d). Nondiscrimination and equal opportunity policy [Position statement]. Bethesda, MD: Author. National Association of School Psychologists. (2013). Racial and ethnic disproportionality in education [Position statement]. Bethesda, MD: Author. National Association of School Psychologists. (2015). The provision of school psychological services to bilingual students [Position statement]. Bethesda, MD: Author. National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. (2011). Key demographics and practice recommendations for young English learners. Washington, DC: Office of Language Acquisition, U.S. Department of Education. National Council of Teachers of English. (2008). English language learners: A research policy brief by the National Council of Teachers of English. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. National Institutes of Health, Expert Panel on Defining and Operationalizing Culture for Health Research. (2015). The cultural framework for health: An integrative approach for research and program design and evaluation. Bethesda, MD: NIH Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research. Newell, M. L., Nastasi, B. K., Hatzichristou, C., Jones, J. M., Schanding, G. T., & Yetter, G. (2010). Evidence on multicultural training in school psychology: Recommendations for future directions. School Psychology Quarterly, 25, 249–278. doi:10.1037/a0021542. Noltemeyer, A. L., Proctor, S. L., & Dempsey, A. (2013). Race and ethnicity in school psychology publications: A content analysis and comparison to publications in related disciplines. Contemporary School Psychology, 17, 129–142. Nwosu, C., Batalova, J., & Auclair, G. (2014). Frequently requested statistics on immigrants and immigration in the United States. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute. O’Bryon, E. C., & Rogers, M. R. (2010). Bilingual school psychologists’ assessment practices with English language learners. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 1018–1034. doi:10.1002/ pits.20521. Proctor, S. L., & Rogers, M. R. (2013). Making the invisible, visible: Understanding social processes within multicultural internship supervision. School Psychology Forum, 7, 1–12.

Training School Psychologists   395

Rogers, M. R., & O’Bryon, E. C. (2013). Multicultural training models and curriculum. In F.T. L. Leong, L. Comas-Diaz, G. C. Nagayama Hall,V. C. McLoyd, & J. E.Trimble (Eds.), APA handbook of multicultural psychology (pp. 659–679). Washington, DC: APA. Sameroff, A. (Ed.). (2009). Transactional model of development: How children and contexts shape each other. Washington, DC: APA. Shofield, J. W. (2004). Fostering positive intergroup relations in schools. In J. A. Banks & C. A. McGee Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (2nd ed.) (pp. 799–812). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Smith, L.V., Blake, J. J., & Graves, S. L. (2013). School psychology programs’ efforts to recruit culturally diverse students. Trainers’ Forum, 32, 4–23. Smith, L.V., Blake, J. J., Graves, S. L.,Vaughan-Jensen, J., Pulido, R., & Banks, C. A. M. (2016). Promoting diversity through program websites: A multicultural content analysis of school psychology program websites. School Psychology Quarterly. doi:10.1037/spq0000149. Snyder, T. D., & Dillow, S. A. (2013a). Table 80. Number, highest degree, and years of full-time teaching experience of teachers in public and private elementary and secondary school, by selected teacher characteristics: 1999–2000, 2003–2004, and 2007–2008. Digest of Education Statistics 2012 (NCES 2014–015). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U. S. Department of Education: Washington, DC. Snyder, T. D., & Dillow, S. A. (2013b). Digest of Education Statistics 2012 (NCES 2014–015). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute for Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education: Washington, DC. Sullivan, A. L., & Simonson, G. R. (2016). A systematic review of school-based socialemotional interventions for refugee and war-traumatized youth. Review of Educational Research, 86, 503–530. doi:10.3102/0034654315609419. Thomas, A., & Grimes, J. (Eds.) (2008). Best practices in school psychology (5th ed.). Bethesda, MD: NASP. U.S. Census Bureau. (2012). U.S. Census Bureau projections show a slower growing, older, more diverse nation a half century from now. U.S. Department of Commerce: Economics and Statistics Administration. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. U.S. Census Bureau. (2013). Language use in the United States: 2011. American Community Survey Reports. U.S. Department of Commerce: Economics and Statistics Administration. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

Part VII

Future Perspectives

22

Culturally Responsive Collective Impact Teams An Interdisciplinary Vision for the Future Janine M. Jones

Educational reform initiatives have consistently been charged with setting expectations for schools to provide the best education available and to serve the needs of students. Federal mandates have explicitly indicated the need for schoolbased models to focus on prevention, early warning systems, progress monitoring and data to assess student progress (President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education, 2002). As a result of these mandates, school-based models for problem solving have emerged to address the academic and behavioral needs of students in schools. For example, models such as Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) and Response to Intervention (RtI) have been implemented in schools and delivered as separate and unintegrated systems approaches to addressing student behavior and learning needs. Research has shown that both models are effective for supporting students (National Association of School Psychologists [NASP], 2009) and some researchers have even noted that the models complement one another since they focus on prevention, problem-solving using data, research-based interventions, and assessment of fidelity of implementation (Eagle et al., 2015). Recognition of the relationship between these models has led to increased attention on the need for a single, integrated model that structures how we offer student support for academic, socio-emotional, and behavioral needs (Harn et al., 2015; 399

400   Jones

McIntosh et al., 2010). The common denominator between PBIS and RtI is to offer tiered supports that are implemented based on data about student needs. This construct is currently referred to as Multi-tiered Systems of Support (MTSS). MTSS are becoming more prevalent in schools today. MTSS is an integrated, systems-level model where assessment, instruction, and intervention are a part of a continuous process of analysis to ensure that the academic and behavioral needs of all students are met. This approach involves implementing prevention programs for all students and offering intervention supports for students with greater needs when prevention programs are not enough. The structure includes tiered supports where prevention programming is offered at the initial tier and all students are screened for potential areas of difficulty in order to determine need for support. The framework requires the consideration of student needs and strengths at each level of intervention based on ongoing data collection. The MTSS model holds promise for serving culturally and linguistically diverse students because there is an infrastructure in place for student needs to be assessed early and for interventions to be offered within the context of the primary classroom, well before consideration for assessments that could lead to more intensive interventions. However, the MTSS model does not offer any explicit structure for school personnel to intentionally consider culturally responsive practices or the cultural differences of students. One way this has been evident is in the existence of data that shows patterns of disproportionate discipline based on the behavior of culturally and linguistically diverse students (McIntosh et al., 2014). This pattern has highlighted the critical need for culturally responsive interventions to be integrated into all schools. Since many schools are now recognizing that interventions need to be tailored to students in their cultural context, it is time to change the systemic structures of education and make an intentional effort to integrate culturally responsive interventions into multi-tiered systems of support. The primary focus of this chapter is on future comprehensive intervention delivery in schools. In the era of evidence-based treatment approaches and data-based decision making, it is essential that school personnel think carefully about the needs of students and select interventions that are most appropriate for the population of students that they are serving. Additionally, with more schools adopting frameworks such as MTSS, efficient use of resources is absolutely necessary. Efficiency can be cultivated through the application of team-driven problem solving. This chapter provides a model for integrating a collective impact framework into multi-tiered systems of support. The chapter identifies some of the cultural patterns of the professional disciplines that provide services in schools, and offers a vision for the future that includes conducting interdisciplinary collaboration by including multicultural interventions in schools, training, and research. The interdisciplinary collaboration will be referred to as Culturally Responsive Collective Impact Teams (CR-CIT) or the team of school-based personnel working

CR-CIT: An Interdisciplinary Vision   401

collaboratively to apply multicultural principles as student supports are offered via the MTSS framework.

Theoretical and Research Basis There is wide support for MTSS as a systems-level change effort and the optimal framework to address both the academic and behavioral needs of students in schools (Gamm et. al, 2012; Sugai & Horner, 2009). Its structure is inclusive and offers a continuum of strategies that are built into the tiered structure of the model in order to support the different intensity of needs (Harn, Biancarosa, Chard, & Kame’enui, 2011). Thus, MTSS may be the best foundation for structuring the inclusion of culturally responsive interventions in schools. Historically, the efforts to change negative trends in academic outcomes for students in urban settings have failed because they had not adequately considered the context in which students were learning (Tatum & Muhammad, 2012). MTSS has the potential to change ways in which schools think about supporting culturally and linguistically diverse students that past models could not accomplish (Orosco, 2015). Hosp and Madyun (2007) are among the researchers that have advocated for MTSS to address the needs of students in urban schools and the needs of children from ethnic minority backgrounds. The model shifts away from waiting for failure and requiring comprehensive assessments prior to implementing interventions. In the old model, this “wait-to-fail” approach led to even more lost instructional time and long delays before students received any form of support. Waiting potentially hindered the progress of the most vulnerable students who were struggling but did not have learning disabilities. Slavin et al. (2011) compiled evidence to show that MTSS programming for reading interventions is effective. The effectiveness is likely due to the fact that MTSS is a nimble approach to supporting students, and requires the analysis of data at an aggregated level, group level, and the individual student level as interventions are deployed and monitored.Thus, MTSS implementation has potential to facilitate the breakdown of barriers to student achievement and potentially disrupt patterns of disproportionality.

Implementation of MTSS: The Influence of Teams Most decisions within the MTSS framework are made by teams of school-based professionals.These teams may include building leadership teams, student improvement teams, professional learning communities, or grade level teams. School teams that have a culturally responsive lens are likely to make an even greater impact on

402   Jones

the barriers to student achievement because they are more focused on the context in which students are learning.Teams should use data as part of the problem-solving process for both building level and student level issues. As a result, there is potentially an opportunity to analyze cultural factors that may influence the nature of problems at the systems level and individual level. It is through the activities of the MTSS team that a cultural shift can happen as the team can ensure that their goal is to support the greater good of the entire community through a collective impact.

Focusing on a Collective Impact Philanthropists use the term “isolated impact” to refer to social change interventions that are solely focused on the efforts of an individual organization (Kania & Kramer, 2011). Similar to the concept of individualism, isolated impact interventions are intended to focus on a single unit, person, or entity. Conversely, “collective impact” refers to the “commitment of a group of important actors from different sectors to a common agenda for solving a specific social problem” (Kania & Kramer, 2011, para. 6). This approach is more consistent with the cultural phenomenon of collectivism—an intentional focus on the group identity and its shared purpose. By working within a collective impact framework, organizations can move beyond traditional approaches to problem-solving that may be individualistic and not culturally responsive. Perhaps the collective impact approach is what is needed in schools to break down the bureaucratic and territorial barriers that have existed for decades. However, this collective impact will be most effective for culturally and linguistically diverse populations if achieved with school personnel who demonstrate multicultural competence.

Developing Cultural Competence Traditional models by multicultural theorists suggest that multicultural competence skills develop when a professional adopts a clear understanding of their own culture while also obtaining an understanding of cultures that are different from their own (Sue et al., 1992). It is through a combination of this self-awareness and “other” awareness that cultural competence skills can be formed. Using this same approach, one could argue that professional disciplines/systems also have an established culture. For example, school psychologists live within the culture of the helping professions.They are diagnosticians, clinicians, and consultants to families and other professionals. Professional preparation programs help school psychology trainees develop self-awareness, better understanding of others, and culturally sensitive skill building (Lopez & Bursztyn, 2013; Jones et al., 2013).

CR-CIT: An Interdisciplinary Vision   403

Self-awareness can be developed by being exposed to the ways in which culture impacts daily life and decision-making and analyzing personal experiences as they relate to cultural factors. The insight that develops from the process enhances a person’s capacity to be aware of potential biases when interacting with others. The capacity to understand the perspectives of others may be developed through interviewing and observation, while specific skills are developed in assessment and intervention training. Programs that also embed multicultural skills-building go the extra mile in preparing school psychologists to provide comprehensive services to students in schools. In this example, the school psychologists bring their native identity culture, the coexisting culture of being a helping professional, and the skills associated with understanding the interactions between the school psychologist’s culture and the clients they serve. If we were to develop awareness of the cultures of the other professionals in schools, interdisciplinary collaboration could facilitate comprehensive, culturally responsive care provided in an efficient manner.We could design a collective impact initiative, where the best of all resources would be accessible to the decision makers. Resources would be distributed more efficiently with far less overlap and redundancies in care. For example, school psychologists are prepared to work with children, families and teachers, but only to the extent that they offer their expertise on content areas. Far less time is devoted to understanding the culture of the teaching profession and other allied disciplines. Taking the time to learn about and understand the other professional cultures is likely to enhance interdisciplinary collaboration and create an optimal environment with a culture of collaborative problem-solving. In this chapter, other professional communities are referred to as “systems,” since they operate within a well-established culture. To efficiently meet the needs of culturally diverse populations in schools, systemslevel structures with an intentional focus on this purpose are necessary. One could argue that culturally responsive services require adopting a cultural lens in schoolbased service delivery and integrating multicultural knowledge into interventions. Further, teams need to have an understanding of the established cultures within them to guide the collective impact vision. With each of these elements in place, culturally responsive teams can work within the multi-tiered systems of support framework and be most responsive to culturally and linguistically diverse populations and other forms of diversity in schools.

Implications for Practice In schools, most of the values, expectations, and experiences are designed around an individual focus where success is associated with independence and personal achievement. Likewise, student intervention teams are focused on individualism

404   Jones

and interventions are designed using the isolated impact structure. School-based professionals can no longer be wedded to narrow role definitions and remain in professional silos indefinitely. Contemporary approaches are needed to serve the “whole” child and the “whole” system needs to serve the child.

A Structural Change is Needed Imagine if there was a group of school-based professionals whose primary focus was to address problems of practice. Imagine if this group of professionals used the insights of its members to consider cultural factors in all critical decisions. What if the group had an infrastructure that enabled and rewarded inclusive thinking? What if this body of people included representation across all school stakeholders with equal voice and responsibility for outcomes? If a school or district were to create a group such as this, schools might be able to solve problems of practice in the most culturally responsive manner with an interdisciplinary lens. It would represent collective impact initiative and could offer the best structure for strategic change. Collective impact initiatives require a centralized infrastructure, a dedicated team of people, and a structured process (Kania & Kramer, 2011). An initiative with this framework would help organize a shift from an isolated impact (individualism) cultural style to a collective, systemic approach that focuses on establishing relationships between professional communities. Using this method, school professionals could collaborate across disciplines and would be forced to set aside individualistic agendas in favor of the collective good. This team could be called a Culturally Responsive Collective Impact Team.

Culturally Responsive Collective Impact Team (CR-CIT) A CR-CIT could provide the ideal infrastructure for strategic cultural change. This intervention team can be formed through creating collaborative communities of professionals where shared responsibility for leadership and decision-making is part of the culture. These teams would provide the forum for specialist skills to be applied to complex problem-solving situations and future policies can be shaped around the successful outcomes. Figure 22.1 shows a model for a schoolbased collective impact team.The strongest CR-CIT would include team members who have the expertise of their specific discipline as well as cultural competencies. They should know the school and community and, ideally, represent the diversity of the school student population.

CR-CIT: An Interdisciplinary Vision   405

FIGURE 22.1  Culturally Responsive Collective Impact Team. This Figure Summarizes the Activities of the CR-CIT and its Potential Members.

Separate Cultures with a Collective Vision School-based professionals all come with expertise in their respective roles. Students are in contact with school psychologists, educators, administrators, school resource officers, and some even have access to school-based health centers. Often these individual systems, while operating in their own cultural realm, have no structured opportunity to collaborate with other school-based professionals. For example, on a case-by-case basis, the lead administrator may need to collaborate with the school resource officer on a discipline issue, but the collaboration may occur independently from any standardized procedures or protocols. Other professionals, such as teachers, may work independently or mostly within their own cultural network and only access support from school-based professionals in allied disciplines when needed. This is an example of multiple systems working in silos, all within the same setting, and fits the classic definition of isolated impact (Kania & Kramer, 2011). To build a

406   Jones

model where interdisciplinary systems can work together toward the common good, one must have an understanding about the skills, challenges, and strengths of the other professional cultures. Suggested members of the CR-CIT include school psychologists, educators (generalists and specialists), administrators, school resource officers, behavioral healthcare professionals, and cultural brokers.These are key figures who can represent varying professional perspectives. Each professional within these groups has a unique skill set that could be used to solve complex problems while also taking into account the skills and expertise of other members.While all team members are experts in the culture of their discipline, they may not be an expert on the culture of the population that they are serving. Thus, having a team that understands the intersectionality between professional identities, expectations, and the development of solutions for diverse populations is critical.The team should all have a common goal of problemsolving within the frame of their professional culture while also integrating cultural values and beliefs from the other participating disciplines as well at the population that is being served. The following sections address how each professional role might be a strong contributor to the team and support the integration of cultural responsivity in practice. School Psychologists

School psychologists can provide insight on individual interventions and systemlevel concerns. Individual student issues such as student placement decisions, understanding the impact of socio-emotional difficulties on academics and behavior, and developing crisis plans are key topics for which school psychologists can provide input. At the systems level, school psychologists can contribute to developing policies and procedures, and creating system-wide crisis response plans. School psychologists think from a data-based decision-making framework so they can also help determine the types of data that are needed to demonstrate progress and identify gaps in school service needs. Teachers and Other Educators

Teachers and other educators are essential participants on the team. Some of the issues that educators will be able to provide perspectives on include curriculum development and design, classroom management, feasibility of intervention programs, and addressing culturally responsive family/home communication approaches. Educators can also engage in discussions about effective discipline policies and practices that are culturally inclusive and have a reduced long-term impact on educational outcomes.

CR-CIT: An Interdisciplinary Vision   407

Building Leaders

School administrators are deeply entrenched in policy- and system-level issues in schools. Given their role, they are likely to have a broader perspective about the culture of the school. They have insight into the issues related to managing human capital, the nature and accountability associated with bureaucratic oversight, and resource development and management. Since they set the tone for collaboration and communication among the staff, it is essential for administrators to support the efforts of the CR-CIT. Their participation on the team may lead to greater efficiency in problem-solving and increased accountability for team members. School Resource Officers

School resource officers (SRO) are professionals that have typically not been included in district- or building-level teams. SROs have been considered a “resource” yet are frequently not integrated into the fabric of the school setting. SROs provide a unique perspective that would be beneficial to all other members of the collective. According to the suggested guidelines developed by the National Association of School Resource Officers (NASRO), the school resource officer’s role should be to “protect and educate” (National Association of School Resource Officers, 2013).They can not only implement drug and crime prevention programs, but can also be a liaison to the legal system. As participants of the team, SROs can help administrators and other school-based professionals create and implement policies that differentiate between disciplinary situations requiring school-based action versus legal action. The teams can use the insights and experiences of SROs to determine appropriate prevention and de-escalation approaches for behavior as well as crisis situations (Jones, 2014). Healthcare Professionals

Physicians, physician assistants, psychologists, school and mental health counselors, nurses, psychiatric nurse practitioners, social workers, and dental hygienists are among the staff that work within and support school-based health centers. These providers have contemporary knowledge in medical issues, evidence-based treatment, medications and can provide medical triage in a variety of crisis situations. More than any other setting, professionals in schools (e.g., school psychologists and school counselors) and school-based health centers are most likely to be the first professionals to notice suicidal ideation and non-suicidal self-injury in students. They also may observe indicators of internalizing disorders such as depression and anxiety. The healthcare professionals can contribute to the collective impact intervention team by giving input on developing policies and procedures to require the implementation of evidence-based treatment approaches while also helping the

408   Jones

administrators have a documented plan for handling such situations. School-based healthcare providers can also help administrators and educators determine the appropriate course of action to support students with medical issues that may present on the school campuses. Given the urgent nature of such clinical indicators, a consistently applied, team-based approach is optimal. Cultural Brokers

The final ideal team member is a person (or persons) who are occasionally included in student intervention teams—cultural brokers. Cultural brokers are allies that are connected to the school system and have the ability to analyze situations and recognize which cultural factors are salient to interventions. Cultural brokers, also referred to as cultural liaisons, are experts in cultures, communities, languages, assessing acculturation, and in bridging relationships in a culturally responsive way. They can be a parent representative from the parent association, a language interpreter, or a member of a community-based organization that focuses on cultural issues, or something similar. They do not need to be hired as fulltime staff; however, the cultural expert should at least be paid a stipend for their work to acknowledge the valuable resource that they bring to the team. Cultural brokers may also have another role in the school while providing the cultural expertise to the CR-CIT team. For example, a cultural broker may be hired as a family support liaison with the school district while also having expertise in a specific culture that is highly represented in a school (e.g. Somali refugees). In this example, the family support liaison can also assist the team in understanding the cultural factors that must be considered in developing interventions for Somali students and engaging their families. Cultural brokers with this level of involvement at the school may be the most effective in supporting the work of the CR-CIT. By including cultural brokers on the team, there is an opportunity to not only bring in critical voices to school-level intervention teams, but also to infuse flexibility in membership. Just as the educators on the team will shift, based on the issues, the cultural brokers will also shift. As a result, teams need to have some fluidity of membership, including having access to multiple cultural brokers that can participate depending upon the issue presented.Thus, there should be flexibility where the teams can access a variety of cultural experts as issues arise. The most important element is to maintain the infrastructure of having a cultural broker as a regular participant or “voice” in decision-making and intervention planning.

Optimizing Success of the CR-CIT According to Kania and Kramer (2011) there are five conditions that are required for success in collective impact initiatives: (a) a common agenda, (b) shared data

CR-CIT: An Interdisciplinary Vision   409

measurement, (c) continuous communication, (d) mutually reinforcing experiences, and (e) organizational support. The first four of these conditions are discussed below in the context of the proposed CR-CIT framework. A Common Agenda

Having shared responsibility for outcomes is one way for a group of teams to develop a common agenda. One crucial aspect of operating through collectivism is to leave personal/individual agendas at the door. If each representative from the different professional groups adheres to the common agenda, there is less likelihood for discord among members. When working in groups, a shared vision is something that is hard to reach without process, discussion and encouragement. Differing perspectives can get lost when the dynamic of “group think” occurs (Janis, 1972). “Group think” is a psychological phenomenon that occurs when members of a group are so focused on seeking harmony and conformity that they forgo an individual perspective for the majority opinion. If a CR-CIT does not recognize when group think is interfering with a critical analysis of problems, there is a risk that the success of the group will be impaired.The presence of a cultural broker on the CR-CIT may have a powerful influence on the process of achieving a common agenda. Cultural brokers have the skills to recognize when cultural expectations and beliefs are impacting decisionmaking.The cultural broker can be a key facilitator in ensuring that all voices are heard in the process.Thus, having members who recognize the need for a common agenda, who do not feel committed to a specific solution, and who are open to hearing multiple perspectives for analyzing a problem are most likely to be successful. A school-based service provider that may have a difficult to discern shared agenda is the SRO. SROs are often focused on the prevention of crime and violence at school so, on the surface, it may appear that they do not have a common agenda with other school personnel. However, being an “informal counselor or problem solver” has been described as the most important role of the SRO (NASRO, 2013). As a member of a CR-CIT, the SRO can be exposed to other elements of the child/adolescent besides behavior. Evaluating risk and responding to aggressive or violent behavior are situations that the SRO can work with other school staff to identify developmentally and culturally appropriate responses for students in the school. Cultural brokers can help define the function of behaviors while also engaging the team in recognizing the cultural context of the problem. Then the team includes members who can all activate culturally responsive interventions for children that are prevention focused rather than reactive. Thus, the ultimate common agenda is to be prevention focused and culturally responsive. Shared Data Measurement

Data-based decisions are increasingly becoming the metric for functioning in schools today. As a collective, the team must align efforts and determine what

410   Jones

indicators should be measured to document progress. There should be common criteria that are measured with the same frequency and format in all settings. This will allow for comparisons between settings because there are consistent goals. Aligning goals and measurement tools increases accountability among members of the collective.They can learn not only from one another, but also from the positive and not-so-positive outcomes.The most critical element of shared and aligned data measurement is to use data that are disaggregated in ways that disproportionate outcomes can be determined (McIntosh et al., 2014). For example, data that are aggregated by race and gender helps highlight opportunities for recognizing the impact of cultural diversity in academic and behavioral outcomes. Further, cultural issues must be taken into consideration not only when identifying the focus of a problem, but also in the interpretation of the data. School administrators must use data to support decisions and they also have to answer to any negative data trends that happen within their school context. The CR-CIT can be the unit that focuses on reviewing data, analyzing data, and ultimately taking the lead on identifying problems and generating building-level solutions to address the problem. The CR-CIT review disaggregated school data so that outcomes can be easily recognized based on the populations served. For example, if a pattern of disproportionate representation of students of color in special education is apparent based on analysis of data, it creates a ripe opportunity for the CR-CIT to apply shared leadership in not only identifying the problem, but also the solutions.When solutions to problems come from a team of people who are culturally diverse and responsive, and who can look at the problem objectively, better outcomes are more likely to result. Continuous Communication

Trust is the foundation for communication for any collective group. Individual interests must be communicated and hidden agendas should be brought into view. Once agendas are out in the open, needs can be addressed and possibly met by being included as factors for consideration. Similarly, differing perspectives in defining and analyzing problems must be resolved through open communication. Through communication, CR-CITs can create a common vocabulary and set goals that are mutually beneficial to others within the collective. In addition, the teams learn about multicultural communication and how cross-cultural communication conflict can lead to mistrust and obstruct progress. Concepts such as recognizing the differences in communication between low context and high context cultures should be a key aspect of the open communication (Hall, 1976). Consultation is an element of school psychology practice that lends itself well to optimal communication. School psychologists could lead CR-CITs in communicating between members and other stakeholders in the school. For example, some

CR-CIT: An Interdisciplinary Vision   411

schools have a school-based health center on site that provides near-immediate access to physicians, physician assistants, nurses, social workers, psychiatrists, psychologists, and other mental health professionals during the school day. These professionals have a skill set that includes extensive medical knowledge and awareness of both health and mental health conditions that may affect learning. Ongoing communication about the culture of the school, common areas of need for children and families, and a shared focus on prevention is one way the CR-CIT can be especially effective. Having access to these professionals as part of a CR-CIT poses the opportunity to be prevention-focused through ongoing communication and responsive action.With the opportunity for two-way communication, providers in school-based health centers would be an excellent resource for helping determine the level of care for students in need of support. Mutually Reinforcing Experiences

Shared goals allow members of the collective to move toward success. By combining, coordinating and linking efforts, there is a greater chance for a favorable outcome for the whole group. A common agenda can easily translate into a mutual goal, that is, for the team to remain grounded in a culturally responsive lens and framing all prevention efforts and supports around this lens. In essence, cultural responsivity is the foundation while all supports are linked to the foundation. One culturally responsive technique is to remain strengths-focused in problemsolving.The interdisciplinary expertise on the CR-CIT allows for seeking strengths while problem-solving complex issues across a variety of educational situations. This team can potentially have the depth and breadth of experience to implement culturally responsive skills in a variety of cultural contexts and to guide other school-based professionals in providing culturally responsive care. There is a growing number of school psychologists with expertise in bilingual education, bilingual assessment, and identifying appropriate interventions for English language learners both with and without disabilities (Lopez & Rogers, 2007). These specially-trained school psychologists have well-established skills in culturally responsive care and apply a cultural lens on all the services that they provide. Working together with teachers, both bilingual school psychologists and culturally responsive school psychologists can spend time assessing cultural factors before implementing any interventions. For example, assessing acculturation is a key cultural factor that impacts the type of intervention that is to be applied. Integrating a person’s style of acculturation into treatment increases the opportunity for favorable treatment outcomes (Jones, 2014). Similarly, educators with a focus on equity issues in schools have a strong understanding of the theoretical underpinnings of multicultural education (Banks, 2006; Howard, 2006).Through their knowledge of multicultural education, teachers have

412   Jones

the ability to provide culturally responsive instruction and to select academic content that integrates culture into the learning experiences for all students. Some educators also have specialized expertise in teaching English language learners and culturally and linguistically diverse students.

The CR-CIT in Action In the future, CR-CITs might be formed at two levels: at the district level and at the sub-district level. At the district level, representatives of each professional group (as shown in Figure 22.1) would convene around systems-level issues and outlining policies, procedures, and expectations for interventions at the sub-district and building levels. Applying a narrower frame of reference, the sub-district CR-CIT teams could include representation from clusters of schools that span across grade levels and are responsible for ensuring that guidelines stemming from the district level CR-CIT are implemented with fidelity. There is an opportunity for both lateral and vertical communication within the district by having two levels of teams. Collectivism then becomes a cultural value that is instilled at all levels of the accountability. These team meetings can include a structure that is facilitated by an organizational development specialist, but the process would remain consistent.The CR-CIT would make all decisions using a standardized problem-solving process, such as the model used in behavioral consultation (Bergan & Kratochwill, 1990). By systematically analyzing problems from an interdisciplinary perspective, the proposed interventions that result are more likely to bypass barriers to implementation. The sub-district level CR-CIT could be the group to evaluate interventions for implementation fidelity and progress. When further structural change is necessary, the particular systems-level issue can circle back to the district-level CR-CIT.

Implications for Future Training and Research The Multi-tiered Systems of Support model of school intervention has provided additional structure for implementing team-based problem solving. There is much to be learned from teams of practitioners that deal with complicated issues on a daily basis. Often, schools seek support and guidance from university training programs; however, the application of team-based intervention is an area where university training programs can learn from school teams. The experiences with implementation of CR-CITs can enhance the training provided by school psychology graduate programs as well as the research-to-practice partnerships that are facilitated by faculty in training programs. Thus, the following sections address how CR-CITs can improve training and research in school psychology programs.

CR-CIT: An Interdisciplinary Vision   413

Culturally Responsive Collective Impact Approaches in Training For CR-CITs to be effective, members of the team must have exposure to training that facilitates thinking from an ecological systems perspective. This training needs to occur both at the pre-service level as well as the in-service level. By having an understanding of ecological systems perspectives, the team members are much more equipped to analyze data in a manner that considers environmental, cultural, and interpersonal variables in decision making. The following sections provide suggestions on ways to prepare future school personnel both at the preservice and in-service level. Preservice Preparation

One way to prepare school personnel to think from an interdisciplinary perspective is to provide opportunities to engage with other school personnel trainees. For example, within colleges of education, there are programs that support the preservice learning of school psychologists, educators, and school leaders/administrators. Even though these training programs are housed within the same college, there is often no collaboration across disciplines.Then, when graduates enter their respective fields, they learn how to manage the hierarchy and complicated school-based relationships on their own. If programs were more proactive, this would not be necessary. Rather, colleges could build collective impact teamwork in preservice learning experiences. Imagine a Collective Impact Team that is embedded in a field-based practicum setting. This team could include a trainee from the principal leadership program, a school psychology trainee, a school social worker, and a teacher. These trainees could be paired with mentors (actual staff in the same roles in the school). Then, as part of the field-based practicum, the team is charged with working together to solve a problem of practice, with the support of their mentors. Providing a training experience like this would enable graduates to start their own CR-CIT and anchor the structure off their training experiences. Such a structure would foster generations of interdisciplinary thinkers and practitioners in schools. In-service Preparation

Training while in-service as a school-based professional can be flexible and ongoing to support the members of school teams. The focus of in-service training should be developing a strong understanding of the multicultural needs of the students and families within the school community. With greater understanding of the cultural context, the team members are better able to integrate cultural factors into problem-solving processes and generate solutions that are culturally responsive.

414   Jones

In-service training should also be focused on learning and implementing new innovations in multi-tiered services. For example, CR-CIT members are able to not only gain new skills in implementation at tier one (i.e., universal or schoolwide approaches), but also at group and individual levels. Culturally responsive interventions for academics and behavior require members to continuously evaluate problems from a multicultural lens, interpret in a cultural context, and select interventions that are responsive to student needs. Thus, training and support on the application of these steps will allow team members the opportunity to receive technical assistance in situations that are complex and unfamiliar. Continuing education is the best way for CR-CITs to be nimble and responsive to the changing population of their school and ultimately facilitates a culturally focused team.

Culturally Responsive Collective Impact Approaches in Research CR-CITs are not only applicable to providing structural change in clinical practice, but they can also be effective in research. In fact, there is a long history of perspectives around research being inherently interdisciplinary that has led to partnershipbased research models. Examples of partnership-based research are Participatory Action Research (Lewin, 1946) and Community Based Partnership Research (Harper & Salina, 2000). These approaches integrate the complexity and interconnectedness among community systems, schools, and families (Ozer, Ritterman, & Wanis, 2010).Through partnership work, the research can be nimble and responsive to the diverse needs of the stakeholders participating in the research and for the research teams conducting the research.Thus, collective impact research teams that are modeled after well-established interdisciplinary research partnership models are more likely to succeed. One of the most ideal aspects of collective impact approaches is the similar structure to research partnership models. The structure inherently allows for its members to be driven by local needs, resources, and priorities. Both are based on the belief that partnering with appropriate stakeholders to address problems of practice or social problems results in higher quality research designs and more meaningful outcomes (Fantuzzo, McWayne, & Bulotski, 2003). The reason for this is that the knowledge capacity of the team members extends across disciplines and experiences, and contributes to deep analysis of even the most complex problems. Given that stakeholders are involved from the design of the research study through analysis of the findings, there is a stronger likelihood that the research will be responsive to the needs of its participants and will also provide implications for future practice.

CR-CIT: An Interdisciplinary Vision   415

School mental health research is becoming more focused on problems of practice through research-practice partnerships (RPP) (Bruns et al., 2016;   Weist et al., 2013). Research-practice partnerships often include co-investigators: one that takes the lead from the research institution’s side and the other from the practitioner’s side. This, in theory, creates interdisciplinary leadership for a research team.With differing perspective in leadership, there becomes an opportunity for deeply held beliefs to be questioned and analyzed; thereby creating ripe opportunities for progress toward growth (Campbell, 2005). If CR-CITs were to adopt this same framework, the dynamic would be the same, that is, positioning research to be more objective and have a greater impact across disciplines. Thus a collective impact research team would include the following elements: (a) collaboration, (b) application of stakeholder perception of the problem, (c) resource application for a variety of sources, (d) responsiveness to the needs of constituents, and (e) linkages to the development of interventions that are customized to the context. These elements define the Culturally Responsive Collective Impact Research team (CR-CIRT). The CR-CIRT cannot help but function as culturally responsive when it considers cultural styles, expectations, and needs of the stakeholders as part of the research team processes. Basically, the CR-CIRT now is a microcosm for the community it serves and the challenges that are centered on differences can be worked out within the context of the team and extended to the study design, intervention, and data collection (McQuiston et al., 2005). Researchers often adopt models of research that are successful because of the team/partnership design.Therefore, CR-CIRTs should not be considered unusual or a departure from the integrity of the well-established models for research partnership. Rather, the CR-CIRT is another evolution of action research, that allows for cultural factors to be explicitly addressed within the interdisciplinary team dynamics as well as within the research itself.

Implications for the Future Expanding the traditional school-based intervention team approach to include school resource officers, cultural brokers, medical collaborators, and extended family on all teams is one way that we can move from an individualistic, isolated impact model of service delivery in schools. Through collective communities and structures, a culture of interdisciplinary communication would be established. Developing collective impact intervention teams at the district level, sub-district level and the building level will increase the sustainability of the collectivism approach and enhance the supports that flow within it. Similar to the multi-tiered systems of support implementation teams, the CR-CIT is one model that might enhance the team’s ability for success in serving all children in the school with

416   Jones

culturally responsive processes. Just as MTSS teams follow a process to evaluate the effectiveness of intervention decisions, so should the CR-CITs. With more districts adopting policies for schools to function within an MTSS framework, there needs to be a focus on how to provide services in a culturally responsive way. The proposed model of applying CR-CITs to the ongoing processes of the MTSS framework is a way to ensure that cultural responsivity is built in to the infrastructure of schools. With a CR-CIT that is constructed with intentionality, the team members’ interdisciplinary expertise will offer the strongest capacity to be responsive to culturally and linguistically diverse students and communities. Through the collective impact of CR-CITs, innovative schools of the future will create a context that is ripe for consistent provision of culturally responsive and comprehensive support in schools.

Resources Discussion Questions 1. What are some of the barriers that may impact adopting a Culturally Responsive Collective Impact Team at the district level? What are some of the solutions that may be used to break down these barriers? 2. Why should districts develop these teams at the district level rather than solely at the building level? 3. How might the culture of the school change with a Culturally Responsive Collective Impact team in place?

Professional Organizations Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) Health Resources and Services Administration: School Based Health Centers National Center for Cultural Competence

References Banks, J. A. (2006). Cultural diversity and education: Foundation, curriculum and teaching. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Browne, J. (2003). Derailed:The schoolhouse to jailhouse track. Washington, DC: Advancement Project. Bruns, E., Duong, M., Lyon, A., Pullmann, M., Cook, C., Cheney, D., & McCauley, E. (2016). Fostering SMART partnerships to develop an effective continuum of behavioral health services and supports in schools. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 86(2), 156–170.

CR-CIT: An Interdisciplinary Vision   417

Campbell, L. M. (2005). Overcoming obstacles to interdisciplinary research. Conservation Biology, 19(2), 574–577. Eagle, J. W., Dowd-Eagle, S. E., Snyder, A., & Gibbons Holtzman, E. (2015) Implementing a Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS): Collaboration between school psychologists and administrators to promote systems level change, Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 25(2–3), 160–177. doi:10.1080/10474412.2014.929960. Fantuzzo, J., McWayne, C., & Bulotski, R. (2003). Forging strategic partnerships to advance mental health science and practice for vulnerable children. School Psychology Review, 32, 17–37. Gamm, S., Elliott, J., Wright Halbert, J., Price-Baugh, R., Hall, R., Walston, D., Uro, G., & Casserly, M. (2012). Common Core State Standards and diverse urban students: Using multitiered systems of support. Washington, DC: Council of the Great City Schools (CGCS). Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. New York: Anchor. Hanchen,T. . . ., & Fernald, L. N. (2013).The provision of counseling services among school psychologists. Psychology in the Schools, 50(7), 651–671. Harn, B. A., Basaraba, D., Chard, D. J., & Fritz, R. (2015). The impact of schoolwide prevention efforts: Lessons learned from implementing independent academic and behavior support systems. Learning Disabilities, 13(1), 3–20. Harn, B. A., Chard, D. J., Biancarosa, G., & Kame’enui, E. J. (2011). Coordinating instructional supports to accelerate at-risk first-grade readers’ performance. Elementary School Journal, 112, 332–355. Harper, G., & Salina, D. (2000). Building collaborative partnerships to improve community based HIV prevention research:The university-CBO collaborative partnership (UCCP) model. Journal of Prevention and Intervention in the Community, 19, 1–20. Hinds, L. (2009).Youth, police legitimacy and informal contact. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 24, 10–21. Hosp, J. L., & Madyun, N. H. (2007). Addressing disproportionality with response to intervention. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns, & A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention:The science and practice of assessment and intervention (pp. 172–181). New York: Springer. Howard, G. R. (2006). We can’t teach what we don’t know: White teachers, multiracial schools (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press. Janis, I. (1972). Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign policy decisions and fiascoes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Jones, J. M. (2014). Best practices in providing culturally responsive interventions. In A.Thomas, & P. Harrison (Eds.) Best practices in school psychology (6th ed.). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists. Jones, J. M. (2014). Conflicting cultures with a common goal: Collaborating with school resources officers. Communique, 42(6), 4–6. Jones, J. M., Sander, J., & Booker, K. (2013). Multicultural competency building: Practical solutions for training and evaluating student progress. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 7(1), 12–22. Kania, J., & Kramer, M. (2011, Winter). Collective impact. Retrieved October 8, 2013, from Stanford Social Innovation Review: . Kratochwill, T. R., & Bergan, J. R. (1990). Behavioral consultation in applied settings: An individual guide. Springer Science & Business Media.

418   Jones

Lewin, K. (1946). Action Research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2, 34–46. Lopez, E. C., & Bursztyn, A. M. (2013). Future challenges and opportunities: Toward culturally responsive training in school psychology. Psychology in the Schools, 50(3), 212–228. Lopez, E. C., & Rogers, M. R. (2007). Multicultural competencies and training in school psychology: Issues, approaches, and future directions. In G. Esquivel, E. C. Lopez, & S. Nahari (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural school psychology (pp. 47–67). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. McIntosh, K., Girvan, E. J., Horner, R. H., Smolkowski, K., & Sugai, G. (2014). Recommendations for addressing discipline disproportionality in education. OSEP Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports. Retrieved July 27, 2016 from . McIntosh, K., Goodman, S., & Bohanan, H. (2010). Toward true integration of academic and behavior response to intervention systems, Pt 3: Tier 3 Support. Communique, 39, 30–31. McQuiston, C., Parrado, E., Martinez, A., & Uribe, L. (2005). Community-based participatory research with Latino community member: Horizonte Latino. Journal of Professional Nursing, 21(4), 210–2015. National Association of School Psychologists. (2009). Appropriate behavioral, social, and emotional supports to meet the needs of all students (Position Statement). Bethesda, MD: Author. National Association of School Resource Officers. (2013). NASRO. Retrieved October 19, 2013, from . National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards. Retrieved October 30, 2013, from . Office for Civil Rights. (2013). Civil Rights Data Collection. Retrieved April 15, 2013, from . Orosco, M. J. (2015). The need for culturally responsive multi-tier system of supports. Retrieved July 19, 2016 from . Ozer, E. J., Ritterman, M. L., & Wanis, M. G. (2010). Participatory action research (PAR) in middle school: Opportunities, constraints, and key processes. American Journal of Community Psychology, 46, 152–166. President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education. (2002). A new era: Revitalizing special education for children and their families. Retrieved July 22, 2016 from . Slavin, R. E., Lake, C., Davis, S., & Madden, N. (2011). Effective programs for struggling readers: A best-evidence synthesis. Educational Research Review, 6, 1–26. Sue, D., Arredondo, P., & McDavis, R. (1992). Multicultural counseling competencies and standards: A call to the profession. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 20, 64–88. Sugai, G. & Horner, R. H. (2009). Responsiveness-to-Intervention and School-wide Positive Behavior Supports: Integration of multi-tiered system approaches. Exceptionality, 17, 223–237.

CR-CIT: An Interdisciplinary Vision   419

Sullivan, A. L. (2013). Understanding and addressing inequities in special education. In D. Shriberg, S. Y. Song, A. H. Miranda, & K. M. Radliff (Eds.), School psychology and social justice: Conceptual foundations and tools for practice (pp. 73–91). New York, NY: Routledge. Tatum, A.W. & Muhammad, G. E. (2012). African American males and literacy development in contexts that are characteristically urban. Urban Education, 47(2), 434–463. Triandis, H. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview. Weist, M., Youngstrom, E., Stephan, S., Lever, N., Fowler, J., Taylor, L., . . . Hoagwood, K. (2013). Challenges and ideas form a research program on high-quality, evidence-based practice in school mental health. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 43(2), 244–255.

23

Looking Back and Ahead Envisioning Research, Training, and Practice in School Psychology Alberto M. Bursztyn and Carol Korn-Bursztyn

School psychology has a tradition of working in the interstices between psychology and education, alternately adopting and mediating between historical, social, and cultural trends. This chapter describes the historic influences on the field as a context for exploring the pivotal juncture at which school psychology stands today. The evolving role of school psychology is especially worth considering now as schools and communities across the United States (U.S.) struggle with questions regarding social diversity, particularly inclusion and the negative consequences of exclusion and marginalization. Diversity—defined broadly to include race, ethnicity, culture, language, gender, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, age, physical abilities, religious beliefs, and other dimensions of group identity—must be at the core of research, preparation, and practice of all school psychologists. The chapter begins with a critical review of the history of intelligence testing, and its place in school psychology. It explores and challenges the field’s dominant research and practice paradigms for their historical role in shaping the culture of the field, and presents alternative research and practice frameworks. Finally, the chapter considers implications for the future of school psychology practice, professional preparation, and research in an increasingly diverse society. 420

Looking Back and Ahead   421

Theoretical and Research Basis The Historical Context of School Psychology Practice To re-imagine school psychology’s role in an increasingly diverse society, we need to critically reconsider the historic roots of the field, including the troubled relationship between school psychology, mental measurement, and the politics of social exclusion. Discussion of the historic role of testing is followed by consideration of the role of child treatment in school psychology. Finally, the historic context of school psychology research is explored. A Brief History of Intelligence Testing

At the turn of the twentieth century, popular enthusiasm for mental measurement and nativist reaction against immigration heavily influenced psychology and its research agenda. Meanwhile, mainstream social scientists, including psychologists, embraced the eugenics movement and social Darwinism in efforts to prove the intellectual superiority of the White race.This trend found expression decades later in the rise of Nazi ideology culminating in the Holocaust. In the U.S. and abroad the discourse on race-based, genetic roots of intelligence persists into the twenty first century. For example, in 2006 the International Society for Intelligence Research awarded Arthur Jensen a Lifetime Achievement Award. Division 16 (School Psychology) of the American Psychological Association bestowed him a similar award in 2000. The Southern Poverty Law Center (2015) described Jensen as “arguably the father of modern academic racism who provided a patina of academic respectability to the pseudo-scientific theories of black inferiority and segregationist public policies.” The early twentieth-century project of mental measurement, a project that laid the groundwork for the profession of school psychology, was anything but neutral. As an early and enthusiastic adopter, the U.S. political establishment deployed the tools of measurement to define the country’s future demographics. Mental measurement became inextricably linked to growing anxieties regarding increased numbers of recent arrivals to the U.S., including more than two and half million Italians, two million Jews from Russia and Eastern Europe, and many Poles, Hungarians, Austrians, and Greeks. A growing political agenda to preserve Northern European “genetic stock” led to policies designed to exclude potential immigrants from China and Southern and Eastern Europe (American Social History Project, 2013). For instance, the Chinese Exclusion Act 1882 barred Chinese immigration and made it all but impossible for Chinese immigrants to become naturalized citizens. Psychology’s founders endorsed and contributed to the project of social engineering with the stated purpose of controlling the gene pool of the U.S. (Gould, 1981). In practice this took the form of forced sterilization of the “feebleminded,”

422   Bursztyn and Korn-Bursztyn

and scrutiny of potential immigrants for signs of defective physiognomy or impaired mental functioning (Fagan & Wise, 2000, p. 34). In 1897, efforts to restrict the immigration of non-English speakers and the poor led President Grover Cleveland to veto a law proposing prospective newcomers take a literacy test. Mental measurement, a new and growing academic field, skirted legal objections by offering an alternative venue for selecting prospective immigrants while avoiding entirely the question of English language literacy (Gould, 1981). In his book Howard Andrew Knox: Pioneer of intelligence testing at Ellis Island, John Richardson described how Knox, a medical examiner at Ellis Island, devised a number of non-verbal, performance-based intelligence tests to screen potential immigrants.The government, professional establishment, and general public uncritically adopted Knox’s work. Each desired the restriction of what they believed would be a flooding of America’s shores by the cognitively impaired (Richardson, 2011). Significantly, Knox’s measures were adapted for use with American recruits in World War I, and later influenced the development of other performance-based measures, including the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children. Challenges to the assumption that any measure, even one that was non-verbal and purported to be “culture free,” could ever be stripped of cultural influence were still decades away. School psychology, perhaps more so than related fields, built its applied practice on the perceived objectivity of mental measures and embraced the administration of these tools as a central feature of its professional culture. A Brief History of Testing in School Psychology Practice

Cattell’s (1890) publication on mental tests brought the new field of cognitive measurement to the academy. The university became a site of research, development, and training of practitioners in the fields of teaching and in the emerging field of applied psychology. John Dewey, at the University of Chicago, established a lab school where he field-tested and developed progressive education theory—an approach to teaching and learning centered on experiential and social learning. The development of progressive education occurred alongside the empiricist measurement movement; both found their homes within university settings and gave rise to contrasting visions of a rapidly expanding public education. Progressive education focused on informed engagement in a democratic society. Mental measurement held the promise of an orderly society based on the efficient sorting of individuals by ability levels. University-based psychological clinics where mental measures and techniques could be field-tested emerged in this period, the first by Lightner Wittmer at the University of Pennsylvania in 1896. School-based clinics appeared on the landscape in subsequent years as school psychology and clinical psychology began to develop professional identities. School psychology’s early origins are closely linked with

Looking Back and Ahead   423

both clinical psychology and the testing movement, which promised a scientific approach to schooling through testing (Conoley & Gutkin, 1995). Psychology, specifically mental measurement, played a new role in the U.S. armed forces during World War I as large-scale psychological testing of recruits served the pragmatic purpose of assigning roles to soldiers. This watershed use of intelligence testing moved the discipline beyond the university into the social realm and the public imagination (Fagan & Wise, 2000). On the heels of the armed forces experience, Louis Terman’s 1916 Stanford revision of the Binet-Simon scales offered the promise of applying scientific principles to the organization of schools. Intelligence testing gained rapid acceptance among educators, which resulted in the adoption of testing applications in most public schools. Mental measurement became increasingly accepted and valued as an objective tool, not only for sorting students, but for the larger project of social organization. Terman’s mental measurement legacy not only set the stage for school psychology’s emergence as a profession, but also cemented testing as its central professional function. Over the following decades, measurement for the pragmatic purposes of class placement resulted in a well-established tradition of testing and sorting children. Consequently, the training of school psychologists emphasized cognitive assessment and focused on educational gate-keeping. These practices proved detrimental to racial and linguistic minority students, who were systematically tracked in schools based on IQ test scores. Progressively the practice of student tracking was curbed by efforts of parents and child advocates. By the late 1970s minority group children were disproportionally represented in segregated special education settings; eventually legal challenges led to further restrictions in testing practices (Artiles et al., 2011). School Psychology and Child Treatment

Following World War II, mainstream psychology distanced itself from eugenics; school psychology in particular embraced behavioral science as its primary intervention modality. The rise of American behaviorism fit well with school psychology’s focus on empirically validated practice and provided the field with a coherent belief system. Behavioral change was increasingly seen as subject to direct, empirically validated intervention protocols. Contrastingly, the return of traumatized U.S. veterans after World War II led clinical psychology to develop an emphasis on treatment alongside assessment. In their approach to treatment, clinical and counseling psychology focused attention on intrinsic individual change, while school psychology was more likely to pursue change through environmental controls. The alignment of school psychology with behaviorism led the field to promote specialized learning environments and to focus on behavior modification.This approach to intervention continues to this day

424   Bursztyn and Korn-Bursztyn

and contributes to an under-appreciation of the role of affect in learning and the impact of lived experience on children’s social and emotional development. Concurrently, the European tradition of child psychology, influenced by early twentieth-century thinkers and researchers, including Freud, Piaget, and Vygotsky, turned to addressing loss in childhood and the profound traumas of war and dislocation on child survivors. During and immediately following World War II, the field of child psychology as a theoretical and an applied, practice-based discipline grew out of clinical experience working with children who had suffered devastating war-related losses and trauma. It is noteworthy that European women practitioners led the European tradition of child treatment continuing the case study research approach that Sigmund Freud pioneered. Further, they connected child psychology with early childhood pedagogy, pioneering a therapeutic nursery school approach. The new feminist wave in psychology informed by women practitioners including Karen Horney (1950, 1967) and Sabina Spielrein (Vidal, 2003) informed child psychotherapy and the emergence of play therapy; their work found a receptive audience in early childhood pedagogy. School psychology, however, maintained its historic connection to a narrow agenda of empirically validated mental measurement and behavior modification. Child and family therapy increasingly became the province of other mental health professionals while school psychology redoubled its adherence to its foundational epistemology. School psychology’s epistemology, the means by which a field develops its unique knowledge, has retained a traditional, hierarchical model of social science research. The section that follows explores the historic contexts of school psychology’s foundational epistemology and its expression in the field’s dominant research paradigm. The section critiques the traditional, hierarchical model of research in the social sciences, and presents an alternative research paradigm in the practitioner-researcher model.

The Historical Context of School Psychology Research Over the past few decades social science research has been subject to substantive critique as scholars question the appropriateness of applying methods of inquiry devised for natural phenomena to study human experience and behavior. At the root of this critique is a challenge to the positivistic paradigm (see Chapter 20, this edition) that has anchored social science research since first conceptualized. Basic questions about what constitutes legitimate knowledge and what role it should play in shaping professional practices have recently generated new thinking and produced alternative research methodologies (Franklin, 2012).

Looking Back and Ahead   425

In teacher education, for example, researchers point to the person of the educator and the idiosyncratic relationships between adults and children as critical areas of inquiry and intervention. They argue that knowledge about clinical practice does not emerge from contrived empirically-controlled studies, but from carefully guided and reflective engagement in real settings (Jalongo & Isenberg, 1995; Korn-Bursztyn, 2007; MacLean & Mohr, 1999). In contrast, school psychology’s epistemology, best described as positivistic and quantitative, has undergone little change over the course of its history. Quantitative research, associated with the philosophy of positivism, aims to explain social events and to predict human behavior by quantifying patterns and regularities that establish causal relationships. Underlying this paradigm is the assumption that professional knowledge steadily grows as new information is systematically incorporated into the professional canon. In theory, hypothesis testing results in weeding out of faulty beliefs and practices, but dearth of replication studies in most social sciences makes this an aspirational principle rather than a reality (Creswell, 2009). Earlier critiques within school psychology called for modification to the empiricist tradition, specifically a shift from an individual to an ecological approach (Conoley and Gutkin, 1995). Gutkin repeatedly appealed to the field to reconsider its methodologies and expand its approach to generating knowledge (Sheridan & Gutkin, 2000). More recently, the call to revisit the prevailing research paradigm in the field was joined by other researchers (Lopez & Bursztyn, 2013; Proctor & Truscott, 2012). Two trends in empirical social science research are especially problematic when applied to multicultural populations. These are: (1) the use of traditional research methods to isolate the impact of culture on school-based interventions, and (2) the presumptive assumption of the neutrality of interventions (Artiles et al., 2011; Bailey, 2006; Franklin, 2012; Smith, 2008; Skrtic, 2005; Wampold, 2002). The use of traditional research methods to examine the impact of culture on interventions rests on a working definition of culture as the extent to which group membership predicts intervention outcomes. This approach, which has no empirical basis, assumes that specific elements in the intervention will have differential effects when introduced to specific cultural groups, and that these elements are responsible for the measured benefits.Wampold (2002) described this approach as a fallacy based on the assumption of intercultural differences without considering confounding variables such as socioeconomic status and highest educational level achieved. He also contested the idea that providers of interventions are neutral, objective, or otherwise irrelevant. Within psychology, researchers in multicultural counseling psychology have convincingly challenged these assumptions (Heppner,Wampold, & Kivlighan, 2008; Ponterotto et al., 2009). Critics of rigid empiricism have suggested alternative

426   Bursztyn and Korn-Bursztyn

research approaches, including qualitative inquiry, action research, and case study. Similarly, the field of education has long privileged situated knowledge, knowledge particular to specific situations that draws on personal narratives of diverse children and practitioners. While multicultural school psychology has contributed significantly to the development of assessment measures in languages other than English and efforts to remove culturally-biased test items, the multicultural school psychology appears constrained by the field’s expectation for empirically validated standardized practice. As described below, alternative ways of approaching both research and practice offer potential paths for strengthening multicultural school psychology by expanding situated knowledge and validating clinical experience.

Implications for Practice Practitioner-Researcher Model A practitioner-researcher model, known in teacher education as the teacherresearcher model, calls upon practitioners to draw on their unique understanding— or situated knowledge—of the particular children, families, and communities with whom they work. The practitioner-researcher model interrupts the traditional hierarchical chain of research to practice in which academic researchers produce empirically validated findings to be conveyed by university trainers to their impressionable trainees/students. In contrast, the practitioner-researcher model positions practitioners as researchers of the diverse communities they work with and of their own practice, leading to improved outcomes (Korn-Bursztyn, 2007). The practitioner-researcher model is well suited to school psychology practice and should be adopted by the field. In this approach school psychologists learn through their multiple interactions with children, families, and educators, changing their practice in a continual process of consideration, action, reflection, and change. A practitioner research paradigm offers the benefit of allowing for situated research particular to specific settings and conditions, and offers the promise of re-engaging school psychologists more directly in the lives of the diverse children and families in their care.

Ethic of Care On the heels of the feminist scholar Carol Gilligan’s seminal work on moral development (1982), Nel Noddings (1984) argued for a relational ethic of care, in which care and concern for the other becomes the dominant educational paradigm.

Looking Back and Ahead   427

Within this framework, the responsibility of educators is towards the whole child. Concurrently, practitioner voice and emotions are recognized as significant to pedagogic practice. An ethic of care provides a different lens through which to consider the practice of multicultural school psychology. However, it sits uncomfortably alongside the prevailing ethos of measurement and behavioral control. An ethic of care awakens questions about the relationship of school psychology to the emotional lives of children and youth, and raises questions as to where school psychology stands regarding responsibility to the whole child. The whole child, a concept with roots in Vygotsky’s early writing (1932/1987) about unification of psychological processes, is a formative part of early childhood pedagogy. It has become a unifying call for contemporary progressive educators concerned about the alienation of youth from school and from each other in a fragmented social context. The concept of the whole child calls for education to concern itself with children’s healthy development—physical, emotional, cognitive, and social—within a diverse welcoming, challenging, and supportive environment. Recent education policies that focus exclusively on achievement test scores across the U.S. have left schools ill-equipped to tend to the whole child. The ethic of care promoted by teacher education programs too often crumples under the weight of current testing and performance accountability mandates. School psychology is similarly affected: the 2001 Forum on the Future of School Psychology optimistically called for a shift in focus and priorities from preparing future school psychologists for special education gate-keeping functions towards engaged partnering with educators in addressing the emotional, cognitive and social needs of all children (Miller & Short, 2011). In the decade and a half that followed the 2001 Forum, school psychology, like teacher education, has struggled to meet the ever increasing demands for test-based accountability, with the result of diminished focus on the emotional lives of children. In recent years, when schools have been called to address the students’ emotional well-being, this has typically occurred in response to violent irruptions impacting public safety. The erosion of an ethic of care and attention to the whole child in schools has deleterious effects on vulnerable children and on children who are English language learners, and may be struggling with family issues related to immigration status, loss, and transnational family patterns. School psychology is called upon to consider how adopting an ethic of care that promotes empathy and pragmatic problemsolving can benefit the lives of children and families. An ethic of care is consistent with situated knowledge, which, as discussed previously, relates to how practitioners learn about and from children, families and communities. An ethic of care is also a necessary component of how practitioners research and reflect on their own practice.

428   Bursztyn and Korn-Bursztyn

Gender and Racial Diversification The field’s tilt towards positivism, testing and placement rather than child treatment may be a legacy of its early male-dominated leadership. The early gender demographics of the field stand in sharp contrast to current demographics in which women make up approximately eight out of ten school psychologists (Castillo, Curtis & Gelley, 2013). However, currently fewer than ten percent of school psychologists report being a racial and/or ethnic minority group member (Castillo et al., 2013). The gradual and steady entry of women into school psychology has not resulted in a marked increase in feminist perspectives in research, practice, or training. This is surprising given the proximity of school psychology to the field of education, which has been heavily influenced by feminist thinkers over the course of the past few decades, especially regarding an ethic of care. Although the 2001 Conference on the Future of School Psychology recommended a reframing of the profession from a specialty centered on diagnosis and treatment to an emphasis on meeting the needs of children, families, and their school and communities, change has been slow. This is an especially good moment for traditionally marginalized voices in school psychology to be heard, most notably those of women and minority practitioners. An ethic of care, while adopted in teacher education circles, and supported by a tradition of qualitative practitioner research, has only tentatively begun to inflect research and training in school psychology.The section that follows discusses implications for training and explores the relevance of an ethic of care to school psychology in applied multicultural contexts.

Implications for Research and Training Despite its practice-based nature, school psychology has been surprisingly reticent with regard to the psychological effects of timely social contexts and phenomena, such as immigrant status, homelessness, incarceration, and poverty. Multicultural school psychology in particular needs to prioritize care and concern for students’ well-being (Miller & Short, 2011). Future school psychologists need to have rich learning and research experiences that promote clinical and critical thinking and that are closely tied to the lived experiences of diverse children and families. Professional preparation might emulate training in other applied health and mental health professions which privilege case-based study, problem-based learning, and close clinical supervision of field experiences. It is critical to the future of the profession that school psychologists begin to stake a long-overdue claim as key school mental health professionals. To that end,

Looking Back and Ahead   429

all curricula should integrate a multicultural focus (Lopez & Bursztyn, 2013) and promote the clinical competencies required to fulfill the mental health expert role. To achieve these competencies, professional preparation programs must focus more intensively on teaching culturally-informed child development, multi-modal approaches to child and adolescent therapy, and cross-cultural skills for fostering healthy communications within classrooms, and among school staff and families. As schools increasingly recognize the imperative to offer school-based support and professional mental health intervention to students and families in crisis, school psychology needs to be positioned as a field to more flexibly adapt to these emerging critical needs.

Reformulating Practice for a Diverse Society School psychology is at a juncture where it needs to renew and reinvent itself. The multicultural nature of contemporary society requires us to prepare future generations of school psychologists to be adept and proactive in addressing the mental health needs of an increasingly diverse student population (Bursztyn, 2011). A reformulation of the school psychologist’s role must incorporate the capacity to offer schools culturally competent psychological insight, support, and services. Growing awareness about the complexity of race, culture, language, dis/ability and sexuality as dimensions of lived experience and identity compel a review of school psychology’s stance in relation to these research and practice challenges. Attempting to study human experience solely through measurable behavioral outcomes inevitably leads to an impoverished understanding of the challenges children and all members of school communities encounter. Human experience can best be studied through qualitative research methods; they can shed new light on some of the more vexing problems affecting diverse populations in our schools such as intractable high drop-out rates, inter-ethnic conflicts, bullying, sexual harassment, violence, drug use, and acting out behaviors. It is therefore necessary to adopt and integrate qualitative research methods to develop a more comprehensive epistemology, and to prepare school psychologists to address the irreducible and infinitely complex nature of lived experience. The field of school psychology should prepare future professionals to expand the range of practice beyond administering tests and prescribing formulaic behavioral intervention scripts. School psychologists need to recover a position in schools as integral members of school communities, situated stake-holders, and problemsolvers. The long neglected role of school psychologists as clinicians who can understand, respond to, and support diverse children’s emotional growth requires considerable strengthening. School psychology must retool to prepare professionals to support students’ emotional growth and address their cognitive, social, and mental

430   Bursztyn and Korn-Bursztyn

health needs (Bursztyn, 2011). While currently underprepared to function in this role, school psychologist training programs are in a position—through expanded training and research—to provide leadership in identifying and responding to the emotional needs of students in an increasingly diverse and fragmented society.

Resources Discussion Questions 1. What would an ethos of care look like in school psychology practice? 2. What do school psychologists need to know in order to be better able to respond to children’s and youth mental health needs? 3. What perspectives do women practitioners and practitioners of underrepresented groups bring to school psychology practice?

Professional Organizations American Psychological Association Division 45 (Society for the Psychological Study of Culture, Ethnicity, and Race) American Psychological Association Division 16 (School Psychology) Council for Exceptional Children (Division for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Exceptional Learners)

References American Social History Project. (2013). Background essay on late 19th and early 20th century immigration. Retrieved from . Artiles, A. J.,Thorius, J., King, K., Bal, A., Neal, R.,Waitoller, F. R., Hernandez-Saca, D. (2011). Beyond culture as group traits: Future learning disabilities ontology, epistemology, and inquiry on research knowledge use. Learning Disability Quarterly, 34(3), 167–179. Bailey, R. (2006). Science, normal science and science education–Thomas Kuhn and education. Learning for Democracy, 2(2), 7–20. Bursztyn, A. M. (2011). Childhood psychological disorders: Current controversies. Westport, CT. Praeger Books. Castillo, J. M., Curtis, M. J., & Gelley, C. D. (2013). Gender and race in school psychology. School Psychology Review, 42, 262–279. Cattell, J. McK. (1890). Mental tests and measurements. Mind, 15, 373–381. Conoley, J. C., & Gutkin,T. B. (1995).Why didn’t—why doesn’t—school psychology realize its promise? Journal of School Psychology, 33, 209–217. Creswell, J. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. New York: Sage Publications.

Looking Back and Ahead   431

Fagan,T. K. & Wise, P. S. (2000). School psychology: Past, present, and future (2nd ed). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists. Franklin, M. I. (2012). Understanding research: Coping with the quantitative-qualitative divide. London and New York: Routledge. Gilligan, C. (1982) In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Gould, S. J. (1981). The mismeasure of man. New York: Norton. Heppner, P. P.,Wampold, B. E., & Kivlighan, D. M. (2008). Research design in counseling. Pacific Grove, CA: Thompson Brooks/Cole. Horney, K. (1950). The collected works of Karen Horney (2 vols.). New York: Norton. Horney, K. (1967). Feminine psychology, 1922–37 (reprints). New York: Norton. Jalongo, M. R., & Isenberg, J. (1995). Teachers’ stories: From personal narrative to professional insight. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Korn-Bursztyn, C. (2007). Teacher research and special education. In A. Bursztyn (Ed.), The Praeger handbook of special education. Westport, CT: Praeger Books, Greenwood Press. Lopez, E. C., & Bursztyn, A. M. (2013). Future challenges and opportunities: Toward culturally responsive training in school psychology. Psychology in the Schools, 50, 212–228. MacLean, M. S., & Mohr, M. M. (1999). Teacher-researchers at work. Berkeley, CA: National Writing Project. Miller, J. A., & Short, R. J. (2011). Introduction to the special issue: School psychology education and training in the United States—crucial issues and challenges. Psychology in the Schools, 48(9), 869–871. Noddings, N. (1984). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education. Berkeley: University of California Press. Ponterotto, J. G., Casas, J. M., Suzuki, L. A., & Alexander, C. M. (Eds.). (2009). Handbook of multicultural counseling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Proctor, S. L., & Truscott, S. D. (2012). Reasons for African American student attrition from school psychology programs. Journal of School Psychology, 50, 655–79. Richardson, J. T. E. (2011). Howard Andrew Knox: Pioneer of intelligence testing at Ellis Island. New York: Columbia University Press. Sheridan, S. M., & Gutkin, T. B. (2000). The ecology of school psychology: Examining and changing our paradigm for the 21st century. School Psychology Review, 29, 485–502. Skrtic,T. M. (2005). A political economy of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 28(2), 149–155. Smith, J. A. (2008). Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods. London: Sage. Southern Poverty Law Center. (2015). Available at . Retrieved on July 2, 1015. Vidal, F. (2003). Sabina Spielrein, Jean Piaget—going their own ways. In C. Covington & B. Wharton (Eds.), Sabina Spielrein: Forgotten pioneer of psychoanalysis (pp. 271–280). New York: Brunner-Routledge. Vygotsky, L. (1932/1987).The imagination and its development. In R. Rieber & A. Carton (Eds.), Problems of general psychology & thinking and speech. New York: Plenum Press. Wampold, B. E. (2002). An examination of the bases of evidence-based interventions. School Psychology Quarterly, 17, 500–507.

Subject Index

absenteeism 98 see also exclusionary discipline abstract words 100 academic language 100, 139–41, 147 academic skills assessments 206–10 access to education 296–7 accountability 330 acculturation 197–9, 202 accuracy in language 45 Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment (ASEBA) 221, 222 achievement gaps 9, 21–2, 57, 98, 278 see also low academic achievement; underachievement; within-child deficit model action 330 action research 51 adultism 160 advocacy 167–8, 317, 327, 329–30, 334–5, 382 affectional orientation 158 affirmative counseling 157–8, 163 African Americans: culturally relevant teaching 144; effective instructional strategies 148; novice consultants 61; office discipline referral (ODR) 280; peer-assisted learning (PALS) 145–6; racial/cultural diversity studies 80–1; special education programs 56;

stereotyping 247; systemic issues 40; verbal bullying 159 see also Blacks African cultural activities 144 age-appropriate language 178 agreement for consultation 41 see also Instructional Consultation (IC) Alaska Native Americans (Yup’ik) 144, 147, 380 Albee, George 326 ally-ship 166–7, 330, 334–5 alternative assessments 126 American and Asian Indian reading study (Steffensen, Joag-Deve, and Anderson) 46 American communication style 296 American Counseling Association (ACA) 158, 164, 166 American Indian students 56–7, 308–9 American Psychological Association (APA): awards 421; Commission on Accreditation 382; ethical codes 18, 223–4; Publication Manual (2010) 372–3; recruitment activities 388 analogical transfer 143–5, 149 Antioch University 10 anti-racist education 245, 247–8 APA Handbook of Multicultural Psychology (Leong 2014) 384 Application of the Common Core State Standards for English Language Learners (NGA 2010) 45

433

434   Subject Index

“applied social justice” 332–3, 337 Asian Americans: concrete level of materials 149–50; C-R-A instruction 142–3, 144; disability identification 308, 309; effective instructional strategies 148; heterogeneity 370, 371; novice consultants 61; poverty 119; retained in grade 56–7; special education programs 56 Asian cultures 149 Asian/Pacific Islanders 118, 159 assessment data 210–13 assessment instruments 228–9, 295 assessment models 150–1 assessments: academic strengths and weaknesses 43; acculturation 198; comprehensive system 107–8; English Language Learners (ELLs) 193–214; implementation 226–7; interpreting data 210–12; language proficiency 199–200; nondiscriminatory 194, 196; research 214; review of studies 108–9; school climate 167; school psychologists 196–7 see also biases assistive technology (AT) 123–4 autism 26–7, 309 autonomous decision-making 24 autonomy (NASP Principle I) 26–7 “awakenings” 333 awareness 330, 403 Babalawo (Yoruba religion priest) 26 Banks, James A. 326 baseline knowledge 47 basic interpersonal communicative skills (BICS) 102, 200 Behavioral and Emotional Screening System (BASC-2 BESS, Kamphaus & Reynolds) 220–1 behavioral interventions 283 behavioral science 423–4 Behavior Assessment System for Children (BASC–2, Reynolds & Kamphaus) 223 Best Practices in School Psychology (Harrison & Thomas) 383–4 biases 194–5, 226, 307, 342 see also assessments

bicultural people 367–8 bidimensional instruments 198 bilingual assessments 208 bilingual evaluations 206, 212–13 bilingual teachers 100–1 Binet-Simon scales 423 “bisexual” identity 158 Black History Month 246–7 Blacks: cognitive impairments (CI) 308; disciplinary disparities 56, 277, 279, 280–1; educational disparities 56; emotional disabilities (ED) 308; high incidence disabilities 119; poverty 118; public school enrollment 118 see also African Americans Brown v. Board of Education (1954) 7 bullying 159, 167 bureaucracy 330 California 79 CALP (Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency) 102, 200 Cambodia 296, 298–300 Cambodian sign language (CSL) 299–300 Canada 102 care ethic 426–7 case studies 26–7, 350–1 caste system 300 Caucasian middle-class student research standard 363, 366 censuses 56, 380 see also demographics challenging perceptions 83–4 child and family therapy 424 Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) 222 child development 240–1 childhood pedagogy 424 child psychology 424 Chinese Exclusion Act (1882) 421 Chinese New Year 246 chronosystem of ecological assessment 196 cisgender 158, 163 classrooms: cross-race friendships 244; cultural differences in behavior 44; developing countries 296; disproportionality in discipline 280; experimental 248; indirect contact

Subject Index   435

strategies 249–50; positive environments 111; prejudice reduction 243–5; rearranging social structure 312–13; RtI framework 263 see also schools; teachers Cleveland, (Stephen) Grover 422 clinical errors 226 clinical psychology 423 coaching 68 see also consultants co-assessors 124 codes of conduct 301 code-switching 211 cognitive assessments 207–9, 213, 423 cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) 174–6 cognitive demand 200 cognitive developmental theory 240–2 cognitive impairments (CI) 308–9 cognitive measurement 422 cognitive skills 206–7 collaboration 49, 50 Collaborative Strategic Reading (CSR) 268 collective impact approaches 402, 404, 408–9, 414–15 collectivism 297, 402, 412 Colombia 175 color-blind approaches 83–4 Commission on Accreditation (APA) 382 commitment to action 329–30 Common Core State Standards (CCSS) 35–6, 45 Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSSM) 136 communication: collective groups 410–11; ecological assessments 127; styles 39, 87, 296; and trust 410 communicative competence 203 Communitarian model of justice 326 communities of learners 312–13 Community Based Partnership Research 414 community leaders 371–2 community stakeholders 313 comparative research 366 competency-based training 382 comprehension: academic language 46; cultural influences 46; pacing 110; reading 102, 206 comprehensive assessment systems 107–8

computer simulations 12, 80–1, 89–90 “concepts” (Ecological Validity Framework) 177 concrete materials 149–50 Concrete-Representational-Abstract instruction (C-R-A) 142–3, 144 Conferences on the Future of School Psychology 382, 428 confidence 82–3 confounding variables 367–9, 425 Conjoint Behavioral Consultation (CBC) 61–4, 67, 70 consent processes 25–7 construct bias 194 see also biases constructivism-interpretivism paradigm 345, 353–4 consultant–consultee relationships 42–4, 50, 60, 85–8 consultants: assisting teachers and ELs 46–7; code of conduct 301; crosscultural competencies 65–6; in developing countries 294–5, 301; IC model 37; international standards 292; and interpreters/translators 66, 296; verbal and non-verbal cues 87 consultants-in-training (CIT) 88 consultation constellations (Ingraham) 58, 81, 85–6, 87 consultations: agreement for 41; and coaching 68; processes 60, 69 consultee-centered consultation (CCC) 37, 60–1, 64, 78 consultees: communication styles 39; confidence 84; multiple identities 85 content assessments 209 “content” (Ecological Validity Framework) 177, 178–9 content knowledge 100–1, 204–5 “context” (Ecological Validity Framework) 177–8 context-embedded tasks 200 context-reduced tasks 200 contextual support 200 continuous improvement 314–15 controlled experimental approaches 365 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) 293–4

436   Subject Index

conversion therapy 166 cooperative learning activities 145–6, 243 cooperative social cultures 297 core preparation goals 332 see also social justice Council of Chief State School Officers 36 Council of Exceptional Children (CEC) 300 counseling LGBTQQ YOC 157–68; affirmative 157–8, 163; competencies 163–5; ethical and legal considerations 165–6; theories 160–2 court cases 310 critical-analytical skills 36 critical multicultural approach 11 critical race theory (CRT) 347 critical self-reflection 329 see also self-reflection critical theory paradigm 346 critical thinking 330 cross-cultural communication conflicts 410 cross-cultural competencies 65–6, 68–9, 128 cross-cultural consultation case studies 38 cross-cultural interaction 293 cross-race friendships 244 cultural adaptation 172–85; challenges 181–2; definition 173; EMAS manual 178–9; guidelines 182–3; mathematics teaching 147; models 173–4 cultural and linguistic competencies 195 cultural assumptions 291 cultural brokers 26, 27, 81, 225, 356, 408 cultural competence 78, 183–4, 328, 383, 385 cultural contexts 4, 46 cultural deprivation theory 6–7 cultural differences 38, 38–9, 57–8, 62, 246–7, 315–16 cultural difference theory 7–8 cultural diversity 10, 80–1 culturally adapted interventions 184–5 culturally-adapted psychological treatments 174–5 culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) families 121–4 see also families

culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) populations 23, 229 culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students: demographics 379; low incidence disabilities 123, 126, 129; mathematics instruction 136, 137–8, 148; multiple linguistic competencies 380; performance against dominant culture 21; population 218; school psychologists’ training 379–90; special education 308; underachievement 21–2, 57, 135, 136–7 culturally and linguistically responsive pedagogy 260 culturally-based mathematics curriculum 147 culturally competent communication 87 culturally competent mental health professionals 228 culturally relevant teaching 143–5, 149 Culturally Responsive Collective Impact Research team (CR-CIRT) 415 Culturally Responsive Collective Impact Team (CR-CIT) 404–16; common agenda 409; conditions 408–12; levels of operation 412; professional collaboration 405–8; research 414–15; training 412–14 culturally responsive instruction 51, 127–8, 136–7, 147, 150–1 culturally responsive practices: classrooms 41; education systems 29, 312; progress monitoring 266–7; racial inequity 283–4; schools 20–1; second language acquisition 205–6 culturally sensitive approaches 39, 42 cultural narratives 292 cultural perspectives 89, 128 cultural reciprocity 292, 293 cultural saliency 293 cultural symbols 177 cultural traditions 381 cultural translations 371 culture: confounding variables 367–8; definitions 4, 58, 77; and demographic variables 13; human behavior 3–4; impact of interventions 425;

Subject Index   437

multicultural theory 12; psychological functioning 4; and social class 368–9 culture-specific consultation approaches 81 curriculum-based assessment (CBA) 151, 210 curriculum-based measurement (CBM) 210, 261, 267 curriculum implementation 46–7 data-based decision-making 259, 266–70, 313–14, 406, 409–10 data based-problem-solving model 262 see also Response to Intervention (RtI) model databases 269–70 data disaggregation 283 data folio 124 data gathering 201–10 data quality 375–6 daycare providers 63 Deaf people 299–300 Dealing with legal matters surrounding students’ sexual orientation and gender identity (GLSEN) 166 decision-making processes 23–4, 25, 262 Delphi studies 65, 326–7 demographics 23–4, 97, 228, 343, 364, 380–2 see also censuses depression prevention 174–85 developed countries 295n1 developing countries 294, 295–8, 301 developing research-validated approaches 285–6 developing theories 353 Dewey, John 422 diagnosis of disorders 309 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-V, APA) 222 diagnostic checklists 222–3 dialects 370 dichos (sayings and idioms) 177 “Dictado” (Escamilla) 268 direct communication styles 87, 296 disabilities 122, 295, 296–7, 307–8 see also low incidence disabilities disciplinary disparities 277, 278–82 see also exclusionary discipline

disciplinary system reforms 277 discriminatory systems 317 dispositions-based competency 300–1 see also self-reflection disproportionality research 308–11 disproportionate representation 307–8 district-wide e-warehouses 270 divergent perceptions 44 diverse ethnocultural groups 184 diversity: definition 384, 420; multicultural approach 12, 245; research 12–13; school populations 79; schools 57, 388 Diversity in Development and Learning (NASP) 383 dominant culture influence assessment procedures 227 dominant language 206–7 dropping out of school 57, 278, 298–9 dynamic assessments 150–1 early childhood consultation 63–70 Early Childhood Longitudinal Study— Birth Cohort (ECLS-B) 372 early intervention 67–8 ecological assessments 127, 194, 195–6, 210–11, 213 ecological frameworks 238, 250–1, 263 Ecological Validity Framework 173, 177–8, 179 educational gate-keeping 423 educational leadership 285 educational outcomes 9 see also achievement gaps educational records 201 Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments (1986) 67 educators 406 EFA Global Monitoring Report (2010) 296 effective ethical practices 28 effective teaching practices 36, 147–8, 247, 267–70 Ellis Island 422 EMAS program 175–83 emic research perspectives 343, 365 emotional disabilities (ED) 308 emotional well-being 427

438   Subject Index

empathy 240–1 empirically supported practices (ESP) 387 empirical studies 29, 425 empiricist measurement movement 422 employment 128–9 empowerment feminist theory 162 English as a Second Language (ESL) 199, 266 English language arts (ELA) 36 English Language Learners’ Classroom Observation Instrument (Haager, Gersten, Baker and Graves) 43 English language learners (ELLs) and English learners (ELs): academic performance gap 98; achievement deficits 57; background knowledge 46–7; comprehension of instructional tasks 42; decision-making processes 262; disproportionality research 309; ESL programs 199–200; growth trajectories studies 102; immigrants 97–8; instructional practices 36; intervention strategies 47–9; intervention studies 103–7; language proficiency 43–4, 199–200; learning disability (LD) 103; literacy instruction 260, 261; mathematical interventions 139–40; pacing 110; poverty 98; reading comprehension 106; responding in complete sentences 111; RtI framework 259; school population 135, 193; states obliged to identify 122; studies 103–7; systemic components 49; vocabulary instruction 47–8 see also second language development English language proficiency 102, 209 enrollments, public schools 381 equitable education 311–12 equitable resource distribution 326 Estrategias para Mantener un Ánimo Saludable (EMAS) 175–83 ethical codes 18–19, 223–4 ethical concerns 21–2 ethical decision-making models 23, 28 ethical dilemmas 27, 28 ethical problem-solving models 23 ethical responsibilities 382

ethics of care 426–7 ethnic diversity 370 ethnicity 163, 283, 343 ethnic minorities 369–70, 428 ethnic prejudices 238–9, 243 ethnographic approaches 351–2 eugenics 421–2 see also genetic inferiority theory Eurocentric paradigms 364 European-Americans 61, 80–1, 89 European Canadian children study 241 European child psychology 424 Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA, 2016) 36 evidence-based consultation models see Conjoint Behavioral Consultation (CBC) evidence-based interventions (EBIs) 173 examiners 195 exclusionary discipline 98, 276–86; absenteeism 98; Black students 277; dropping out 278; expulsion 276, 278; negative outcomes 278; racial disparities 277, 278–82; student achievement 278; suspension 56, 276–81 exosystem of ecological assessment 196 experimental classrooms 248 see also classrooms explicit instruction 141, 142 Extended Contact theory 244 extraneous variables 367 Facing History and Ourselves (website) 248–9, 253 fairness and justice (NASP Principle I.3) 27 families 27, 67, 121–4, 225, 292–4, 297 see also parents feminist theory 162 first grade studies 104 flexible instruction 123 fluency of language 45 focus groups 181 forced sterilization 421–2 formative reading measures 109 Foucault, Michel 162 Freud, Sigmund 341, 424

Subject Index   439

Friere, Paulo 329–30 funding research 356 “garbage in, garbage out” (saying) 375–6 “gay” identity 158 see also lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning youth of color (LGBTQQ YOC) Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network (GLSEN) 159, 166 gender: fluidity 158; normalcy 347–8; school psychologists 428; self-reflection 163 “genderqueer” 158 generalization of findings 372 general outcomes measures (GOMs) 261 genetic inferiority theory 5–6 see also eugenics; within-child deficit approaches geometry 144 graduate education 358–9, 386–7, 389 Green Circle Program (Philadelphia, PA) 247, 253 grounded theory 353–4 group discussions 331 group heterogeneity 369–70 group/individual concerns 297 “group think” phenomenon 409 guidelines 11 Guidelines for psychological practice with lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients (APA 2012) 163–5, 166 Guidelines on Multicultural Education, Training, Research, Practice and Organizational Change for Psychologists (APA 2003) 8–9, 11, 64, 184, 343 harassment 159, 167 see also bullying harmony: classrooms 243; “group think” 409; social culture 297 healthcare professionals 407–8 health service psychology 382 heteronormativity 162, 348 heterosexism 160 higher-order thinking skills 268 high incidence disabilities 119 high-poverty schools 121

Hispanics: cultural differences 38; heterogeneity 370; high incidence disabilities 119; poverty 118; retained in a grade 56–7; school discipline 277–8, 280; school population 56, 118, 135; Spanish dialects 370 Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) 388 historical racism 248 home/community factors 263 home remedies 298 home-school consultation 62, 70, 291–302 homogenous classrooms 249–50 homophobia 160 homoprejudice 160 Howard Andrew Knox (Richardson) 422 human behavior 3 human error 226 human resources 263–4, 269, 295–6 hypothesis-testing approaches 183 idioms 178 Illinois 195 immigrants: acculturation processes 197–9; bicultural people 368; Chinese 421; English learner populations 97–8; intelligence testing 421–2 Implementing Regulations Section C (APA Commission on Accreditation 2015) 382 inclusive education 121, 293–4 income-based inequity 295 independence 128 India 296–8, 300 indirect communication styles 87 indirect contact strategies 249–50 Individualized Education Program (IEP) 122, 126, 346 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 1990): 1997 amendments 67, 311; 2004 amendments 24, 57, 120, 122, 126, 311 informal/formal data gathering 205 informed consent (NASP Principle I.1) 24–5 injustice within education 22 “In Search of Cultural Competence” (S. Sue) 183–4

440   Subject Index

in-service training 413–14 Institute of Education Sciences (IES) 107 institutional power structures 327 Instruction, Response to Intervention (RtI) tiers 99–100 instructional approaches 44–5, 148, 268 Instructional Consultation (IC) 36–51; CCC approaches 37; communication 39; culturally responsive practices 51; elements 37; evaluation stage 49; interventions strategies 45, 47–9; multicultural framework 38; planning and implementing 44–6; termination strategies 49–50 instructional consultation teams (ICTs) 37 instructional design 109 instructional ecology 43 instructional language 148–9 instructional triangle 42–3 instrument bias 195 see also biases instrument selection 225–6 integration models 69 intellectual disabilities 298 intelligence testing 363–4, 421–3 intercultural differences 425 Intercultural Model of Ethical Decision Making (IMED) 23–4, 28 interdependence 297 interdisciplinary expertise 411 intergroup contact theory 243–5 intergroup knowledge 245 international consultants 294–5, 301 see also consultants international development 301 International Society for Intelligence Research 421 international standards 292 interpersonal therapy 175 interpreters 25, 66 interpreting assessment data 210–12 interracial relations 250 intersectionality theory 161 see also multiple identities interventions: evaluating 314–15; impact of culture 425; paralysis 84; planning 44; strategies 47–9 intervention studies 103–7

interviews 201–2 IQ tests 363–4, 423 “isolated impact” interventions 402 item bias 194–5 see also biases Jensen, Arthur 421 jigsaw classroom 243, 243–4, 249, 252 karma 297–8 key school personnel 381–2 kindergartens 104 knowledge: about CLD clients 385; capacity of teams 414; and problemsolving 82–3 Korean language 143, 149–50 language: analyzing to improve learning 48; assessment data 205–6; communication barriers 66; demographics 380; dominance 206–7; Ecological Validity Framework 177; EMAS manual 178; interpersonal communication styles 296; LGBTQQ YOC 158; support methods 140–1 language development 45, 48, 263 Language Experience Approach (LEA) 268 language proficiency 43–4, 195, 199–200, 203–7 Latinos: culturally relevant teaching 144–5; disability identification 308; disproportionality in school discipline 277–8, 280; effective practices in maths 142; heterogeneity 370; instructional strategies 148; novice consultants 61; verbal bullying 159 learner factors 263 learning opportunities 268 lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, questioning, intersex, and ally (LGBQQIA) 163–4 lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning youth of color (LGBTQQ YOC) 157–68; ally 166–7; bullying 159, 165; conversion/reparative therapy 165–6; counseling theories 160–2; identities 157–8; information about 159; performance against dominant culture 21; school-based

Subject Index   441

research 356; self-advocacy skills 167–8; social justice 159–60; surveillance 160; systemic oppression 160 see also queer theory; sexual orientation “lesbian” identity 158 liberatory consciousness (Love) 330 Limited English Proficiency (LEP) 221 linguistic barriers 370–2 linguistic equivalence 371 literacy development 204–5, 260, 261, 270 literal translation 371 Little Hans study (Freud) 341 Local Equity Action Development (LEAD) 283–4 low academic achievement 21–2, 57, 98, 278 see also achievement gaps; underachievement low incidence disabilities 119, 120, 126, 127–8 see also disabilities low-income families 118–19, 295, 299 see also poverty macrosystem of ecological assessment 196 Maine 380 Making Action Plans (MAPS) 125–6 Manual de Prevención de la Depresión (Manual of Depression Prevention) 176 material resources 264, 295–6 mathematics 135–51; academic language 139–43, 148–9; CCSS 36; CLD students 138; culturally relevant teaching 143–5, 149–50; culturally responsive teaching 136, 147, 149–51; peer-mediated instruction 145–6; preschool children 372; remedial practices 147–8; word problems 139;Yup’ik culture 144 mathematics disabilities (MD) 137 Mensch Project 381 mental health 172, 174–5, 227–8 mental math’s 149–50 mental measurement 421–3 mental testing movement 6 mesosytem of ecological assessment 196 meta-analysis studies 174, 175 metacognitive professional development 300–1 metaphors 177

method bias 195 see also biases Mexican American mothers study (Salas) 346 microsystem of ecological assessment 195 middle-class: families 296, 298, 299; school psychologists 58; students 363, 366, 369 Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments (MCA) 109 minorities, outcomes 9 mission statements 332 mixed heritage individuals 370 Model for Comprehensive and Integrated School Psychological Services (NASP 2010) 11, 109, 184, 223–4, 382–3 modified assessments 208 multicultural, definitions 20, 343 multicultural approaches 3, 245–6 multicultural assessment measures 10 multicultural bridges of understanding 90 multicultural CBC 62 multicultural competence 8–9, 333–4, 402 multicultural consultation 51, 58, 69, 70, 81 multicultural consultee-centered consultation (MCCC) 77–90; consultants and consultees identities 85; cultural perspectives 60, 81; definition of culture 77–8; non-threatening, supportive approach 82; relationship building 80, 81–2; research issues 88–9; training approaches 89 multicultural counseling literature 83, 87 multicultural credentialing 228 multicultural education 246–8, 252–3 multicultural ethical decision making 23–4 multicultural movement 3–4 multicultural parent consultation 63–71 multicultural psychology 20 multicultural research 344–6, 375 multicultural school consultation (MSC) 58–9, 81, 292–3 multicultural school psychology 316, 327–8, 426 multicultural theory 12 multicultural training 11–12, 69, 386–7 see also training multidimensional instruments 198 multidisciplinary collaboration 310, 313

442   Subject Index

multiple classification skills 241 multiple disabilities 119 multiple grade level interventions 106–7 multiple identities 4, 77–8, 85, 161, 165 multiple linguistic competencies 380 Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) 261, 315, 400–2, 412, 416 mutually reinforcing experiences 411–12 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 98 National Association of School Psychologists (NASP): multicultural training standards 8; professional conduct 300; recruitment activities 388; training requirements 11 see also Principles for professional ethics (NASP 2010) National Association of School Resource Officers (NASRO) 407 National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) 135 National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) 136 National Governors Association Center for Best Practices 35–6 National Institutes of Health 389 National Literacy Panel on LanguageMinority Children and Youth 260 national-origin-based subgroups 370 Native American Pow Wow 246 Native Americans 118, 119, 144 Native Hawaiians 56–7 native language assessments 203, 207–8 Nature of Prejudice (Allport) 243 New Reform Approaches 282–4 New York 195 Nigeria 26 Night (Weisel) 248 No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2001) 36, 57, 126 nonbiased assessments 126, 194–5, 213 nondiscriminatory assessments 194–5, 212–13, 213 non-hierarchical consulting roles 60 non-judgmental training 11 nonverbal assessments 208–9

non-verbal cues 87, 177 non-western contexts 294 see also developing countries normalcy of gender and sexuality 347–8 Northern European “genetic stock” 421–2 novice consultants 38, 39, 60–1 observations 43, 201, 227 office discipline referral (ODR) 280 official statements 383 one-downsmanship strategies 86 one-on-one conversations 45 oppression 21 oral language 203–4, 206, 260, 268 organizational change 284–5, 387 organizational consultation 313, 316 orthography 262 orthopedic impairments 295 “othering” (queer theory) 348 out-of-school suspension 56, 276–81 see also exclusionary discipline over identification 85 Pacific Islander students 56–7, 309 pacing of instructions 110 parent consultation 57–8 parenting styles 294 Parent Rating Scales (PRS, BASC-2) 223 parents: as co-assessors 124; consent processes 25–7; consultants empowering 62; and educators reducing prejudice 250–1; ethnotheories/belief systems 292; and IEP 122; interactions via translators 296; interviews 201–2; reactions to disabled children 297–8; and teacher interactions 292, 298, 301; valuing education 297, 298–9 see also families parent surveys 124 participant research 51 Participatory Action Research (PAR) 354–5, 414 participatory approaches 299–300 partnerships 330–1 pedagogical approaches 136 pedagogical dissonance 44

Subject Index   443

Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS) 145–6 peer collaboration 47 person-centered planning 124–6 “persons” dimension (Ecological Validity Framework) 177 perspective 82–3, 84–5, 403 phenomenological approaches 352–3 phonological awareness tasks 262 Piaget, Jean 240, 341 “Picking Berries” module 144 population-based prevention services 317 Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) 277, 281–2, 399–400 positive intergroup attitudes 245 positivism 424, 425 postpositivism 344–5, 353 poverty 368; achievement gaps 21; developed countries 295n1; developing countries 295; and disabilities 307–8; EL students 98; limiting choices 369; race/ethnicity 118–19; suspension and expulsion 279 see also low-income families power issues 39, 42 practical recommendations 270–1 Practice Guides (IES) 107 practitioner-researcher model 426 praxis (Friere) 329 prejudice 237–53; in classrooms 243–5; cognitive developmental theory 240–2; ecological systems approaches 237–8, 250–1; multicultural education 250; reduction strategies 250; research and training 251–3; in schools 245–9; social-cognitive developmental theory 251 preschool children, math skills study 372 preschool parent–professional interactions 298 preschool teachers 63 pre-service teachers 270 pre-service training 79, 316, 388–9, 413 Prilleltensky, Isaac 326 Principles for professional ethics (NASP 2010) 18–19, 64; Principle I (dignity and rights) 19; Principle I.1 (autonomy and

self-determination) 24–5, 26–7; Principle I.3 (fairness and justice) 21, 22, 27; Principle II.3.10 (responsible assessment and intervention practices) 27; Principle II (competence and responsibility) 19; Principle III (honesty and integrity) 19; Principle IV (responsibilities) 19; rights of children 328–9 problem identification 42–4 problem-solving models 23, 262, 411 professional biases 307 professional development 9–10, 12, 264–5, 270, 311, 389–90 professional objectivity 84–5 professional psychology 382 program evaluation 317 progressive education 422 progress monitoring 261 psychological instruments 224 psychological outcomes 9 Psychology of Multiculturalism in the Schools (Jones) 384 Publication Manual (APA 2010) 372–3 public schools: CLD students 379, 381; disciplinary sanctions 343; diversity 118, 218; ELLs/ELs 35, 135, 193, 380; enrollments 56, 381; intelligence testing 423; Puerto Rico 180, 182; racial and ethnic diversity 118–19; special education 119, 135; staff racial, ethnic and linguistic diversity 58, 381–2 Puerto Rico 175–6, 178 quadrant model (Cummins) 200 qualitative methods 429 qualitative paradigms 344–6, 348–50 qualitative research 38, 341–59; approaches 349, 350–5; definitions 341–2; educational settings 342–4, 357–8; epistemological stance 342; race and ethnicity 343; social justice 357–8; systemic barriers 356 see also research quantitative research 363–76; linguistic barriers 370–2; predicting human behavior 425; research 374–5; universalistic and relativistic approaches 365–6

444   Subject Index

“queer”, use of term 158 queer theory 162, 347–8 see also lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning youth of color (LGBTQQ YOC) “questioning” identity 158 race: affecting teachers’ perceptions 309; behavioral interventions 283; genetic roots of intelligence 421; and poverty 279; qualitative research 343; selfreflection 163 racial disparities in discipline 277, 278–84 see also exclusionary discipline racial disproportionality 284, 310–11 racial diversity 80–1, 249, 279–80, 428 racial inequity 283 racial labels 370 racial minority students: IQ tests 423; special education 308, 311 reactive dominance 84 reading comprehension 102, 206 record reviews 201 recruitment 388 reflective practices 28 reforms 315 relational ethic of care 426–7 relativistic approaches 365–6 remedial mathematics 137 see also mathematics reparative therapy 166 research: assessment tools 214; Caucasian middle-class student standard 366; CLD students with disabilities 129; CR-CIT 414–15; culturally adapted interventions 184–5; culturally responsive mathematics 151; intelligence studies 363–4; LGBTQ youth 356; social justice 335–7; sociodemographic labels 13; systemic change 317–18 see also qualitative research; quantitative research research-practice partnerships (RPP) 414–15 research studies 372–4 resistance to change 386 resources 263–5, 268–70, 389

Response to Intervention (RtI) model 98–9, 258–71; data based-problemsolving model 262; ecological framework for decision making 263; effective teaching practices for ELLs 267–8; high quality instruction 260; high-quality instruction 266; Model Components for ELLs 265–6; monitoring progress 261; professional development 264–5, 270–1, 311; resources 263–5, 268–70; school-based models 399–400; social justice 331; staffing issues 263–4; theoretical framework 259; Tier 1 instruction 99, 107, 267–70; Tier 2 interventions 99, 103–6, 107, 269–70; Tier 3 interventions 99, 103–6; time 264 responsible assessment and intervention practices (NASP Standard II.3.10) 27 restorative practices 277 restructuring policies 311–12 rights 297 rigid empiricism 425–6 RIOT approach 201 robust vocabulary instruction 101 safe schools 165 Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education (UNESCO) 293 San Jose Unified School District 203 Schindler’s List (film) 248 school administrators 407 school assessments 227 school-based clinics 422 school-based prevention programs 180 school-based professionals 404, 405–8 school-based research 356 see also research school consultants 314 school-level prejudice 245–9 school policies 23–4 school population 135 school psychologists: CR-CIT 406; cultural diversity 10; demographics 381, 428; future roles 428–30; IC model 37; professional development 9–10; responsibilities 24; role 313; social

Subject Index   445

justice study 326; supporting EL teachers 40; training 10–11, 428–9 school psychology: background 421–4; empiricist tradition 425; foundational epistemology 424; journals 384–5; programs 388 School Psychology Forum 381 school resource officers (SRO) 407, 409 schools: cultural continuity with home 136–7; diversity 57, 118–19; EL students 98; and homes 292; multicultural education 246, 252–3; personnel 263–4, 269, 295–6, 381; researching 356; as a social system 246; transition from home 292 see also classrooms; teachers second language development 40–1, 45, 199, 211 see also English language learners (ELLs)/English learners (ELs) second language proficiencies 381 Second to Eighth Grade interventions 106–7 self-advocacy skills 167–8 see also advocacy self-awareness 402–3 self-determination 22–3, 26–7, 129 self-disclosure 62, 88 self-efficacy 335 Self of Personality (SRP, BASC-2) 223 self-reflection 20, 28, 163, 300–1, 329 sensitivity to criticism 84 service delivery models 67–8 see also Conjoint Behavioral Consultation (CBC) service-learning opportunities 333 severe disabilities 119, 120 sex assigned at birth, gender identity 158 sexuality, normalcy 347–8 sexual minority students 348 sexual orientation 157–8, 159, 163 see also lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning youth of color (LGBTQQ YOC) “sexual orientation change efforts” (SOCE) 166 shamans 298 shared data measurement 409–10 shared understandings 78, 88, 352 sign languages 299–300

Sisters of Nia cultural project 381 skills 82–3 small group instruction 110 social change interventions 402 social class 368–9 social-cognitive developmental theory 240–2, 249 social constructs of sex 158 social contexts, psychological effects 428 social, emotional, and behavioral (SEB) assessments 218–29; assessment implementation 226–7; instrument selection 225–6; measurement equivalence 219; planning 224–5; screening instruments 220–2 social-emotional learning (SEL) 277, 281–2 social engineering 421–2 social justice 325–37; commitment 335; definitions 326–7; LGBTQQ YOC 159–60; multicultural school psychology 327–8; multicultural training 11; NASP Principle 1.3 21–2; qualitative studies 357–8; research 335–7; systemic change 330–1 social justice advocacy 22, 334–5 social justice transformation model 330 Social Studies and History standards (ELA) 36 Society for the Study of School Psychology (SSSP) 384–5 sociodemographic labels 13 sociodemographic traits 307 socioeconomic status (SES) 369, 425 Somali 380 Southern Poverty Law Center 251–2, 421 Spanish 102, 370, 380 Spanish interventions 104–6 Spanish-speaking students, instructional difficulties 44 special education 119, 306–18; decisionmaking process 25; disproportionality research 308–11; explaining to families 27; minority students 9; professional development 311; reducing referrals 270 specific learning disabilities (SLD) 308 speech-language impairment (SLI) 308

446   Subject Index

Speilrein, Sabina 424 Spielberg, Steven 248 staffing 263–4, 269, 295–6, 381 see also teachers standardized language proficiency measures 199 Standards and Principles for School Mathematics (NCTM) 142 Stanford Binet Test 363 state tests 36, 126 stereotyping 83–4, 247, 309 Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) 221–2 strengths-based counseling 161 strengths-focused problem-solving 411 structural changes 404 structural theory 308 structured consultation models 61 “stud”, use of term 158 Student Oral Language Observation Matrix (SOLOM) 203 student removal 278, 279 students: advocates 334–5; assent to psychological services 25–6; awakenings 333; demands on 36; disabilities and poverty 119; multiple and severe disabilities 121; state assessments 126 Student Support Teams (SST) 352 student-teacher relationships 280 student tracking 423 studies 105–7; first grade ELs 104; multicultural consultation 70; queer females 348; of social justice 326–7 surveillance 160 suspension 56, 276–81 see also exclusionary discipline systemic change 284–5, 310, 312–15, 317–18, 330–1 systemic issues 40, 271, 356 systemic oppression 160 systems consultations 316 TASH (formerly known as The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps) 120 teacher consultees 38–9, 41–2 Teacher Rating Scales (TRS, BASC-2) 223 Teacher Report Form (TRF) 222

teacher-researcher model 426 teachers: CCSS 36, 46; and CLD students 79; codes of conduct 301; CR-CIT 406; development programs 270, 282; EMAS program 180, 182; interviews 201–2; and parent interactions 292; pre-service 270; shortages 296; students understanding expectations 100; systemic challenges 270–1; working with families 301 see also classrooms; schools; staffing “Teaching for Social Justice in School Psychology” (Trainers’ Forum) 331–2 teaching materials 43 teaching time 278 Teaching Tolerance (Southern Poverty Law Centre) 251–3 team-based problem solving 412 Terman, Louis 423 test-based accountability 427 testing movement 422–3 tests 195 test–teach–test methods 43 Thayer Conference (1954) 7 theme interference 84–5 theories of prejudice 238 Tier 1 instruction (RtI) 99, 107, 267–70 Tier 2 interventions (RtI) 99, 103–6, 107, 269–70 Tier 3 interventions (RtI) 99, 103–6 time 110, 264, 356 top-down approaches 299–300 Trainers’ Forum 331–2 training: CR-CIT 413–14; cross-cultural competencies 213; culturally responsive instructional consultants 51; educational leadership 285; educators of CLD students 79, 228; with interpreters 66; MCCC 89; multicultural consultation techniques 69; pre-service 270, 316, 388–9, 413; program evaluation 317; qualitative research 375; simulations 12; and social justice 335 see also multicultural training transformational approaches 316 transformative paradigms 346–7 transformative training philosophy 213–14

Subject Index   447

“transgender” identity (“trans”) 158 transitions, home-school-adult life 128–9, 292, 372–3 translations 100 translators 296, 371 transphobia 160 transprejudice 160 traumas of war 424 true peers 267

verbal bullying 159 see also bullying verbal cues 87 violence 159 Virginia Threat Assessment Guidelines 282 visual impairments 295 visual representations intervention practices 142 vocabulary 46, 47–8, 100–1, 110–11, 262 vocabulary instruction 101 Vygotsky, Lev Semyonovich 427

underachievement 21–2, 57, 135, 136–7 see also achievement gaps; low academic achievement undernourished poor children 295 Understanding Prejudice (website) 252 UN Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) 292, 293–4, 301 unidimensional tools 198 unique languages 380 uniqueness of individuals, prejudice 241–2 unique personality traits 242 United States (U.S.), ethnic diversity 56, 97 universal applicability 294 universalistic approaches 365–6 universal prevention programs 180–1 university-based psychological clinics 422 university training programs 28 unjust practices 27 unsound educational practices 22 unsuccessful consultation outcomes 38 U.S. Censuses 56, 380

Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children 422 weddings 46 Weisel, Eli 248 Western cultural values 122, 294, 336 Whites: cultural differences 38; eugenics 421; kindergartens 56–7; living in poverty 119; privilege 163; school population 118, 135; suspension and expulsion rates 280 whole child concept 427 within-child deficit model 7, 9 see also achievement gaps; genetic inferiority theory Wittmer, Lightner 422 women 381 women practitioners, child treatment 424 word problems 139 World Health Organization (WHO) 292 World War I 423 World War II 423–4

valid and reliable assessments 107–8 valuing education 298–9

Youth Self Report (YSR) 222 Yup’ik (Alaska) 144, 147, 380

Author Index

Abedi, J. 193, 199, 206, 207, 209, 211 Aber, M. S. 278, 280–1 Aboud, F. E. 237, 239–44, 251 Abreu, J. M. 198 Aceves, T. 108 Achenbach, T. M. 222 Adams, B. L. 138, 143–4, 147 Adams, E. M. 84 Adamson, K. 137, 140 Addy, S. 364 Adelson, J. 9 Adesso,V. 223 Agran, M. 121 Ahlgrim-Delzell, L. 141 Ahluwalia, H. P. S. 297 Ahluwalia, J. S. 173 Ajamu, A. 5, 6–7, 11 Akerman, A. 7, 7–8 Alba, R. G. 309 Albers, C. A. 220, 384 Albert, N. G. 98 Albrecht, S. F. 311 Alexander, C. M. 81, 83, 87, 425 Alghorani, M. A. 38 Algozzine, B. 309, 310 Allen, J. 226 Allen, M. D. 63 Allensworth, E. 278 Allison, R. 210 Allport, G. W. 243, 365

448

Almqvist, F. 222 Al Otaiba, S. 111 Alvárez, P. 176 American Counseling Association (ACA) 158, 160, 163–4, 166 American Psychological Association (APA) 8, 11, 18, 28, 163, 165–6, 184, 224, 276–7, 325, 328, 343, 373, 382–4 American Social History Project 421 Anderson, A. E. 389 Anderson, J. R. 143 Anderson, R. C. 46 Andrew-Ihrke, D. 138, 143, 144, 147 Andrews, M. E. 119 Annie E. Casey Foundation 119 Anstrom, K. 100 Anthony, J. L. 99, 104, 105 Anyon, J. 311 Arafeh, S. 137, 141, 142 Archer, A. L. 100 Arcia, E. 278 Arghode,V. 342 Armistead, L. D. 389, 390 Armstrong, A. C. 292 Armstrong, D. 292 Aron, A. 244 Aronson, E. 243 Arredondo, M. I. 284 Arredondo, P. 6, 7, 8, 402

Author Index   449

Artiles, A. J. 20, 37, 108, 193, 292, 307–13, 423, 425 Ary, D. 105 Association of School Psychologists (NASP) 379 Aston, C. 381 Atkins, M. 309 Auclair, G. 380 Aud, S. 56–7, 98, 135, 193 August, D. 100, 101, 104, 111, 206, 260 Ayala Moreira, R. 297–8 Baca, L. A. 128, 262, 263, 265 Baca, L. M. 193, 199, 205, 209–10, 211 Bailey, R. 425 Bailey, T. M. 379, 381 Baker, C. N. 336 Baker, D. L. 99, 101–3, 106–9, 111 Baker, S. K. 36, 43, 99–103, 106–9, 111, 137, 141 Bakken, J. P. 136, 141 Bal, A. 308–9, 310, 423, 425 Ball, A. F. 127 Ballantyne, K. G. 79 Ball, C. R. 266 Banerjee, B. 137, 140, 142 Banker, B. S. 247 Banks, C. A. 245, 246, 247–8, 388 Banks, J. A. 127, 245, 246, 247–8, 249, 411 Barletta, L. M. 108 Barmer, A. 135 Barr, D. J. 248, 249, 253 Barrera, M. 173, 181, 210, 261 Barrett, P. M. 180 Barrio, A. 56 Barth, A. 103, 105, 106 Bartkiewicz, M. J. 21 Bartram, D. 13 Bartucci, G. 327, 332, 336 Basaraba, D. 399 Batalova, J. 380 Beard, J. 227 Bearman, P. S. 309 Beck, A. N. 174–5, 278, 279 Beck, I. 101 Beebe-Frankenberger, M. 105 Beekman, A. 174

Beelmann, A. 237, 239 Beer, A. 334–5 Beevers, C. 175 Begeny, J. C. 103, 105, 106 Bellah, R. N. 296 Bellido, C. 173, 175, 177, 178, 182 Bell, L. A. 326 Belway, S. 276, 277 Bemak, F. 28, 330 Benish, S. G. 174 Benson, N. 103, 105, 106, 260 Bergan, J. R. 57, 412 Bernal, G. 172, 173, 174, 175, 177, 178, 179, 182–3, 185, 387, 389 Bernardo, A. B. I. 139, 148–9 Berry, J. W. 197 Berstein, E. R. 389 Berzins, A. R. 228 Best, A. M. 308, 310 Beyerbach, B. 124 Biancarosa, G. 401 Bieschke, K. J. 166 Biglan, A. 99–100, 105, 106 Bigler, R. S. 238, 240, 241, 242, 247, 248 Bilenberg, N. 222 Bines, H. 296 Birchmeier, Z. 277, 278 Birney, D. 137 Black, C. 99–100, 106 Black, K. A. 61–2 Blair, J. 99–100, 106 Blake, J. J. 388 Blanchett, W. 309 Blasko, K. A. 166 Blue-Banning, M. J. 122 Boardman, A. 268 Bocian, K. M. 105, 310 Boesen, M. A. 159 Boesen, M. J. 21 Bohanan, H. 400 Bohon, C. 175 Boland, A. 336 Bonilla, J. 173, 175, 177, 178, 182 Bonilla-Silva, K. 177, 179, 182 Bonner III, F. A. 278 Bonner, M. 11, 326–7

450   Author Index

Booker, K. 402 Borgogno, F. 341 Borrero, N. 176 Bourdon, K. H. 221–2 Boutot, A. 119, 127 Bo,V. 298 Bovaird, J. A. 63 Bowleg, L. 161 Boyce, C. 25 Brackett, A. 317 Bracy, N. L. 276 Bradbury, H. 285 Bradley, J. R. 63 Bradshaw, C. P. 279, 281 Brah, A. 161 Braithwaite, R. L. 173 Branscome, J. 197, 198, 202 Bray, M. A. 228 Brennan, E. M. 63 Brice, A. E. 198, 202 Briggs, A. 327, 329–30, 332–3, 336 Brney, D. 140 Bronfenbrenner, U. 195, 238, 263, 386 Brotherson, M. J. 67 Browder, D. M. 141 Brown, D. 28, 37, 41 Brown, F. 126 Brown, S. L. 12–13, 13 Bruns, E. 415 Bryan, J. 57, 69, 70 Bullock, H. E. 368 Bulotski, R. 414 Bunch, C. 36 Burchinal, M. 219 Bureau of Labor Statistics 385 Burnes, T. R. 160, 333 Bursztyn, A. M. 20, 51, 213, 316, 402, 425, 429, 430 Bush, L. D. 309 Butler, A. 174–5 Butler, B. R. 278 Butler, F. 100 Butler, J. A. 173, 309, 310 Butvilofsky, S. 260, 268 Buysse,V. 68 Byrne, B. M. 13

Cabello, B. 38, 60–1, 89 Cabell, S. Q. 59–60, 63 Cable, A. 103, 106 Caldwell, J. C. 330, 334 Callahan, R. 310 Calleja M. O. 139, 148–9 Cameron, L. 239, 244, 249–50 Campbell, H. 210 Campbell, L. M. 415 Campbell, S. B. 219 Campbell-Whatley, G. D. 136–8, 140, 142–5, 148 Caplan, G. 79, 82, 85 Caplan, R. B. 79, 82, 85 Caravaca, L. 282 Cardemil, E. 175 Cardenas-Hagan, E. 260 Cardenas, S. 336 Cardona, C. M. 138 Carlo, M. S. 101 Carlson, C. D. 99, 104, 105, 260, 267 Carlson, J. S. 63 Carter, J. A. 20 Cartledge, G. 136, 138, 141, 145 Casas, J. M. 81, 83, 87, 425 Casserly, M. 401 Castillo, J. M. 9, 58, 329, 381, 389, 390, 428 Castro, F. G. 173, 181 Catrambone, R. 143 Cattell, J. McK. 422 Catterall, C. D. 6 Cauce, A. M. 20, 29 Cena, J. 101, 106, 107 Cervantes, H. T. 128, 263 Champion, K. M. 63 Chang, C.Y. 327 Channa, S. 297 Chapman, J. 174–5 Chappel, A. 9, 389, 390 Chard, D. J. 137, 141, 399, 401 Charmaz, K. 353 Charvat, J. L. 381 Chen, E. C. 354 Cheney, D. 307–8, 415 Cheng, S. 68 Chen, X. 143, 292 Chester, C. 11, 326–7

Author Index   451

Cheung, F. M. 13 Chhuon,V. 309 Children’s Defense Fund 277 Chilisa, B. 344, 346, 347 Chin, J. 221 Chinn, P. 56 Chiu, C.-Y. 3, 4 Christenson, S. 310 Christian, D. 260 Christopher, M. S. 173 Christ, T. J. 266 Chung, C. G. 21, 277–81, 283, 308–11 Chung, R. C.Y. 28, 330 Chun, K.Y. S. 159–61, 167 Cicchetti, D. 7, 7–8 Ciolfi, A. 282 Cirino, P. T. 99, 103–6, 260, 267 Cizek, S. 282 Clare, M. 314 Clark, A. E. 353 Clark, E. 228 Clarke, B. L. 62–4, 70 Clark-Lempers, D. 10 Clawson, K. 282 Clements, D. H. 149 Clements, E. 23 Clements, M. 108 Cloth, A. 336 Coady, M. R. 25 Cochran-Smith, M. 227 Cohen, L. G. 151 Colby, S. L. 364 Cole, R. 111 Collier, C. 198, 202 Collins, P. 99, 106 Comas-Diaz, L. 384 Common Core State Standards (CCSS) 36, 44, 45, 46 Compton, D. 99, 107, 108 Conference on the Future of School Psychology 382 Connor, C. M. 99, 107, 108 Conoley, J. C. 423, 425 Conroy, M. 283 Cook, C. 415 Copeland, S. R. 308–9 Corbett-Whittier. C. 350–1

Corbin, J. 342, 345, 353 Cornell, D. 282 Correa,V. 111 Cosgriff, J. 121 Council of State Governments 277 Coutinho, M. J. 308, 310 Cowell, J. 222 Craun, S. W. 278 Creswell, J. W. 341–2, 344–7, 351–3, 425 Crethar, H. C. 327 Crockett, D. P. 336 Cross, C. T. 306, 308, 309 Cross, W. E. 10 Cruz-Davis, J. 25 Cuadrado, J. 21, 308, 309, 310 Cucchiaro, G. 222 Cummings, J. A. 310 Cummins, J. 102, 200 Cunningham, J. 9, 389, 390 Cunningham, L. 63 Curtis, M. J. 9, 58, 329, 381, 389–90, 428 Dadds, M. R. 180 Dailor, A. N. 21–2 Daley, C. E. 343, 358 Dalgalarrondo, P. 222 D’Amato, R. C. 223 Dana, R. H. 226 Daniels, A. M. 309 Davies, K. 244 Davies, S. C. 389 Davis, A. 282 Davis, S. 401 Deboutte, D. 221 Deci, E. L. 22, 23 Decker, D. M. 317 Dehue, T. 365 De Jesús, D. 176 Dekker, J. 174 Delgado, R. 347 Dempsey, A. 343, 357, 384 Deno, S. L. 108, 262 Denton, C. A. 99, 103–6 De Palma, M. 103, 105, 106, 260 Derman-Sparks, L. 246, 248–50, 252–3 Dessel, A. 245, 250 Dever, B.V. 221

452   Author Index

DiCerbo, P. 100 Diguiseppi, C. 309 Dillihunt, M. L. 137, 142 Dillow, S. A. 9, 381 Dimino, J. 99, 102, 107, 108 DiStefano, C. 220, 221 Ditrano, C. J. 354 Dixon, C. N. 268 Dobbs-Oates, J. 372 Doll, B. 62–4 Domenech Rodríguez, M. 172–4, 177, 182–3, 185, 387, 389 Donovan, M. S. 306, 308, 309 Doolittle, J. 259, 265, 267 Dovidio, J. F. 247 Dowd-Eagle, S. E. 399 Dowdy, E. 221 Downer, J. T. 63 Doyle, A. B. 241 Dragoo, K. 137, 141, 142 Drame, E. R. 259 Dressler, C. 101 Dressler, W. W. 387 Dumenci, L. 222 Dumka, L. E. 185 Dunlop, G. 124 Dunlop Velez, E. 135 Dunn, L. M. 306, 308, 311, 315 Duong, M. 415 Dupper, D. R. 278 Durkin, M. S. 309 Durlak, J. A. 277, 281 Duster, T. 25 Dymnicki, A. B. 277, 281 Dyson, A. 292 Eagle, J. W. 62–3, 64, 399 Eber, L. 281 Ebreo, A. 369–70 Edmonds, M. S. 103, 106 Edwards, C. P. 62–4, 70 Eide, A. H. 295 Elgen, I. 221 Ellerson, N. M. 381 Elliott, J. 401 Elliott, S. N. 63 Ellis, L. M. 354

Elwood, W. N. 387 Engelhardt, W. 364 Eng, M. 298 Ennis, S. R. 98 Enomoto, E. K. 386 Enyart, M. 125 Erchul, W. P. 57, 68 Erhart, M. 221–2 Escamilla, K. 260, 268 Escamilla, M. 260, 268 Esparza-Brown, J. 259, 265, 267 Esperanza, J. 281 Espin, C. A. 210 Esquivel, G. B. 8, 227 Essau, C. A. 180 Evans, G. W. 368, 369 Everhart, M. 68 Fagan, T. K. 5, 6, 7, 10, 422, 423 Falquez, A. 68 Fantuzzo, J. 414 Fanuele, D. P. 99 Farkas, G. 306, 310 Farnia, F. 102 Farr, B. P. 79–80 Farrow,V. 352 Feeney-Kettler, K. A. 220 Feggings-Azziz, R. 310 Fenwick,V. 241 Fergusson, D. M. 219 Fhagen-Smith, P. E. 10 Fielding, C. 126 Field, S. 306 Fien, H. 99, 108 Figueroa, R. A. 196, 262 File, N. 372 Filippini, A. 108 Fillmore, C. 48 Finnan-Jones, R. 137, 140 Fireman, G. D. 277–9 Fisher, C. B. 18, 25 Fisher, S. 336 Fleischman, H. L. 79, 309 Fleitlich-Bilyk, B. 222 Fletcher, J. M. 99, 222, 260 Flojo, J. 137, 141 Flores, C. G. 25

Author Index   453

Flores, M. M. 137 Flynn, K. 159, 166, 380 Fogg, L. 222 Foley, L. A. 242 Ford, D.Y. 20–1 Forman, E. 174–5 Fouad, N. A. 8, 21 Fountain, C. 309 Fowler, J. 415 Fox, L. 124, 127 Fox, M. 56–7 Francis, D. J. 99, 104, 105, 260, 267 Frank, D. A. 25 Frankenberg, E. 119 Franklin, M. I. 424, 425 Fredine, N. 137, 140 Freeman, B. 137, 140, 142 Freeman, R. 125 Friedman, M. 67 Friedman, R. J. 10 Friere, P. 329 Frijters, J. 103, 105, 106, 260 Frisby, C. L. 363, 364 Frisco, M. L. 306 Fritz, R. 399 Froiland, J. M. 372 Fry, R. 98 Fuchs, D. 138, 145, 259, 265 Fuchs, L. S. 138, 145, 259, 265 Fu, M. 369–70 Fung, W. 137, 140 Gaertner, S. L. 247 Gallardo, M. E. 20 Gamm, S. 401 Garbacz, S. A. 61–2, 63 Garcia-Coll, C. 7–8 García, E. E. 195 Garcia, E. P. 142 García, S. B. 121, 259 Gardner, R. 138, 145, 283 Garza, A. 122 Gau, J. M. 281–2 Gay, G. 136, 260, 283 Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network (GLSEN) 159, 166 Geddes, L. 195

Geisler, D. 262 Gelley, C. D. 58, 329, 381, 428 Genesee, F. 260 Genter, D. 143 George, S. M. 387 Gerber, M. 104, 105, 108, 137, 140 Gerewitz, J. 282 Gerstein, L. H. 21 Gersten, R. M. 36, 43, 99, 100, 102–3, 106–8, 111, 137, 141, 201, 260 Gettman, M. G. 68 Geva, E. 100, 102, 260 Gewertz, C. 36 Ghai, A. 297–8 Gibb, A. C. 21, 308, 309, 310 Gibbons Holtzman, E. 399 Gilbertson, D. 315 Gilbride, D. D. 23, 28 Gillberg, G. 221 Gilliam, W. S. 219 Gilligan, C. 426 Girvan, E. J. 400, 410 Glaser, B. G. 353 Glover, T. A. 63, 220 Goldbach, J. T. 354, 356 Goldenberg, C. 260, 268 Goldschmidt, P. 148 Goldstein, B. S. C. 40, 44, 49 Gollnick, D. 56 Gómez-Cerrillo, L. 207, 208 Gómez Maquet,Y. 175 Gonzales, F. 98 Gonzales, N. A. 10, 185 Gonzalez, A. 243 Gonzalez-Barrera, A. 97 González, T. 282 Goodman, R. M. 221–2, 317 Goodman, S. 400 Good, R. H. 102, 109 Goodrich, K. M. 23, 28 Goodwin, A. 47 Goodyear, L. 18 Gordon, K. E. 119 Gordon, L. 68 Gosch, A. 221–2 Gottardo, A. 102 Gould, S. J. 6, 421, 422

454   Author Index

Gover, A. R. 277, 282 Govinda Rao, L. 300 Gowramma, I. P. 296, 298, 300 Graden, J. 309, 310 Grashow, A. 284–5 Graves, A. W. 43, 103, 201, 260 Graves, M. F. 100, 101, 111 Graves, S. L. 21, 381, 388 Gravois, T. A. 37, 42 Graybill, E. C. 316, 336 Green, B. L. 68 Greene, D. J. 103, 105, 106 Greene, J. 334–5 Greenfield, P. M. 58 Gregory, A. 279, 280, 282 Gresham, F. M. 310 Greytak, E. A. 21, 159 Grigorenko, E. L. 137, 140, 194 Grisso, T. 25 Gross, D. 222 Grunewald, S. 384 GSA Network 160 Guli, L. A. 62–3 Gunn, B. 99–100, 105, 106 Guthrie, R.V. 4, 5 Gutierrez, N. 159 Gutkin, T. B. 363, 423, 425 Gutter, P. B. 12–13 Haager, D. 43, 103, 201 Hagan, E. C. 99, 104, 105, 260, 267 Hall, E. T. 410 Hall, G. C. N. 356 Hall, R. 401 Hall, S. L. 263 Hall, T. 145 Hambleton, R. K. 13, 210 Hamilton, L. 350–1 Hamre, B. K. 63 Hanson, M. L. 128 Harmon, C. 127–8 Harn, B. A. 399, 401 Harper, G. 414 Harper, W. 314 Harris, A. A. 141 Harris, A. M. 316 Harris, B. 389

Harris, K. C. 40, 44, 49 Harris-Obiakor. P. 135 Harris, S. 352 Harry, B. 128, 262, 292, 296, 311, 312, 345 Hartling, L. M. 161 Hartshorne, T. S. 317 Hasbrouck, J. E. 104, 105 Hass, M. R. 201 Haston, M. 160, 330 Hatzichristou, C. 6, 8–9, 12, 64, 69, 385, 388 Hawes, D. 279 Haymond, K. 102 Hays, D. G. 341, 345–6, 350–1, 353–5, 357 Healy, K. 108 Heifetz, R. 284–5 Heller, K. A. 7 Helm, S. 387 Helms, J. E. 13 Hemmeler, M. 336 Hemmeter, M. L. 67, 220 Henning-Stout, M. 89 Hensler-McGinnis, N. 333 Heppner, P. P. 425 Heritage, M. 45, 47 Hernandez-Saca, D. I. 193, 313, 423, 425 Herrera, S. G. 268 Herron, J. 136 Hess, R. S. 223 Hibel, J. 306, 310 Hickman, P. 260 Higareda, I. 309 Hill, J. 380 Hindley, L. M. 137, 138, 142 Hitchcock, D. M. 277, 282 Hitchcock, J. 13 Hitti, A. 243 Ho, A. 24 Hoagwood, K. 25, 386, 415 Hobart Davies, W. W. 223 Hodson, C. 276, 277 Hoffman, A. J. 384 Holcomb-McCoy, C. 57, 68–70 Hollander, M. J. 127, 128 Holtzman, W. H. 7 Holyoak, K. J. 143

Author Index   455

Hoover, J. J. 193, 199, 205, 209–11, 259–63, 265, 267–70 Hopewell, S. 260, 268 Hopstock, P. J. 79, 309 Horner, R. H. 277–83, 400–1, 410 Horner, S. B. 277–9 Horney, K. 424 Hosp, J. L. 210, 401 Hosp, M. K. 210 Hossain, R. 239, 244, 249–50 Ho, T. P. 222 Houlette, M. A. 247 Houser, J. 210 Howard, G. R. 411 Howell, K. W. 210 Huddleston, L. 316 Huebner, E. S. 310 Hughes, C. A. 100, 121, 127, 128 Hughes, J. M. 248 Hui, H. C. 219 Hung, S. F. 222 Hunter, J. 159 Hurley, N. 317 Hurley, S. R. 205 Hussar, W. J. 379, 381 Hwang, W. C. 174 Hylander, I. 37, 78, 82, 87–8 Hyland, M. 11, 326–7 Hysing, M. 221 Ihlo, T. 64 Imel, Z. 9 Ingraham, C. L. 38, 39, 42, 51, 57–60, 65, 69, 78–85, 87–90, 292–3 Ingstad, B. 295 Inman, A. G. 369–70 International Test Commission 224 Ippen, C. G. 180–1 Irvine, J. J. 136 Irving, M. A. 135 Isenberg, J. 425 Isreal, T. 21 Ivanova, M.Y. 222 Jackson, B. 57 Jackson, K. 157, 162, 327, 332–3 Jacob, S. 317

Jalongo, M. R. 425 James, J. 175 Janis, I. 409 Janssens, A. 221 Jarvin, L. 137, 140 Jastrowski-Mano, K. 223 Jayanthi, M. 102, 137, 141 Jayasena, A. 81, 351 Jay, M. 347 Jeltova, I. 137, 140 Jennings, W. G. 277, 282 Jenson, W. R. 228 Jernigan, M. 13 Jeynes, W. H. 57 Jimenez, A. 314 Jiménez-Chafey, M. I. 173, 176, 387, 389 Jimenez, M. 59–60, 63 Jiménez, R. 47 Jiménez Ramírez, G. 175 Jimenez, S. 309 Jimerson, S. 336 Joag-Deve, C. 46 Johnson, D. 278 Johnson, D. W. 237, 244 Johnson, F. 98, 193 Johnson, G. O. 6 Johnson, H. 36 Johnson, J. 20, 386 Johnson, K. M. 247 Johnson, R. T. 237, 244 Jones, C. 282 Jones, J. M. 6, 8–9, 12, 64, 69, 384–5, 388, 402, 407, 411 Jones, L. M. 242 Jones, S. M. 63 Joshi, A. 298 Joubert, M. 278 Jung, A. 122 Justice, L. 63 Kagawa-Singer, M. 387 Kahn, L. 125 Kaiser, A. P. 220 Kalyanpur, M. 292, 295–8, 300 Kame’enui, E. J. 101, 106–8, 401 Kamphaus, R. W. 220–1, 223 Kania, J. 402, 404–5, 408–9

456   Author Index

Kaplan, J. 333 Karafantis, D. 237–8, 242 Karns, K. 138, 145 Kasa-Hendrickson, C. 127–8 Katz, A. 100, 260 Katz, P. A. 240, 241 Kauffman, J. M. 283 Kaufmann, W. E. 309 Kaylor, M. 137 Kea, C. D. 20–1, 127 Kehle, T. J. 228 Keith III, M. A. 276, 277 Kena, G. 98, 135, 193 Kennedy, K. S. 201 Kettler, R. J. 220 KewalRamani, A. 56–7 Kibler, A. 36 Kieffer, M. J. 102 Killen, M. 237, 242, 243 Killion, M. U. 297 Kimbrough, P. 125 Kim, B. S. K. 198 Kim, S. 137–8, 142–4, 149–50, 345, 351, 354 Kincheloe, J. L. 386 King, K. 423, 425 King, M. D. 309 King-Thorius, K. A. 306 Kinoshita, L. 369–70 Kisker, E. E. 138, 143, 144, 147 Kivlighan, D. M. 425 Klein-Tasman, B. 223 Klingbeil, D. A. 279, 280 Klingner, J. K. 37, 108, 193, 199, 205, 209–11, 259, 261–5, 267–8, 270, 309, 311–12, 345 Knapp, S. 20, 23 Knesting, K. 309 Knight, G. P. 185, 372, 374 Knoche, L. L. 62–4, 70 Knotek, S. E. 37, 60, 79, 80, 88, 351–2 Kohn, L. 174 Kohn, S. W. 227 Kong, J. 137, 140, 151 Kong, K. 298 Kong,V. 298 Koonce, D. A. 314

Koretz, D. S. 221–2 Korn-Bursztyn, C. 425, 426 Kosciw, J. G. 21, 159 Koss-Chioino, J. D. 173 Kosty, D. 106 Kourea, L. 136, 141 Kowalewicz, E. 332 Kowalski, T. J. 381 Kozleski, E. B. 307, 310–14 Kramer, B. H. 386 Kramer, M. 402, 404, 405, 408–9 Kratochwill, T. R. 57, 59, 61, 63, 108, 220, 412 Kristapovich, P. 98, 135, 193 Krogstad, J. M. 97 Kumpfer, K. L. 174, 179 Kushida, D. 38, 60–1, 89 Kushner, M. I. 196, 209, 262 Kwong, S. L. 222 Kwon, K. 63 Lacerenza, L. A. 103, 105, 106, 260 LaFromboise, T. 174 Lake, C. 401 Lambda Legal 158 Lambert, N. M. 78 La Roche, M. 173 Lassen, S. R. 276 Lau, A. S. 173, 174 Lau, M. 269–70 Lauricella, M. 387 Law, J. K. 309 Law, P. A. 309 Lawrence-Lightfoot, S. 292, 301 Lawrence, M 129 Leaf, P. J. 279, 281 Leafstedt, J. M. 108 LeBrun, M. L. 278 Lee, C. C. 222 Lee, J. 365, 366 Lee, O. 36, 137, 140 Lee, S. 173 Lefly, D. 210 Le, H. 180–1 Lehman, D. R. 3, 4 Lei, P. 296 Lek, K. 298

Author Index   457

Lempers, J. D. 10 Leong, F. T. L. 13, 173, 384 Leong, T. L. 369–70 Lesaux, N. 102, 264, 265, 268, 270 Leung, P. W. 222 Lever, N. 415 Levitt,V. 201 Levy, J. 79 Levy, S. E. 309 Levy, S. R. 237–8, 241–2, 245–6, 248 Lewin, K. 414 Lewis, A. A. 389 Lewis, C. W. 278 Lian, M. G. 120–1 Liben, L. S. 240, 241 Li, C. 330–1 Lie, S. A. 221 Li-Grining, C. P. 63 Lim, H. J. 127 Lim, R. F. 225 Linan-Thompson, S. 99, 100, 102, 104–8, 260, 267 Lindholm-Leary, K. 260 Lindsey, K. A. 106 Linklater, D. L. 105, 108 Linquanti, R. 45, 47 Linsky, M. 284–5 Lipka, J. 138, 143, 144, 147 Lippman, D. N. 101 Lipson, M.Y. 204–5 Li, S. 210 Listerud, J. 309 Littman-Orlitzky, S. L. 8 Liu, K. K. 261 Liu, W. S. 222 Liu,Y. 209 Li,Y. 143 LoCasale-Crouch, J. 59–60, 63 Loe, S. A. 227 Loitz, P. A. 63 Lombardo, A. 327, 336 Looser, J. A. 12 López Bustamante, P. L. 175 Lopez, E. 25, 402, 411 Lopez, E. C. 11, 20, 39–43, 48, 51, 57, 65–6, 195, 208, 210, 213, 226, 316, 385, 425, 429

Lopez, O. S. 137, 142 Losen, D. J. 276, 277, 308, 309, 310 Losen, D. L. 311 Lott, B. 368, 369 Love, B. J. 330, 335 Love, B. L. 348 Love, E. 259, 269 Lovett, M. W. 103, 105, 106, 260 Lowry-Webster, H. M. 180 Lo,Y. 136–8, 140, 142–5, 148 Luhrs, A. 195 Luke, M. 23, 28 Luke, S. 137, 141, 142 Lundahl, A. A. 384 Lundervold, A. J. 221 Lussier, C. M. 137, 139 Lynch, E. W. 38, 66, 128 Lyon, A. 415 MacLean, M. S. 425 MacMillan, D. L. 310 MacSwan, J. 199, 203, 205, 206 Madden, N. 401 Madsen, J. 285 Madsen, R. 296 Madyun, N. H. 401 Maenner, M. J. 309 Maerten-Rivera, J. 137, 140 Mallon, G. P. 159 Malone, H. 336 Mancilla-Martinez, J. 100, 101, 111 Mandell, D. S. 309 Manis, F. R. 106 Mann, E. L. 278 Markham, P. L. 119 Marsella, A. J. 4, 8 Marshall, C. 285 Marston, D. 269–70 Marti, N. 175 Martin-Baro, I. 159 Martines, D. 69, 70, 213 Martinez, A. W. 127, 128, 415 Martínez, C. R. 173, 181 Martinez, R. S. 384–5 Martinussen, R. 222 Marzano, R. J. 46, 47, 48 Mashburn, A. J. 63

458   Author Index

Mathes, P. G. 99, 104, 105, 260, 267 Matthews, K. 125 Mattison, E. 278, 280–1 May, S. L. 277–83 McAllister, G. 136 McArdle, L. 332 McCabe, P. 332 McCall Z. 284, 285 McCart, A. 282 McCarthy, M. R. 20 McCartney, C. 352 McCauley, E. 415 McClair, M. B. 384–5 McClendon, J. 314 McCloskey, D. M. 223 McCobin, A. 381 McCord, R. S. 381 McCray, A. D. 121 McDavis, R. J. 6, 7, 8, 402 McDonnell, J. 126 McFarland-Whisman, J. 125 McGoey, K. E. 381 McGregor, J. 245, 248 McGue, M. 309 McHugh, M. 380 McIntosh, A. S. 260 McIntosh, K. 384–5, 400, 410 McKenzie, K. B. 285 McLaren, P. 386 McLaughlin, B. 101 McLaughlin-Volpe, T. 244 McLean, M. 67 McLoyd,V. C. 384 McMahan, G. A. 123–4 McMahon, E. 160, 330 McMaster, K. 210 McPherson, C. 357 McQuiston, C. 415 McWayne, C. 414 McWilliam, R. A. 67 Meaney, F. J. 309 Mebert, C. J. 245, 246 Mendelson, M. J. 239–40 Mercer, C. D. 141 Merrell, K. 201 Merriam, S. B. 350, 351 Mertens, D. M. 346

Messick, S. 7, 13 Metzger, M. 63 Meyer, M. R. 143 Meyers, A. B. 316, 345, 351, 354 Meyers, B. 38, 40, 44 Meyers, J. 69, 78, 80, 89, 292, 316, 345, 351, 354 Michael, R. S. 279, 280 Michaels, C. A. 123, 137–8, 142–4, 149–50 Middelberg, L. 311 Mihalas, S. 343, 358 Milacci, F. 351 Millard, A. 138, 143, 144, 147 Miller, A. 381 Miller, D. L. 342, 345, 346 Miller, G. E. 25 Miller, J. A. 427, 428 Miller, M. 335 Miller, P. H. 341 Miller, S. J. 167 Miller, S. P. 141 Millet, J. 100 Milner, R. H. 283 Miranda, A. H. 12–13, 227, 332, 336, 384 Miranda, J. 174 Mitchell, M. M. 279, 281 Mitchell, R. C. 103, 105, 106 Mitra, S. 295 Mohr, M. M. 425 Montgomery, W. 20 Moore, R. B. 28, 79, 81, 351 Morales, E. 12 Moran, A. S. 137, 140 Morgan, G. B. 220 Morgan, P. L. 306, 310 Morphy, P. 137, 141 Morris, J. 102 Morrison, K. 276, 277 Morrow, S. L. 342, 345, 346 Moschkovich, J. 36, 136, 139, 148 Moses-Snipes, P. R. 138, 143, 144 Moustakas, C. 342, 352–3, 355 Moy, G. 327, 332–3 Mueller, J. 102 Muhammad, G. E. 401 Muller, C. 310 Mulvey, K. 243

Author Index   459

Muñoz, R. F. 180–1 Munro, A. B. 381 Murch, T. 67 Murguia, A. 38, 60–1, 89 Murray, D. W. 63 Muschkin, C. 278, 279 Muscott, H. S. 278 Musu-Gillette, L., 135 Muyskens, P. 269–70 Nagayama Hall, G. C. 384 Nahari, S. 68, 69, 213 Nakamoto, J. 106 Nakasato, J. 281 Náñez, J. E. 195 Nardo, A. C. 279, 280 Nastasi, B. K. 6, 8–9, 12–13, 21, 28, 64, 66, 69, 79, 81, 314, 351, 385, 388 National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) 8, 11, 18–22, 24, 26–7, 109, 165, 184, 220, 223, 227, 325, 328, 382–3, 389–90, 390, 399 National Association of School Resource Officers (NASRO) 407, 409 National Association of State Directors of Special Education 124 National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) 56, 57, 58, 118, 135, 218, 279 National Center on Response to Intervention (NCRTI) 258–9, 265 National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition 380 National Council of Teachers of English 380 National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) 142 National Governors Association 45 National Research Council and Institute of Medicine 176 Navarro, I. 280 NCCRESt 265 Neal, L.V. I. 127–8 Neal, R. 423, 425 Nelson, G. 328 Nessel, D. D. 268 Neuman, S. B. 63 Newcomer, L. 125

Newell, M. L. 6, 8–9, 12, 21, 64, 69, 80–1, 87, 89–90, 385, 388 Newell, T. S. 12 Newitt, K. 63 Newman-Gonchar, R. 102 Newsome, P. 196, 262 Next Generation Science Standards Lead States 36 Nicholas, J. S. 309 Nicholson-Crotty, S. 277, 278 Nieto, S. 11 Nilsson, J. E. 334 Noddings, N. 426 Noltemeyer, A. L. 343, 357, 384 Noonan, R. K. 317 Norcross, J. 12 North, C. E. 21 Nwosu, C. 380 Oades-Sese, G.V. 198, 202, 389 Oakland, T. 13 Obiakor, F. E. 135, 136, 141 O’Brien, J. 125 O’Brien, K. M. 333 O’Bryon, E. C. 196–7, 213, 329, 384, 385, 386, 389 Ochoa, S. H. 193–4, 199, 201–3, 205–6, 208–9, 212, 309, 314 O’Connor, R. E. 105, 137, 261 Odegard, M. A. 333 O’Hallaron, C. L. 139 Oh, K. 127 Oka, E. R. 90 Okamoto, S. K. 387 Oliva, M. 285 Olvera, P. 207, 208 O’Malley, J. M. 203 O’Malley, M. D. 214 Omobola, O. C. 26 Onwuegbuzie, A. J. 343, 358 Orfield, G. 119, 308 Orosco, M. J. 137, 139, 140, 151, 263, 265, 267, 401 Ortiz, A. A. 119, 196, 209, 259, 262, 264, 265, 307, 310–11 Ortiz, M. 111 Ortiz, S. O. 193–4, 199, 201–3, 205–9, 212

460   Author Index

Ortman, J. M. 364 Osher, D. 307, 310–11 Ostemeyer, K. 354 Osterling, J. P. 122 Oswald, D. 283 Oswald, D. P. 308, 310 Overton, T. 126 Owen, J. 9 Ozer, E. J. 414 Paceley, M. S. 159, 166 Pachan, M. 277, 281 Padilla, A. M. 366, 367–8, 371 Palfrey, J. S. 309, 310 Palmer, N. A. 21, 159 Paradis, J. 206 Parette, P. S. 123–4 Parham, T. A. 5, 6–7, 11, 20 Parish, S. L. 119 Parker, R. 104, 105 Park, H. S. 120–1 Park, M. 308–9 Park,Y. 101, 102, 106, 107, 108 Parrado, E. 415 Patton, J. 263, 265 Paul, P. 166 Pavel, M. 281–2 Payne, A. A. 280 Payton, J. 277, 281 Pearpoint, J. 125 Pearson, P. D. 46 Pedersen, P. 3, 11 Peguero, A. A. 277, 279 Peña, E. D. 371 Pendzick, M. L. 79, 309 Pereira, L. 122 Pereira-León, M. 79–80 Perez, D. R. 268 Perkins, D. M. 245, 246 Perry, D. F. 63 Persha, A. J. 295 Petersen, G. J. 381 Peterson, R. 279, 280 Petley, R. 239, 244, 249–50 Pettigrew, T. F. 243, 244 Pettit, S. K. 36, 50 Phinney, J. S. 10, 239

Phoenix, A. 161 Pianta, R. C. 63 Pimentel, S. 36 Pinto-Martin, J. A. 309 Pinyuchon, M. 174 Pitts, D. W. 280 Poe, M. D. 219 Poisson, M. 301 Pollack, T. M. 249, 250 Pollard-Durodola, S. D. 104, 105, 260 Pollock, M. 285 Poloni-Staudinger, L. 310 Ponterotto, J. G. 81, 83, 87, 341, 343–6, 348–50, 354, 425 Pontón, M. O. 195 Powell, D. R. 372 Powell, H. 343, 358 Powell, S. R. 138, 145 Pratt-Johnson,Y. 143 Prenovost, M. A. 243, 251 President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education 399 Price-Baugh, R. 401 Prieto, A. G. 309 Prilleltensky, I. 328 Proctor, C. P. 102 Proctor, S. L. 228, 316, 343, 345, 350, 357, 359, 384–5, 425 Pruitt-Stephens, L. 227 Prum, R. 297 Pryzwansky, W. B. 37, 41 Puckett, C. 79–80 Pugach, M. C. 129 Pulido, R. 388 Pullmann, M. 415 Purdy, K. T. 239–40 Qi, C. H. 308–9 Quinn, H. 36 Quintana, S. M. 174, 239 Quiroz, B. 58 Raabe, T. 237, 239 Rabiner, D. 63 Radliff, K. H. 332 Radliff, K. M. 336 Rae, D. S. 221–2

Author Index   461

Raines, T. C. 221, 228 Raj, R. 160 Ramírez, L. 237–8, 242 Ramirez, R. R. 370 Ramirez, S. Z. 38 Ramsey, P. G. 246, 248–50, 252–3 Ransom, K. A. 62, 63, 70 Rao, S. 297 Rao,V. R. P. S. 295 Rathbun, A. 98, 135, 193 Ratts, M. J. 327 Rausch, M. K. 21, 276–81, 283–4, 308–10 Ravens-Sieberer, U. 221–2 Raver, C. C. 63 Reason, P. 285 Regan, R. 309 Rein, M. 285 Reisman, A. 36 Reivich, K. 175 Remer, P. 162 Renshaw, T. L. 214 Reschly, D. J. 7 Rescorla, L. A. 222 Resnicow, K. 173 Reutebuch, C. 103, 106 Reyes, M. 177 Reyes, M., 179 Reynolds, C. R. 220, 220–1, 223, 225–6, 363 Reynolds, W. M. 25 Rhodes, R. L. 193–4, 199, 201–3, 205–6, 208–9, 212, 314 Riccio, C. 309 Richard, A. 138, 143, 144, 147 Richardson, J. T. E. 422 Richardson, R. 222 Richards-Tutor, C. 103, 108 Richey, L. 309, 310 Ridge, A. 222 Ridley, C. R. 227 Riek, B. M. 247 Riley, D. 311, 312 Rios-Vargas, M. 98 Rittel, H. W. J. 284 Ritterman, M. L. 414 Ritter, S. 21, 283–4, 308, 309, 310 Rivera, C. 100

Rivera-Medina, C. 175, 179 Robbins, C. G. 165 Roberts, G. 103, 105, 106 Robertson, K. 299 Robertson, P. M. 196, 209, 262 Robinson, C. 372 Robinson, J., 135 Rocha, R. 279 Roch, C. H. 280 Rocque, M. 278 Rodolfa, E. 9 Rodríguez Hernández, N. 175, 181, 182 Rodríguez Ocasio, G. 175, 181, 182 Rogers, M. R. 11, 41–2, 65, 69, 196–7, 213, 329, 384–6, 390, 411 Rohde, P. 175 Rolstad, K. 199, 203, 205, 206 Romain, M. 103, 105, 106 Romero, P. A. 197, 198, 202 Roosa, M. W. 185, 372, 374 Ropp, S. A. 244 Roseberry-McKibbin, C. 204 Rosenberg, R. E. 309 Rosenfield, S. A. 37, 41, 42, 49–50, 88 Rosenthal, L. 245, 246 Rose, R. A. 119 Roso, C. G. 351 Rosselló, J. 175, 176, 179, 182 Ross, S. G. 103, 105, 106 Rothstein-Fisch, C. 58 Routel, C. 22 Roysircar, G. 21 Rubin, D. B. 365 Rubin, K. H. 292 Rubinson, F. 332 Rueda, R. 108, 127, 309 Ruiz-Figueroa, O. 260, 268 Rush, D. D. 67–8 Rutherford, R. B. 309 Rutland, A. 237, 239, 242, 244, 249–50 Ryan, R. 22, 23 Sáez-Santiago, E. 173, 175–7, 179, 181–2, 185 Sailor, W. 276 Salamon, T. 228 Salas, L. 346

462   Author Index

Salazar, J. J. 309 Salina, D. 414 Salkind, N. J. 366 Sameroff, A. 386 Sanchez, D. T. 370 Sancken, K. 282 Sandall, S. 67 Sander, J. 402 Sanderman, A. R. 79 Sanders, E. A. 103, 104, 105 Sandler, I. N. 10 Sandoval, J. H. 59, 60, 78, 82 Santoro, L. 99, 107, 108 Sapru, S 79 Sapru, S. 309 Sardin, L. 63 Sarr, B. J. 11, 326–7 Sarris, J. 268 Saunders, W. M. 260 Scanlon, D. M. 99 Scarcella, R. 99, 106 Scarpa, A. 354 Schaller, M. 3, 4 Schanding, G. T. 6, 8–9, 12, 64, 69, 385, 388 Schatschneider, C. 99 Scheffel, D. 210 Schellinger, K. B. 277, 281 Scheurich, J. J. 285 Schieve, L. A. 309 Schleppegrell, M. J. 139 Schley G. 138, 145 Schmidt, C. K. 334 Schmitz, K. 125 Schnakenberg, J. W. 103, 106 Schon, D. A. 285 Schulte, A. C. 37, 41, 63 Schultz, L. 248, 249, 253 Schwierjohn, C. A. 263 Scorcia, D. 227 Secada, W. 137, 140 Seidl, B. 138, 145 Seligman, M. E. P. 175, 179 Selman, R. L. 248, 249, 253 Sendrowitz, K. 335 Senge, P. M. 285 Sexton, U. 79–80 Shahar, G. 219

Shakespeare, T. 292, 293 Shanahan, T. 99–101, 104, 106, 206, 260 Shaw, D. S. 219 Shaw, H. 175 Sheetal, P. 333 Shekarkhar, Z. 277, 279 Shelden, M. L. 67–8 Shelton, T. L. 63 Shepard, L. A. 310 Sheridan, S. M. 50, 57, 59, 61–4, 70, 425 Shifrer, D. 310 Shih, M. 370 Shin, C. 282 Shin, S. J. 199, 206, 208, 211 Shofield, J. W. 387 Shogren, K. A. 121–2 Shollenberger, T. L. 278 Short, R. J. 427, 428 Shriberg, D. 11–13, 326–7, 332–3, 336, 357, 384 Shumate, L. 136–8, 140, 142–5, 148 Silva, A. E. 37, 42 Silverstein, L. B. 354 Simmons, A. B. 21, 308–10 Simonson, G. R. 389 Simons, R. L. 10 Simonsson, M. 126 Simpson, G. 221–2 Sines, M. 309 Singer, J. D. 309, 310 Singh, A. A. 157, 159–62, 167, 330, 333, 341, 345–6, 350–1, 353–5, 357 Singh,V. 297–8 Singley, M. K. 143 Sivan, A. 222 Skiba, R. J. 21, 276–81, 283–4, 308–11 Skinner, C. 364 Skloot, R. 356 Skokut, M. 336 Skrtic, T. M. 284, 285, 425 Sladeczek, I. 63 Slavin, R. E. 401 Small, S. 99 Smith, A. 311, 312, 314 Smith, B. 67 Smith, J. A. 425 Smith, J. M. 103, 108

Author Index   463

Smith, L.V. 388 Smith, M. L. 310 Smith, P. 22, 327, 332–3 Smith, R. 135 Smith, S. 123 Smith, T. B. 174 Smolkowski, K. 99–100, 101, 105, 106–8, 281, 400, 410 Snell, M. E. 126 Snow, C. E. 101 Snow, M. 260 Snyder, A. 399 Snyder, T. D. 9, 381 Soifer, D. 98 Solari, E. J. 104, 105, 108 Soler, R. 173 Soles, T. 309 Soltero-González, L. 260, 264, 265, 268, 270 Song, S.Y. 336 Son, S-H. 372 Soodak, L. C. 20 Sotelo-Dynega, M. 195, 389 Souto-Manning, M. 268 Spandagou, I. 292 Spanierman, L. 334–5 Sparrow, W. 260, 268 Spears Brown, C. 237, 243, 244 Speight, S. L. 327–8, 336 Spenciner, L. J. 151 Spieker, S. 219 Spooner, F. 141 Sprague, J. R. 281–2, 282 Stankov, L. 365 St. Clair, L. 57 Steedly, K. 137, 141, 142 Steele, M. M. 276 Stefancic, J. 347 Steffensen, M. S. 46 Stegila, A. 145 Steiker, L. K. H. 354, 356 Steinbach, K. 103, 105, 106, 260 Steinberg, M. 278 Stephan, S. 415 Stephenson, T. G. 79, 309 Sternberg, R. J. 137, 140, 194 Stewart, K. 336

Stice, E. 175 Stoddard, J. L. 180–1 Stoecker, R. 355 Stoll, S. 332 Stoolmiller, M. 102, 109 Strauss, A. L. 342, 345, 353 Streefland, L. 143 Stuart, E. A. 365 Sue, D. 3, 8, 81, 83, 87, 402 Sue, D. W. 3, 6, 7, 8, 81, 83, 87 Sue, S. 183–4 Sugai, G. 281, 400, 401, 410 Suh, J. 278 Suh, S. 278 Suldo, S. 343, 358 Sullivan, A. L. 20, 193, 279–80, 306, 308, 308–11, 313, 389 Sullivan, W. M. 296 Summers, J. A. 67 Sunderman, G. 36 Suzuki, L. A. 81, 83, 87, 225–6, 363, 425 Swanger-Gagné, M. S. 61–2 Swanson, E. 268 Swanson, H. L. 137, 139–40 Sweeney, J. 99 Swidler, A. 296 Tackett, K. K. 103, 106 Tang, C. P. 222 Tannock, R. 222 Tanzer, N. K. 194, 195 Taras,V. 202 Tarver Behring, S. 38, 57–8, 60–1, 69, 89 TASH (The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps) 120 Tate, W. 311–12 Tatum, A. W. 401 Tatum, B. 243 Taylor, A. 298 Taylor, A. M. 61–2 Taylor, L. 415 Taylor, M. 59–60, 63 Taylor, R. D. 277, 281 Teague, J. 195 Tein, J. 10 Teixeira de Melo, A. 174

464   Author Index

Temple, M. 103, 105, 106, 260 Tenore, B. F. 283 Terry, N. P. 135 Tharp, D. S. 21 Tharp, R. 263 Theodore, L. A. 228 Theriot, M. T. 278 Therrien, M. 370 Thijs, J. 245 Thomas Beck, C. 108 Thompson, A. R. 280 Thorius, J. 423, 425 Thressiakutty, A. T. 300 Tilly, W. D. 99, 107, 108 Tinajero, J.V. 205 Tincani, M. 119, 127 Tipton, S. M. 296 Tobin, T. J. 277–83 Todd, A. W. 281 Todd, N. R. 84, 334–5 Tompkins, N. 327, 332–3 Toporek, R. L. 21 Torres,V. 370 Tosolt, B. 348 Tracy, M. L. 227 Travers, J. 119, 127 Trentacosta, C. J. 219 Trent, S. C. 127, 307, 310–11 Triandis, H. C. 219 Trickett, E. 18 Trimble, J. 18 Trimble, J. E 384 Tropp, L. R. 243, 244, 251 Truesdell, L. 57, 210 Trumbull, E. 58 Truscott, S. D. 228, 345, 350–1, 354, 359, 425 Trusty, J. 28 Tuck, E. 354–5 Turnbull, A. P. 121–2, 122, 282 Turnbull, H. R. 121–2 Turnbull, R. 122 Tyler, K. M. 137, 142 Ty, S.V. 384–5 Umaña-Taylor, A. 372, 374 UNESCO 293–4, 296, 301

Un S. 298 Urbano, A. 160, 330 Uribe, L. 415 Uro, G. 56, 401 U.S. Census Bureau 172, 379, 380 U.S. Department of Education 119, 123, 136, 311 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 173 U.S. Department of Labor 385 Utley, C. A. 135–6, 138, 141, 145 Vachon, M. 295 Vadasy, P. F. 103, 104, 105 Valdés, G. 36 Valdez, J. K. 387 Valdez Pierce, L. 203 Valencia, R. R. 5, 7, 363 Valentine, D. 277, 278 Valenzuela, J. S. 308–9 VandeCreek, L. 20, 23 VanDerHeyden, A. M. 260, 315 Vanderwood, M. L. 108 Van de Vijver, F. J. R. 194, 195 Vandiver, B. J. 10 Vanleit, B. 297 van Loon, A. 174 Vannatta, R. 124 Van Norman, E. R. 279, 280 van Schaik, A. 174 Vargas, L. A. 173 Varjas, K. 21, 28, 81, 345, 351, 354 Varjas, K. M. 79, 81 Vaughan-Jensen, J. 388 Vaughn, B. J. 124 Vaughn, S. 99, 103–6, 260, 264–5, 267, 268, 315 Vazquez-Nuttall, E. 330–1 Velasco, A. 127 Velasco, P. 36, 46 Velilla, E. 238, 242 Vellutino, F. R. 99 Vera, E. M. 327–8, 330, 334, 336, 357 Vereen, L. G. 333 Verkuyten, M. 245 Vidal, F. 424 Vijver, F. J. R. van de 13

Author Index   465

Vincent, C. G. 281–2, 282 Vygotsky, L. 427 Wagner, C. 122 Waitoller, F. R. 307–8, 423, 425 Wakeman, S.Y. 141 Walker, A. M. 11, 326–7 Walker, D. K. 309, 310 Walker, M. 160 Walqui, A. 45, 47 Walsh, C. 124 Walston, D. 401 Wampold, B. E. 174, 425 Wang, A. 12–13 Wang, E. W. 277, 277–8, 279 Wang, J. 148 Wang, M. 282 Wang, P. 137–8, 142–4, 149–50 Wang, X. 98, 135, 193 Wanis, M. G. 414 Wanzek, J. 105, 315 Warner, D. N. 162 Warner, L. R. 161 Warren, T. M. 8 Washington, B. 121 Webber, M. W. 284 Wehman, P. 128 Wehmeyer, M. L. 22, 121–2, 129 Weiner, I. B. 25 Weinstein, R. S. 279, 280 Weissberg, R. P. 179, 277, 281 Weissman, M. 79–80 Weist, M. 415 Welch, K. 280 Welner, K. G. 309, 310 Wesley, P. W. 68 Westling, D. L. 127 West, T. 237–8, 238, 242 Wexler, J. 103, 105, 106 Wheeler, A. S. 332, 384 Whitbeck, L. B. 173 White, C. E. 101 Whitehouse, M. H. 103, 105, 106 White, J. L. 5, 6–7, 11 Whiteside, H. O. 174 Wielding, E. 173 Wiener, R. 20

Wiese Rogers, R. M. 12–13 Wilcox, M. J. 67 Wiley, H. I. 108 Wilkinson, C.Y. 196, 209, 262 Wilkinson-Flicker, S. 98, 135, 193 Wille, N. 221–2 Williams, M. E. 309 Williams, S. A. S. 336 Williford, A. P. 63 Wimsatt, M. K. 227 Windmueller, M. P. 108 Winton, P. J. 67 Wise, P. S. 422, 423 Witte, A. 63 Witt, J. C. 260, 315 Wixson, K. K. 204–5 Woerner, W. 222 Wong Fillmore, L. 48 Woods, J. J. 67 Woods, K. E. 61–2 Woodward, L. J. 219 Woolsey, L. 138, 145 Worell, J. 162 World Health Organization (WHO) 295–6 Worrell, F. C. 10 Wright Halbert, J. 401 Wright, L. B. 388 Wright, S. C. 244 Wyatte, M. L. 124 Wynne, M. E. 327, 336 Xu,Y. 259 Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z. 100 Yamada, A M. 4, 8 Yanez, E. E. 138, 143–4, 147 Yang, L. H. 369–70 Yates, J. R. 119 Yazdian, L. 138, 145 Yetter, G. 6, 8–9, 12, 64, 69, 385, 388 Yohani, S. 225 Young, B. L. 285 Young, I. M. 326 Young, I. P. 381

466   Author Index

Young, M. A. 222, 285 Youngstrom, E. 415 Ysseldyke, J. E. 7, 309–10 Zabloski, J. 351 Zalk, S. R. 241 Zamora-Durán, G. 311–12 Zaremba, C. 387 Zayas, L. H. 25

Zehler, A. M. 79, 309 Zhang, J. 98, 135, 193 Zhou, Z. 228 Zins, J. E. 57 Zion, S. 311–12 Zirkel, S. 245, 249, 250 Zollman, A. 138, 142 Zucker, S. H. 309 Zweiback, R. 57