Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal Editorial Board Co-Editors GEORGIOS D. SIDERIDIS University of Crete, Greece

Production Editor LAUREN BROWNSTEIN MOIRA MUNNS

Design Editor SUSAN AIKEN MCDONALD

TERESA ALLISSA CITRO Learning Disabilities Worldwide

Consulting Editors MARGARET BEEBE-FRANKENBERGER CHERI HOY University of Montana

ROBERT BROOKS Harvard Medical School

JUDITH CARTA Juniper Gardens Children’s Project

DONALD DESHLER University of Kansas

GEORGE DUPAUL Lehigh University

LINDA ELKSNIN

University of Georgia

DORIS JOHNSON Northwestern University

RICK LAVOIE Simmons College

JAMES LEFFERT University of Massachusetts, Boston

DANIELA LUCANGELI University of Padua, Italy

LARRY MAHEADY

The Citadel

SUNY at Fredonia

NICK ELKSNIN

HOWARD MARGOLIS

The Citadel

FRANCO FABBRO University of Udine, Italy

ANGELA FAWCETT University of Sheffield, UK

DOUG FUCHS Vanderbilt University

RUSSELL GERSTEN Instructional Research Group

DOUGLAS GLASSNAP University of Kansas

STEVEN GRAHAM Vanderbilt University

CHARLES GREENWOOD Juniper Gardens Children’s Project

NOEL GREGG University of Georgia

ELENA GRIGORENKO Yale University

EDWARD HALLOWELL Harvard Medical School

CUNY/Queens College

MARGO MASTROPIERI George Mason University

NANCY MATHER University of Arizona

PETER MCDONALD Eagle Hill School

TIM MILES University of Wales, U.K.

SUSAN MORTWEET Children’s Mercy Hospital

JOHN NEZLEK College of William & Mary

FESTUS OBIAKOR University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

ANTHONY J. ONWUEGBUZIE University of South Florida

SUSANA PADELIADU University of Thessaly, Greece

PETE PETERSON

EDWARD POLLOWAY Lynchburg College

DEANNA SANDS University of Colorado at Denver

DAVID SCANLON Boston College

BENNETT A. SHAYWITZ Yale University, Child Study Center

SALLY E. SHAYWITZ Yale University, Child Study Center

RITA SHERBENOU ETS RW Educational Group

MARGARET SNOWLING University of York, UK

GARY SIPERSTEIN University of Massachusetts, Boston

KEITH STANOVICH University of Toronto, Canada

LEE SWANSON University of California, Riverside

HARVEY SWITZKY University of Northern Illinois

MELODY TANKERSLEY Kent State University

GARY A. TROIA University of Washington

CHERYL UTLEY Juniper Gardens Children’s Project

SHARON VAUGHN University of Texas

MARJA VAURAS University of Turku, Finland

MARIA ZAFEIROPOULOU

Johnson County Community College University of Thessaly, Greece

Contents Research Paper Restrictiveness and Race in Special Education Placements in ForProfit and Non-Profit Charter Schools in California — 1 EDWARD GARCIA FIERROS & NEIL A. BLOMBERG

Commentaries Restrictiveness and Race in Special Education: The Issue of Cultural Reciprocity — 17 PHIL PARETTE

Restrictiveness and Race in Special Education: The Failure to Prevent or to Return — 27 GWENDOLYN CARTLEDGE

Restrictiveness and Race in Special Education: Socio-cultural and Linguistic Considerations — 34 SHERYL V. TAYLOR

Restrictiveness and Race in Special Education: The Content Mastery Center Model — 45 AMELIA JENKINS

Restrictiveness and Race in Special Education: Practicalizing the Laws — 52 FESTUS OBIAKOR, FLOYD D. BEACHUM, & MATEBA HARRIS

Restrictiveness and Race in Special Education: Access to a Special Education Infrastructure — 57 COURTNEY DAVIS

Restrictiveness and Race in Special Education: Facts that Remain Difficult to Ignore Anymore — 64 BOB ALGOZZINE

Restrictiveness and Race in Special Education: Educating All Learners — 70 PATRICK A. GRANT

Restrictiveness and Race in Special Education: Addressing the Problem We Know Too Well — 75 EDWARD GARCIA FIERROS

Mission Statement Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal (LDCJ) is a forum for research, practice, and opinion regarding learning disabilities (LD) and associated disorders. The mission of the journal is to provide the most up-to-date, information on diagnosis and identification, assessment, interventions, policy, and other related issues on LD. The journal intends to inform and challenge researchers, practitioners and individuals who are involved with learning disabilities.

Our students take a different path to the top. The Nation’s Leading College for Students with Learning Disabilities and AD/HD Serving talented and bright students with learning differences and AD/HD, Landmark College’s accredited associate degree and summer programs offer a proven course for academic success. Landmark has one of America’s lowest student-faculty ratios, enabling us to create innovative learning strategies and employ the latest technology. Our approach works. Nine of every ten Landmark College graduates go on to pursue their baccalaureate degrees at such institutions as American, Brown, Occidental and the University of Denver. DEGREE OPTIONS:

• A.A. in General Studies • A.A. in Business Studies

LANDMARK COLLEGE Putney, Vermont

www.landmark.edu Phone: 802-387-6718

Fall 2004 Open Houses:

Saturday, September 18 Saturday, October 23 Saturday, November 20 Open House Hours: 9 a.m. - 2 p.m.

Publisher Learning Disabilities Worldwide (LDW) P. O. Box 142, Weston, MA 02493

LDW WEBSITE: http://www.ldworldwide.org

Subscription Rates—bi-annual publication—US currency only—includes shipping and handling ELECTRONIC VERSION (PDF) IS AVAILABLE FOR $50.00

USA Members of LDW — $30; USA non-members — $45; USA Institutional — $125 International—Canada, Europe and S. America Members of LDW — $45 International—all other countries—Members of LDW — $65 International—Canada, Europe and S. America Non-Members of LDW — $60 International—all other countries—Non-Members of LDW — $80 Institutional—Canada, Europe and S. America — $140; Institutional—all other countries — $160

Editorial Policy Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal (LDCJ) is a forum for research, practice and opinion papers in the area of learning disabilities (LD) and related disorders. The following types of articles are appropriate for submission to LDCJ. 1. Empirical Studies. Research studies using experimental or non-experimental designs and descriptive works are appropriate as long as there is a relevance to learning disabilities. Studies that include samples of students at risk of learning problems and in general underachievement are also appropriate. Comparative works that include other disorders such as mental retardation and low incidence disabilities may also be considered for publication (as long as there is relevance to low achievement and/or LD). The size of the submissions must be between 15-25 typewritten, double-spaced pages (including tables, figures, references, appendices and/or other supplements). References must be used judiciously. Figures and pictures must be camera-ready. 2. Review Papers. Reviews of issues related to LD are appropriate for the journal. The size of the submissions must be between 15–25 typewritten, double-spaced pages. 3. Brief Research Reports. Brief research works may be accepted in the journal if space permits and if there are substantial reasons to suggest that the full report should not be published. Such special cases may be preliminary findings and pilot works, replication studies, etc. The length of brief reports must be between 8–12 typewritten, double-spaced pages. 4. Special Issues. Authors may submit a proposal for a special thematic issue in a particular area, relevant to LD. Initially, authors must submit a proposal of 4-8 typewritten double-spaced pages that provides an outline of the area, and describes the goals and importance of the issue for the field of LD, along with the suggested contributions. The author(s) will act as Guest Editor(s) and will be responsible for inviting other works and for regulating the review process. They will also work closely with one of the co-editors in this process. Authors are encouraged to consult the co-editors, prior to submitting their proposal, in order to verify appropriateness and relevance of the topic to the LD field. 5. Practice Papers. These are reports of practical nature that have relevance and importance to educators, practitioners, and researchers. They may describe innovative instructional practices, behavior modification programs, etc. The length of these reports must be between 8-15 typewritten, double-spaced pages. 6. Opinion Papers. These papers may address issues of policy, legislation, mandates and laws relevant to the LD population, etc. They may be the basis for a forum for discussion by other members of the field of LD. 7. Research methodology reports. The purpose of these reports is to convey methodological and/or data analytic advances that have particular relevance for the LD field. The length of these reports must be between 8–15 typewritten, double-spaced pages. Manuscript Preparation Authors must adhere to the writing guidelines described in the 5th Edition of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (2001). For sample guidelines authors may visit APA at http://www.apastyle.org. With their submission, authors must send a cover letter indicating the title and length of the paper and must state that their work is not currently under review in another journal. Authors should include two title pages (one with title only) and the other with full author information. Manuscripts will be sent for a blind review to 2–3 members of the editorial board. Authors will be notified of the editorial decision with a formal letter from one of the co-editors. If the manuscript is accepted, authors will be asked to send it electronically as a document in Word 2000 (both PC and Mac formats are acceptable) and they will also need to fill in a copyright waiver form. Submissions (4 copies) may be sent via regular mail to either Georgios D. Sideridis, Ph.D., or to Teresa Citro, at Learning Disabilities Worldwide, PO Box 142 Weston, MA 02493. Authors are also encouraged to send their contributions electronically to: [email protected]. The editors reserve the right to make final editorial changes to the manuscripts (without however altering the content of the original submission).

Learning Disabilities Worldwide expresses our sincere appreciation to the Commonwealth Learning Center for funding the printing and distribution of 2,000 copies of Success in Many Shades: Post-Secondary Options for Students with Learning Disabilities to all pediatricians in Massachusetts

CLC may be the best TLC When language or learning difficulties hamper a child’s development...

At Commonwealth Learning Center (CLC), we specialize in addressing language and learning disorders. We provide educational assessments, professional individualized instruction, and teacher training. Using proven multisensory methodologies, our highly experienced teachers provide exceptional personalized support to each child. EVALUATIONS CLC provides educational assessments, including testing, personal evaluations and recommendations for appropriate alternative learning techniques.

INDIVIDUAL INSTRUCTION Our well-trained and experienced teachers provide sensitive, personalized, one-on-one instruction aimed at achieving significant academic improvement and increased self-confidence.

PROGRAMS • Reading (Lindamood Phoneme SequencingTM; Orton-Gillingham; Wilson; and others) • Reading Comprehension (Nancibell Visualizing and Verbalizing; Project Read) • Study Skills • Math • Writing • Spelling • Academic Support • ISEE, SSAT, SAT, MCAS Test Preparation

TEACHER TRAINING PROGRAMS We conduct an extensive schedule of training programs for teachers in:

• • • • •

Lindamood Phoneme • Reinforcing Reading and Spelling N Sequencing™ Program Concepts Through Games Acc EW! Or to redited Nancibell Visualizing • Orton-Gillingham by n-Gi • 45 hours Basic Training and Verbalizing Acad llingham e m y (Practicum available) Educational Evaluations • Overview Classroom Management Study Skills Training is conducted at our facilities as well as convenient school locations.

PDPs, CEUs and graduate credit available

TEACHING OPPORTUNITIES AVAILABLE

Please call or visit our website for dates and information on new one-day workshops for parents and professionals.

SUPPORT FOR PARENT ADVISORY COUNCILS (PACs) Fr ee speak er esenta tions on Educa tion topics ffor or par ent and sc hool ggrroups speaker erss and pr presenta esentations Education parent school

800-461-6671 • email: [email protected] • web: www.commlearn.com

COMMONWEALTH LEARNING CENTER Nonprofit Educational Centers

Needham Danvers Sudbury The Commonwealth Learning Center is an independent, nonprofit teaching facility and is not affiliated with LindamoodBell Learning Processes Inc., Pat Lindamood, Phyllis Lindamood or Nanci Bell. We accept students of any race, religion, national or ethnic origin.

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 1–16, 2005

Copyright © by LDW 2005

Restrictiveness and Race in Special Education Placements in For-Profit and Non-Profit Charter Schools in California Edward Garcia Fierros1 Neil A. Blomberg Villanova University

Charter schools are seen as an attractive enrollment option to parents with special education students, yet there are concerns over the way special education is implemented in charter schools and the access they grant and provide to students with special needs. This study examines the condition of for-profit and non-profit charter schools in California to better understand whether a charter school’s for-profit or non-profit status can lead to differential enrollment patterns of students with special education enrollment. This research analyzes the restrictiveness of minority students with special needs in both charter school and non-charter school settings. It compares minority students and white students deemed eligible for special education to identify placement rates in educational settings.

Keywords: Special Education, Charter Schools, Student Placement, Equity Charter schools by definition are public schools that must be secular and tuition free. Unlike regular public schools, however, charter schools have a limited number of students, and are authorized to operate under a charter as ordered by their state legislatures. Charter schools are typically relieved of state and local regulations so they can implement their school models as they see fit. In exchange for freedom from regulation, they agree to produce positive student outcomes as a condition of their charter renewal (Ahearn, 2001; Gill, Timpane, Ross, & Brewer, 2001; Rawson, 2003). Although charter schools are exempt from many state and local regulations they must still adhere to federal education policies regarding civil rights, safety, and special education. Children with disabilities who attend charter schools and their parents retain all the rights that they would if they attended the regular public school (34 C.F.R. 300.312(a)). Because charter schools are seen as equally attractive to parents with special education students (Ahearn, 2001; Estes, 2000; Fiore, Harwell, Blackorby, & Finnigan, 2000; McKinney, 1996) and because they are public (Cobb & Glass, 1999; Gill, et al., 2001), there is a growing body of research that raises concerns over the way special education is implemented in charter schools and the access they grant and provide to students with special needs (Cobb & Glass, 1999; McKinney, 1996; Miron & Nelson, 2002; Paul, Lavely, Cranston-Gingras & Taylor, 2002; Zollers & Ramanathan, 1998), and students of color (Fierros & Conroy, 2002; Frankenberg & Lee, 2003; Losen & Orfield, 2002). Numerous research studies have explored how effectively 1. Address correspondence to Dr. Edward Fierros, SAC 359, 800 Lancaster Avenue, Villanova University, Villanova, Pennsylvania 19085. Email: [email protected]

1

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 1–16, 2005

charter schools implement the Individuals with Disability Education Act (IDEA) and whether charter schools provide students with special needs the same access as they do to students in general (Estes, 2000; Estes, 2003; Gill, et al., 2001; Miron & Nelson, 2002; Paul, et al., 2002). Charter schools serve a much smaller percentage of the special education student population than regular public schools (Fiore, et al., 2000; Miron & Nelson 2002; Murphy & Shiffman 2002; U.S. Dept. of Education, 1998a). Though the low student enrollment benefits charter schools over regular public schools (Raywid, 1997), it also draws attention to the small percentage of students with special needs attending charter schools. When charter schools do enroll students with special needs, they tend to enroll only those students whose less severe disabilities allow them free access to the classroom (Fiore, et al., 2000; Gill, et al., 2001; McKinney, 1996; Murphy & Shiffman 2002). Students with more severe special needs or emotional disorders who attempt to register for the publicly-funded charter schools are often “counseled out” or referred to the closest public school district (Fiore, et al., 2000; Zollers & Ramanathan, 1998), or they may transfer to charter schools that are specifically designed to serve students with special needs or students deemed “at-risk” (Ahearn, 2001). Students of color with special needs have even more difficulty in enrolling in attractive charter schools than White students (Cobb & Glass, 1999; Pammer, Lavely, & WooleyBrown, 2002), though this may be similar to the discriminatory practices found in public schools (Artiles & Trent, 1994; Coutinho & Repp, 1999; Coutinho & Oswald, 2000; Fierros & Conroy, 2002; Frankenberg & Lee, 2003; Harry, 1992; Murphy & Shiffman, 2002). Many smaller charter schools freely admit that they are unable to deal with severely disabled students (Ahearn, 2001; Estes, 2000; Gill, et al., 2001; Zollers & Ramanathan, 1998), though there are few, if any, consequences for charter schools that refuse admission to students with special needs. Charter schools’ effective denial of access to students with disabilities and their limited enrollment of students of color raise serious misgivings about whether charter schools should continue to operate as they do now (Ahearn, 2001; Ahearn, Lange, Rhim, & McLaughlin, 2001; Zollers & Ramanathan, 1998). Nevertheless, charter schools often receive charters to open their doors even though they only have a limited understanding of the complexities of special education (Ahearn, Lange, Rhim & McLaughlin, 2001; Cobb & Glass, 1999; Rhim & McLaughlin, 2001). And, although the IDEA requires both charter schools and public schools to serve the learning needs of all their children, there are still many charter schools that either do not know federal special education laws or fail to follow them (Ahearn, 2001; Estes, 2003; Murphy & Shiffman, 2002; Zollers & Ramanathan, 1998). Despite numerous studies that have reported that students with and without special needs receive more individualized attention in charter schools compared to public schools there remains a question of teacher quality (Ahearn, 2001). Charter school teachers are allowed to teach without being certified or formally trained which makes them less likely than their public school counterparts to be knowledgeable about the Individuals with Disability Education Act (IDEA), Least Restrictive Environment (LRE), and Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) (Gill, et al., 2001). Numerous charter school educators have concluded that the

2

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 1–16, 2005

responsibility of teaching students with special needs ultimately rests with the regular school district (McLauglin & Henderson, 1998: Zollers & Ramanathan, 1998). There are fewer students with special needs in charter schools compared to regular public schools (Fiore, et al., 2000), yet the number of students in charter schools is growing every year (Frankenberg & Lee, 2003). There are numerous reports of outright abuse concerning charter schools and their enrollment and equity practices (Ahearn, 2001; McKinney, 1996; Zollers & Ramanathan, 1998). In order to guarantee higher satisfactory outcomes, charter schools are increasingly likely to avoid enrolling students with special needs (Ahearn, 2001; Fiore, et al., 2000; Paul, et al., 2002; Zollers & Ramanathan, 1998). Charter schools’ need to produce satisfactory student outcomes in a short period of time may make them reluctant to integrate students with special needs because of the very real financial expense (Fiore, et al., 2000). According to the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), “The total [expenditures for educating a student with special needs] including only the regular and special education services amounts to $12,474 per pupil—this amount includes $8,080 per pupil on special education services, and $4,394 per pupil on regular education” (U.S. Dept. of Education, 2004, p. I-21). Rhim & McLaughlin (2001) argue that charter schools also struggle with the general shortage of certified special education teachers which is often exacerbated by the absence of resource rooms or other services for moderate and severely disabled children (Estes, 2000). The responsibility to provide education to the student with special needs defaults to the student’s home district—freeing the charter school from having to enroll students with special needs. Charter schools exclude students with special needs from their classrooms, yet in many states they remain open and free from any meaningful consequence for violating the law. Currently, there is no de facto penalty for charter schools that exclude students with special needs. Perhaps this is because charter schools know that the local school district has no choice but to enroll students with special needs. For example, Texas charter schools have the right to exclude students with a history of behavior problems, even if their misconduct is linked to an emotional or conduct disorder (Estes, 2000), yet the district must enroll these problem students. Texas charter law statutes governing campus charters allow charters to factor in academic credentials in their admissions process, in direct contradiction to Texas’s mandate to avoid discrimination in admission to charter schools (U.S. Department of Education, 1998b). A New Hampshire charter law statute states that, “Charter schools may select pupils on the basis of aptitude, academic achievement, or need, provided that such selection is directly related to the academic goals of the school” (U.S. Department of Education, 1998a). Massachusetts excuses charter schools from providing service to students who are classified as severely disabled and who spend a majority of instruction time outside of the classroom (Zollers & Ramanathan, 1998). Robin Foley, cochair of the Worcester Advisory Council in Massachusetts noted that: while it took approximately twenty minutes for most families to get registered at the county’s Seven Hills Charter School, special education families were left to sit for more than two hours. Three months later, she testified that at least two special needs children were not receiving services prescribed by their individual education plans (IEP) (McFarlane, 1997 cited in Weil, 2000 p. 153). 3

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 1–16, 2005

Although federal laws do not permit discrimination in the admissions process, these examples show that state charter school laws can create confusing and sometimes ambiguous situations regarding the admission of students with special needs to charter schools. These uncertainties create the potential for abuse of the rights of students with special needs and a chilling effect for students with special needs who may be interested in attending charter schools. Restrictiveness In amending the IDEA, Congress formally acknowledged that students with disabilities, regardless of race, fare better when they are educated in the regular education setting alongside their non-disabled peers (Ahearn, 2001; Department of Education, 2004). Inclusion, as it is often called, not only helps to boost achievement and reduce the stigma associated with disability, but also helps prevent the formation of stereotypes towards students with disabilities that later become obstacles for adults with disabilities in the workplace and community at large (Coutinho & Oswald, 2000). Since IDEA became law, minorities have continued to be disproportionately represented relative to their White counterparts in resource rooms, separate classrooms, and separate school facilities (Fierros & Conroy, 2002; Grossman, 1995; Harry, 1992). A quantity called “restrictiveness” describes the degree to which students with disabilities are educated outside of regular classrooms and isolated from their nondisabled peers (Fierros & Conroy, 2002). Coutinho and Repp (1999) reported that for the 1992-93 school year, nearly 60 percent of students with special needs (ages three to twenty-one) were taught outside the regular classroom. These restrictive placements have meant that minority special education students’ educational experiences are likely to be delivered in unequal and separate classroom environments (Crockett & Kauffman, 1999; Grossman, 1995). Lipsky and Gartner (1997) stated that “the negative consequences of the separate special education system are greater for students from racial minorities” (p. 33). Moreover, the restrictiveness rates for the 1997-98 school year were highest for Mental Retardation (MR) and Emotional Disturbance (ED), where minorities and especially Blacks, are overrepresented (U.S. Department of Education, 1999a, U.S. Department of Education, 1999b, U.S. Department of Education, 1999c). Restrictiveness rates for students with MR were nearly 82 percent, with lower rates of restrictiveness for students with Emotional Disorder (ED) (70 percent) and students with Specific Learning Disability (SLD) (56 percent) (Fierros & Conroy, 2002). For-Profit vs. Non-Profit Charter Schools There have been a number of examples of charter school abuses of federal disability law throughout the U.S. (Rhim & McLaughlin, 2001; Zollers & Ramanathan, 1998), but there is a dearth of research on for-profit charter schools. Here we examine the condition of for-profit and non-profit charter schools in California to better understand whether a charter school’s for-profit or non-profit status can lead to differential enrollment patterns of students with special education needs. California was selected because of its large number of charter schools and because it allows both for-profit and non-profit charter schools. This paper also explores race and ethnicity in charter schools in general and special education in particular. There is conflicting research on the status of minorities 4

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 1–16, 2005

in charter schools that may be explained by the charter school policies of different states. For example, Frankenberg & Lee (2003) found “that, nationally, there is a disproportionately high enrollment of minority students in charter schools, and that black charter school students attend intensely segregated minority schools” (p. 7). On the other hand, Paul, et al., (2002) argue that minority students are less likely than Whites to attend charter schools across the country and in California, despite a requirement that California charter schools must specify the means by which a school’s student body will reflect the racial and ethnic balance of the general population in the school district granting the charter (Frankenberg & Lee, 2003). A closer examination of charter schools revealed that in the U.S. and in California a large majority of enrolled students are White (U.S. Department of Education, 2000). Cobb & Glass (1999) reported that “charter schools in California enrolled a higher percentage of White (i.e., greater than 80%) students than did public schools” (p. 38). Many California students take full advantage of the publicly-funded charter schools (U.S. Department of Education, 2000) especially when the charter schools are located in heterogeneously populated districts (Frankenberg & Lee, 2003). In certain states, minority students are systematically excluded from charter schools (Murphy & Shiffman, 2002), systematically segregated into charters that are created to serve an at-risk population (e.g., Arizona, Texas), or are located in urban areas with high minority populations (e.g., California, Massachusetts). In all cases, students of color are more likely than their white counterparts to attend charter schools with majority minority populations serving “at-risk” students (Frankenberg & Lee, 2003). Minority students with special needs in California, like these students nationally, are over identified for special education (Fierros & Conroy, 2002), and given the charter schools’ practice of excluding students with special needs (Ahearn, 2001; Fiore, et al., 2000), are likely to be missing from charter schools (Paul, et al., 2002; Willis, 2000). The absence of students with special needs from charter schools is objectionable, given the large number of charter schools in California and the growing number of these schools nationally (Frankenberg & Lee, 2003; U.S. Department of Education, 2004).

METHOD “The civil rights principles that apply to charter schools are the same principles that apply to all public schools” (U.S. Department of Education, 2000, p. iii). The number of charter schools has been growing (Frankenberg & Lee, 2003; U.S. Department of Education, 2004), and since public schools have not demonstrated an openness to students with special needs generally, and minority students with special needs in particular, it is imperative to discover if these patterns exist in charter schools (Ahearn, et al., 2001). There has been a systematic exclusion of students with ED and SLD in general, and MR in particular in regular public schools (Fierros & Conroy, 2002);—this is also true for charter schools (Fiore, et al., 2000). Because national and state-level statistics often mask these disparities, this study investigated Local Education Agencies (LEAs) in California to determine the status of charter schools. The charter schools examined in this study come from the greater population of charter schools that includes both stand-alone LEA’s and charter schools that are part of a school district. We investigated traditional public schools and charter 5

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 1–16, 2005

schools to identify differences in placement rates and rates of restrictiveness for students with special needs (i.e., MR, SLD, Speech and Language, and ED). We examined for-profit and non-profit charter schools to determine if students with special needs are equally served. Data Methodology Information from the most recent charter school data (2002–2003 school year) from the California Department of Education (CADE) was used to compare special education students in regular education with the special education students in a sample of charter schools. The full population of California charter schools (N=502) was used. The schools were divided into for-profit (N=265) and non-profit (N=237) population lists. For inclusion in this study, charter schools needed to meet the following selection criteria: 1. a record of enrollment in DataQuest 2. available names, school code numbers, and enrollment data 3. in operation during the 2002–2003 school year (obtained from CADE) 4. either a conversion charter school or new start-up charter school DataQuest, a service of the CADE, gives detailed school information on both regular enrollment and special education enrollment for individual California schools. Schools that were eliminated from the sample either lacked enrollment data or simply did not appear in the DataQuest system. Many of the sample schools showed “no data” in the special education category in DataQuest although their total regular enrollment is listed. Because California charter schools receive increased funding for special education enrollment, it is less likely that California charter schools did not report their students with special needs (Parrish, 2002). Thus, we feel confident in excluding them from the study. To make the data modification consistent, two modifications were made to the sample school data. First, in order to match the state-level California data with the U.S. Office of Civil Rights racial categories (i.e., Alaskan/American Indian, Asian/Pacific Islander, Black, Hispanic, and White), the data from subcategories of Asian, Pacific Islander, and Filipino were collapsed into Asian/Pacific Islander, so comparisons could be made between states. Similarly, the state category name Native American was changed to Alaskan/American Indian and African-American was changed to Black (U.S. Department of Education, 1999c). Second, to address the large number of multiple/non responses in the race category in regular enrollment in the California DataQuest, we adjusted the data subtracting the total number in the multiple/no response category from the overall enrollment of the school. Removing the multiple/non response category required that sampling weights be developed to factor into the totals of charter school students by ethnicity. The sampling weights were based on the students’ likelihood to be included in the sample based on the known race/ethnic proportions (Wainer, 1994). Multi-Level Analysis A multi-level analysis was completed to examine placement rates and rates of restrictiveness in California charter schools. First, state-level education and special education placement data were examined to gain an understanding of eligibility determination by ethnicity. This process achieved a basic understanding of the 6

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 1–16, 2005

degree of overrepresentation in each disability category (Fierros & Conroy, 2002; U.S. Department of Education, 2001). Second, we developed a descriptive statistical profile of minority students with special needs in for-profit and non-profit charter schools in California to investigate possible differences between the two types of schools, and to examine if minority students deemed eligible for special education support and services are more likely to be placed in restrictive educational settings compared to White students with special needs. In addition, the descriptive charter school data were analyzed to learn how the schools’ restrictiveness rates compare with each other, their respective district, and the state. Third, exclusion from the regular education classroom for minority students with special needs was explored by ranking the restrictiveness rates of each charter school by four cognitive disability categories paired with an analysis (i.e., disproportionate representation) of state level identification rates for Asians/Pacific Islanders, American Indians, Blacks, Hispanics, and Whites. Disproportionate Representation

Disproportionate representation1 of minority students with special education designations was identified using odds ratios. As shown in Figure 1, odds ratios reveal “the odds of an event occurring as the ratio of the probability of the event occurring to the probability of the event not occurring.” In this paper, the odds ratios reflect the extent to which membership in a given racial group affects the probability of being enrolled in a charter school (Fleiss, 1973; Rudas, 1998; Siminoff, 2003; Wasserman, 2004). Odds ratios greater than 1.0 show that the odds of designation are larger than for the comparison group. An odds ratio of 1.0 indicates that there is no difference between the two groups or
= 1. An odds ratio less than 1.0 indicates the comparison group (i.e., White students) has a greater chance of designation. Data Local Education Agency (LEA) placement rates for students that are deemed eligible for any of the three sub areas of Mental Retardation2 (i.e., mild MR, moderate MR, and severe MR), Speech and Language Impairment (SLI), Emotional Disturbance (ED), and Specific Learning Disability (SLD) were examined by race in for-profit (N=265) and non-profit charter schools (N=237) in California. The rates of placement for these students with special needs designations were compared to determine if placement patterns change as special needs designations change. Select state and local level data for charter schools were collected and analyzed. 1 Disproportionate representation is also known as overidentification or overrepresentation. 2 Mild retardation, moderate retardation, and severe retardation are definations of degrees of mental retardation.

7

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 1–16, 2005

RESULTS Table 1 shows the number and percentage of regular students and students with special needs by race/ethnicity in regular and charter schools in California for the 2002–2003 school year. California’s charter school population of 142,148 students represents 2.3 percent of total student enrollment. Nevertheless, the number of charter schools in California is increasing rapidly, and this percentage is likely to increase over time given recent growth in student enrollment. For example, in the 2000–2001 school year California charter school enrollment was 112,065. The 2002–2003 enrollment figures show a 26.84% increase in just two years. TABLE 1. Number and Percentage of Students and Students with Disabilities by Race/Ethnicity in Regular Schools and Charter Schools in California Regular Education Special Education n % n % RAI 52,023 0.86 5,696 0.85 RAS 691,382 11.42 38,917 5.83 RHI 2,766,108 45.69 291,027 43.57 RBL 500,898 8.27 80,642 12.07 RWH 2,043,361 33.75 251,610 37.67 RTOTAL 6,053,772 100.00 667,892 100.00 CHAI 1,875 1.32 108 1.45 CHAS 9,289 6.53 263 3.53 CHHI 53,396 37.56 2,752 36.99 CHBL 14,907 10.49 927 12.46 CHWH 62,681 44.10 3,390 45.56 CHTOTAL 142,148 100.00 7,440 100.00 Source: CA Dept. of Education Ed-Data and Dataquest Program 2002–2003 School year Note: CH=charter school, R=Regular non-charter public school AI=American Indian; AS=Asian; HI=Hispanic; BL=Black; WH=White Bolded Values represent absolute differences between Regular and Charter School Students greater than 50%

An examination of the percentage of students by race in regular schools compared with the percentage of students in charter schools in Table 1 found a variable pattern of results. White students were more likely to attend charter schools than regular schools (44.1 percent to 33.75 percent), with fewer Hispanics and Asians attending charter schools in comparison to regular schools. Black students and American Indian students had slightly higher enrollment in charter schools than in regular education settings. The percentage of students with special needs largely mirrored the trends of regular education students, with an increased percentage of White students and small increases in the special education proportion of American Indian and Black students. The smaller proportion of Hispanic and Asian students with special needs mirrors the enrollment change that can be seen with regular students and regular public schools versus charter schools. This is important because it shows that California’s charter schools enroll special education students at rates that are consistent with the 8

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 1–16, 2005

TABLE 2. Odds ratio for Students with Special Needs by Race Ethnicity in Charter Schools in California Odds Ratio CHAI

1.07

CHAS

0.52

CHHI

0.95

CHBL

1.15

CHMITOTAL

0.94

Source: CA Dept. of Education Ed-Data and Dataquest Program 2002–2003 School year Note: CH=charter school, AI=American Indian; AS=Asian; HI=Hispanic; BL=Black; WH=White; MITOTAL=All NonWhite Students

charter schools’ racial population. It also suggests that the racial disproportionality of special education that has been established in regular schools (Fierros & Conroy, 2002) would appear, on the surface, to be mirrored in charter schools. Further evidence of this conclusion is shown in Table 2. An odds ratio analysis (Fleiss, 1973; Siminoff, 2003; Wasserman, 2004) was employed to estimate the likelihood of minority students with special needs being placed in charter schools compared with their White counterparts. The odds ratio of .52 for Asian American students in California shows that these students are underrepresented in special education in charter schools. The odds ratios did not reveal a significant difference for other racial groups (i.e. American Indians, Hispanics, or Blacks), nor did it show important differences for minorities overall (CHMITOTAL). This uniformity and lack of variability in special education enrollment in regular and charter school education suggests that any attitudes towards enrolling certain races into special education programs are largely identical between the two systems. This result may be explained by California’s legal requirement that the school’s student body must reflect the racial and ethnic balance of the general population living in the school district granting the charter (Frankenberg & Lee, 2003). Because California’s state charter school policies allow for-profit and non-profit charter schools, we looked for differences in the enrollment patterns of students by race and ethnicity. For-profit charter schools are operated by commercial for-profit entities while non-profit charter schools are run by traditional school districts or groups and individuals who often have a different or altruistic vision of education. Charter schools are grouped into their respective categories and examined below. Table 3 presents the number and percentage of students with special needs by race/ethnicity in for-profit and non-profit charter schools in California. Students with special needs represent a larger percentage in for-profit charter schools compared with non-profit charter schools. An analysis by race/ethnicity found variable results in the comparison of for-profit and non-profit charter schools. Asian/Pacific Islanders, Hispanics, and Blacks represented a greater percentage in for-profits compared with non-profits, while Whites and American Indians had a greater number of students 9

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 1–16, 2005

TABLE 3. Number and Percentage of Students and Students with Special Needs by Race/Ethnicity in For-Profit and Non-Profit Charter Schools in California Students Students with Special Needs For-Profit Non-Profit For-Profit Non-Profit n % n % n % n % CHAI CHAS CHHI CHBL CHWH CHTOTAL*

353 1,800 8,210 2,516 9,646 22,525

1.57 7.99 36.45 11.17 42.82 -

197 614 4,069 1,615 6,592 13,084

1.51 4.69 31.10 12.34 50.38 -

20 58 482 230 665 1,455

1.37 9 3.99 7 33.13 167 15.81 69 45.70 316 6.46% 568

1.58 1.23 29.40 12.15 55.63 4.34%

Source: CA Dept. of Education Dataquest Program 2002–2003 school year Note: CH=charter school, R=Regular non-charter public school AI=American Indian; AS=Asian; HI=Hispanic; BL=Black; WH=White *Represent n=60 For-Profit charter LEAs and n=60 Non-Profit Charter LEAs

with special needs in non-profit charter schools. Table 3 shows there is a great degree of variability in enrollment patterns between for-profits and non-profits in California. Overall, the values are reflective of the general charter school student enrollment presented in Table 1. There are a greater percentage of Asian/Pacific Islanders, and Hispanics in for-profit charter schools compared with non-profit charter schools. Thus, there is no clear difference in regular enrollment by race for either for-profit or non-profit charter schools in California. Table 4 lists the number and percentage of students identified with mental retardation (MR), speech and language disorder (Speech), emotional disturbance (ED), and specific learning disability (SLD) by race/ethnicity in California charter schools. Mirroring special education placement patterns in regular schools, Whites and Hispanics accounted for the largest percentage of students in all four special needs TABLE 4. Number and Percentage of Students Identified with Specific Learning Disability, Mental Retardation, Speech and Language Disorder, or Emotional Disturbance by Race/Ethnicity in Charter Schools in California Specifice Learning Mental Speech and Emotional Disability Retardation Language Disturbance n % n % n % n % CHAI CHAS CHHI CHBL CHWH CHTOTAL

67 121 1,698 636 1,795 4,317

1.55 2.80 39.33 14.73 41.58 3.04%

5 14 106 30 109 264

1.89 25 5.30 81 40.15 699 11.36 137 41.29 802 0.19% 1,744

1.43 1 4.64 6 40.08 52 7.86 40 45.99 117 1.23% 216

Source: CA Dept. of Education Dataquest Program 2002–2003 School year Note: CH=charter school; AI=American Indian; AS=Asian; HI=Hispanic; BL=Black; WH=White

10

0.46 2.78 24.07 18.52 54.17 0.15%

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 1–16, 2005

TABLE 5. Number and Percentage of Students Identified with Mental Retardation or Speech and Language Disorder by Race/Ethnicity in For-Profit and NonProfit Charter Schools in California Mental Retardation (MR) Speech and Language For-Profit Non-Profit For-Profit Non-Profit n % n % n % n % CHAI CHAS CHHI CHBL CHWH

2 14 97 24 72

0.96 6.70 46.41 11.48 34.45

3 0 9 6 37

5.45 0.00 16.36 10.91 67.27

12 71 583 92 545

0.92 5.45 44.74 7.06 41.83

13 10 116 45 257

2.95 2.27 26.30 10.20 58.28

Source: CA Dept. of Education Dataquest Program 2002–2003 School year Note: CH=charter school; AI=American Indian; AS=Asian; HI=Hispanic; BL=Black; WH=White

categories. It is important to note, however, that Blacks were overrepresented in SLD (14.73) and ED (18.52), even though they only represent 12.46 percent of the charter school student population as shown in Table 1. This finding is consistent with previous national and state-level studies that have found overrepresentation of Blacks in SLD and ED (Artiles & Trent, 1994; Fierros & Conroy, 2002; Fiore, et al., 2000). Table 5 presents the number and percentage of students identified with mental retardation (MR) or speech and language disorder (Speech) in for-profit and nonprofit charter schools. A greater number and percentage of Asian/Pacific Islander, Hispanic, and Black students with Speech and Language Disorder were found in for-profit charter schools, while more American Indians and Whites were found in non-profit charter schools. The extremely small number of students designated with MR does not allow for a meaningful comparison of the two types of schools. Table 6 presents the number and percentage of students identified with emotional disturbance (ED) or specific learning disability (SLD) in for-profit and non-profit charter schools. The extremely small number of students designated with ED does not allow for a meaningful comparison of the for-profit and non-profit charter TABLE 6. Number and Percentage of Students Identified with Mental Retardation or Specific Learning Disability by Race/Ethnicity in For-Profit and Non-Profit Charter Schools in California Emotional Disturbance Specific Learning Disability For-Profit Non-Profit For-Profit Non-Profit n % n % n % n % CHAI CHAS CHHI CHBL CHWH

0 5 44 33 89

0.00 2.92 25.73 19.30 52.05

1 1 8 7 28

2.22 2.22 17.78 15.56 62.22

44 78 1356 485 1248

1.37 2.43 42.23 15.10 38.87

23 43 342 151 547

Source: CA Dept. of Education Dataquest Program 2002–2003 School year Note: CH=charter school; AI=American Indian; AS=Asian; HI=Hispanic; BL=Black; WH=White

11

2.08 3.89 30.92 13.65 49.46

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 1–16, 2005

schools but does suggest that few students with special needs can be found in nonprofit charter schools. A greater number and percentage of American Indians, Hispanic, and African-American students with SLD were found in for-profit charter schools, while more Whites and Asian/Pacific Islanders were found in non-profit charter schools.

DISCUSSION California’s charter school enrollment showed a dramatic increase in Whites’ enrollment versus regular public schools (44% for charters vs. 34% for regular public schools). This large increase suggests that the location, mission, or enrollment practices of charter schools in California may cater to the needs and desires of White students and their parents. However, Black and American Indian enrollments also saw small increases. This research found that racial/ethnic representation of special education students mirrors the larger school populations in California which may be explained by California’s charter school laws. For example, the larger percentage of White students with special needs in California’s regular schools corresponds with the increased enrollments of Whites with special needs in California’s charters. Special education placements do not seem to vary unduly from regular charter school enrollment placement patterns. In the examination of placement rates and special education, the number of special education students and the placement rates in for-profit and non-profit charter schools in California were interesting. National studies have revealed that regular public schools have 11% special education enrollment (U.S. Department of Education, 2000), which draws attention to the relatively low number of students with special needs in California charter schools. In California, both for-profit and non-profit charter schools show a substantially smaller special education enrollment (6.46% and 4.34%, respectively) as a percentage of their enrollment. These numbers are much less than regular public school rates, which previous research on charter schools nationally and in California has also shown (Ahearn, 2001; Miron & Nelson 2002; Murphy & Shiffman 2002; U.S. Dept. of Education, 1998a). The low enrollment of special education students in California charter schools raises serious concerns about accessibility for students with special needs to enroll in charter schools. However, the present data do not reveal obvious problems about racial/ethnic enrollment patterns in charter schools compared with public schools. Our analysis of for-profit and non-profit charter schools found little variability between racial and ethnic enrollment in charter schools and their corresponding special education enrollment. California for-profit charter schools do have higher numbers of students with special needs than do non-profit charter schools, but the enrollment patterns suggest that the profit motive is an unlikely characteristic of charters enrolling special education students. It is quite possible that school size or state charter school policy has a more important effect on special education enrollment than the profit motive alone. Nevertheless, the low numbers of special education students overall in publicly-funded charter schools is troubling. California’s detailed state statistics allowed us to examine the types of student disabilities and to evaluate whether enrollment patterns for specific special needs differ in charter schools. The low percentage of Hispanics (24.07%) who are diagnosed 12

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 1–16, 2005

with ED out of the total ED population suggests that Hispanics are underrepresented for ED when compared to other ethnic groups. The very low rate of students with ED suggests that California’s charter schools may be excluding students with ED, may be unattractive to parents whose children have ED, or it may also be explained by reality that many Hispanics are non-English speakers and are less likely to explore charter schools (Frankenberg & Lee, 2003). Finally, this research confirms that students with special needs are restricted in both charter school and non-charter school settings. However, this research did not find that minority students deemed eligible for special education supports and services were more likely than their White counterparts to be placed in restrictive educational settings in charter schools. Limitations There were several important limitations in our study which need to be addressed through further research. This study examined enrollment in for-profit and nonprofit charter schools to see if the profit motive impacts charter schools’ enrollment of students with special needs. It did not examine the differences between charter schools that were stand alone LEA’s, incorporated charter schools as part of a district, or some other arrangement that could have an effect on administrators and staff attitude, receptivity, and capability to help educate students with special needs. How the charter school came into existence affects the organization and motivation of a charter school, and an examination of its origins may play a role in its enrollment of special education students. For example, Willis (2000) has examined California charter schools that converted from existing public schools and start-up charter schools and found that charter schools in general served a minute number of students with special needs; he discovered that start-up charters had even fewer, if any, students with special needs compared to conversion charter schools. An examination of state funding formulas and the role they play in the formation and motivation of individual states’ charter schools to enroll special education students could also be important in further clarifying this issue (Parrish, 2002). We can infer from the relatively small number of students identified with MR, ED, Speech and Language Impairment, or SLD that these students are excluded from charter schools generally, and the regular classroom in particular. However, the data used to understand restrictiveness in charter schools do not provide information on how the learning needs of students with special needs are administered within charter school classrooms. Several schools that were listed as existing or in operation were missing enrollment data or did not appear inside California’s search databases. Although many of the districts that were rejected from our study are likely closed or not yet in active operation, there is still a question of whether all the schools in the population have been fully represented. Currently, the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) requires school districts and states to report special education placement data, yet charter schools are currently not required to provide such data. In fact, if a charter school opens in a district that is out of compliance with OCR’s policies, it simply must inform OCR without having to provide a plan for addressing its own potential compliance issues (Frankenberg & Lee, 2003). 13

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 1–16, 2005

Significance This study will provide educational policy makers with additional evidence of the systemic shortcomings of the IDEA implementation and adherence to the law by schools in general and charter schools in particular. The segregation from charter schools that students with special needs face in the U.S. in general, and in California in particular, has resulted in both (1) de facto state-sanctioned exclusion from schools (often better schools or smaller schools) that are designed to provide their students with alternative approaches to learning, and (2) the greater potential for isolation into schools that are filled with students that are deemed “at-risk” as is the case in Arizona and Texas (Frankenberg & Lee, 2003). This study shows that, in general, patterns of bias against students with special needs exist in all schools but are especially problematic given the growing number of California charter schools and given that charter schools do not have to adhere to all the same rules and regulations that public schools do currently. This research highlights the role of charter schools in continuing the segregation of students by race, ethnicity, and special needs. It also points out that charter schools are not free from segregationist pressures and that the charter school experience is dependent, to a large extent, on the school’s location. Although this research has the potential to influence the classroom experience for minority special education students in both California and nationally it is likely that these students will remain vulnerable in these new charter school arrangements without the vigorous enforcement of their hard-won rights. If positive change is to occur and students with special needs are truly to be included, charter school administrators “must address a variety of issues related to special education, including equitable enrollment of students with disabilities, determination of special education eligibility, provision of educational and related services, assessment and reporting of student progress, sustained supply of certified teachers and related service providers, special education transportation when needed, and administration of due process” (Fiore, et al., 2000, p. 1). Edward Garcia Fierros is an assistant professor in the Department of Education and Human Services at Villanova University. His major research interests are in the placement of minority students with learning disabilities, charter school policy, and the theory of multiple intelligences. Neil A. Blomberg, M.S. is a graduate of Villanova University, where he earned both his bachelors and masters in education. His research interests include issues of special education and restrictiveness. He is currently a social studies teacher and coach at Kapolei High School in Kapolei, Hawaii.

REFERENCES Ahearn, E.M. (2001). Public charter schools and students with disabilities. ERIC Exceptional Children Digest. Arlington, VA: ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education. Ahearn, E.M., Lange, C.M., Rhim, L.M., & McLaughlin, M.J. (2001). Project search: Special Education as Requirements in Charter Schools. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education. Artiles, A. & Trent, S. (1994). Overrepresentation of minority students in special education: A continuing debate. The Journal of Special Education, 27 (4), pp. 410-437. Cobb, C.D. & Glass, G.V. (1999). Ethnic segregation in Arizona charter schools. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 7 (1), 1-38.

14

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 1–16, 2005

Coutinho, M., and Oswald, D. (2000). Disproportionate representation in special education: a synthesis and recommendations. Journal of Child and Family Studies, Vol. 9, No. 2. pp. 135-156. Coutinho, M., and Repp, A. C. (1999). Inclusion: The integration of students with disabilities. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company. Crockett, J. B., and Kauffman, J.M. (1999). The least restrictive environment: Its origins and interpretations in special education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates. Estes, M.B. (2003). Charting the course of special education in TX’ charter schools. Education and Treatment of Children, 26 (4). Estes, M.B. (2000). Charter schools and students with special needs: How well do they mix? Education and Treatment of Children, 23 (3). Fierros, E.G. & Conroy, J. (2002). Double Jeopardy: An Exploration of Restrictiveness and Race in Special Education. In Losen, D. and Orfield, G. [Eds.], Racial Inequity in Special Education. Cambridge, MA: Civil Rights Project/Harvard Education Press. Fiore, T.A., Harwell, L.M., Blackorby, J. & Finnigan, K.S. (2000). Charter schools and students with disabilities: A national study. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Educational Research and Improvement. Fleiss, J. L. (1973) Statistical methods for rates and proportions. New York, NY: John Wiley. Frankenberg, E. & Lee, C. (2003). Charter schools and race: A lost opportunity for integrated education. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University. Gill, B.P., Timpane, P. M., Ross, K.E. & Brewer, D.J. (2001). Rhetoric versus reality: What we know and what we need to know about vouchers and charter schools. Santa Monica, California: Rand Education. Grossman, H. (1995). Special education in a diverse society. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Harry, B. (1992). The disproportionate representation of minority students in special education: Theories and recommendations (Project Forum, Final Report). Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED374 637). Lipsky, D.K., and Gartner, A. (1997). Inclusion and school reform: Transforming America’s classrooms. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing Co. Losen, D. and Orfield, G. (Eds.). (2002) Racial Inequity in Special Education. Cambridge, MA: Civil Rights Project/Harvard Education Press. McFarlane, C. (1997). Charter schools facing scrutiny over special education. Worcester Telegram and Gazette. 1 April. McLauglin, M.J., & Henderson, K. (1998). Charter schools in Colorado and their response to the education of students with disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 32 (2). McKinney, J.R. (1996). Charter schools: A new barrier for children with disabilities. Educational Leadership, 54 (2), 22-25. Miron, G. & Nelson, C. (2002). What’s public about charter schools?: Lessons learned about choice and accountability. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwyn Press, Inc. Murphy, J. & Shiffman, C.D. (2002). Understanding and assessing the charter school movement. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Orfield, G. and Eaton, S. (1996) Dismantling desegregation: The quiet reversal of Brown v. Board of Education. Harvard Project on School Desegregation. New York, NY: New Press, Distributed by W.W. Norton & Company. Pammer, M., Lavely, C. & Wooley-Brown, C. (2002). Charter schools and their implications on special education. In Paul, J., Lavely, C., Cranston-Gingras, A., & Taylor, E., (2002) Rethinking professional issues in special education. Westport, CT: Ablex Publications.

15

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1) 1–16, 2005

Parrish, T. (2002). Racial disparities in the identification, funding and provision of special education. In Losen, D. and Orfield, G. (Eds.) Racial inequity in special education. Cambridge, MA: Civil rights Project/Harvard Education Press Parrish, T. (2000). Disparities in the identification, funding, and provision of special education. Paper presented at Harvard University Law School Civil Rights Project Conference on minority issues in special education in public schools. November 17, 2000. Paul, J., Lavely, L., Cranston-Gingras, A. & Taylor, E. (2002). Rethinking professional issues in special education. Westport, CT: Ablex Publications. Rawson, J. (2003). Special education law, 2nd Edition. Naples, FL: Morgan Publishing, Inc. Raywid, M. (1997). Small schools: a reform that works. Educational Leadership, 55 (4) 34-39. Rhim, L.M. & McLaughlin, M.J. (2001). Special education in American charter schools: State level policy, practices and tensions. Cambridge Journal of Education, 31 (3), 373-383. Rudas, T. (1998). Odds ratios in the analysis of contingency tables. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Siminoff, J. (2003). Analyzing categorical data. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. U.S. Department of Education. (1998a). A national study of charter schools: Executive summary. Washington DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Education. (1998b). A national study of charter schools: Second–year report. Washington DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Education. (1999a). Office of Civil Rights: Reported School District ED 101 & District School Building ED 102 Data—Fall 1998 Elementary & Secondary School Civil Rights Compliance Report. U.S. Department of Education. (1999b). Elementary and Secondary School Civil Rights Compliance Report Projected Values for the Nation and Individual States–1998. Washington DC: Office of Civil Rights, U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Education. (1999c). Twenty-first annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington DC: Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Education. (2000). A national study of charter schools: fourth—year report. Washington DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Education. (2001). Office of Civil Rights: Ensuring Equal Access to Quality Education. Retrieved 1/17/01 from http://www.ed.gov/ offices/OCR/docs/ensure99.htm U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Twenty-fourth annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington DC: Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Government Printing Office. Wainer, H. (1994). On the Academic Performance of New Jersey’s Public School Children: Fourth and Eighth Grade Mathematics in 1992. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 2. 10. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University. Wasserman, L. (2004). All of statistics: A concise course in statistical inference. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. Weil, D. (2000). Charter schools: A reference handbook. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO, Inc. Willis, A. (2000). Beyond the rhetoric of charter school reform: A study of ten California school districts. Los Angeles, CA: University of California at Los Angeles. Zollers, N.J. & Ramanathan, A.K. (1998). For-profit charter schools and students with disabilities: The sordid side of the business of schooling. Phi Delta Kappan (79) 297–304. Received June 8, 2004 Revised July 22, 2004 Accepted August 1, 2004

16

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 17–24, 2005

Copyright © by LDW 2005

Restrictiveness and Race in Special Education: The Issue of Cultural Reciprocity Phil Parette1 Illinois State University

The issue of segregation of students with disabilities across cultural groups is a function of cultural values demonstrated by charter schools and the resulting dissonance between these values and those demonstrated by families. Lack of understanding about school culture and diverse family value systems can lead to varying family responses to the school culture, including assimilation, integration, separation, and marginalization. Assuming a posture of cultural reciprocity is suggested as a means for education professionals in charter schools to more effectively understand families of children with disabilities. This four-step process includes (a) identifying the education professional’s interpretation of family and child needs; (b) determining the degree to which the family values these assumptions and how the family’s perceptions may be different; (c) acknowledging and respecting differences identified, and explaining the basis for professional assumptions; and (d) determining how to adapt professional interpretations or recommendations to the family’s value system.

Keywords: Culture, Values, Disability, Charter Schools As the debate rages regarding charter schools and whether these institutions can appropriately serve children with disabilities (Donahoo, 2001; Fiore, Harwell, Blackorby, & Finnigan, 2000; RPP International, 2000) educators are becoming increasingly aware of their responsibilities to examine the influence of culture and ethnicity on such institutions and how culture affects decision-making. Unfortunately, many education professionals continue to demonstrate relatively little understanding of variations across cultural and ethnic groups and how strongly held value systems may influence perceptions of and participation in schools. Nearly two-thirds of all the newly created charter schools have been started “to realize an alternative vision of schooling” (RPP International, 2000, p. 76), though this alternative will continue to inhibit participation by many families who have children with disabilities across cultural groups. Many see the charter school movement as opportunity to act on strongly held values and create new schools that allow educators to do things differently in order to achieve their vision (Detrich, Phillips, & Durrett, 2002). This vision may have been influenced by seeing charter schools as alternatives to (a) prior negative experiences with the public schools (Ahearn, 2001) where insensitivity to the cultural values and needs of families may have been exhibited; or (b) realizing their best ideas about schooling children (Manno, Finn, Bierlein, & Vanourek, 1998). This, however, assumes that family members exercise choice and are proactive in educational decision-making about their children. Unfortunately, many families may be reluctant to 1. Address correspondence to Phil Parette, Kara Peters Endowed Chair. Department of Special Education Illinois State University, Campus Box 5910, Normal, IL 61790-5910. Email: [email protected]

17

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 17–24, 2005

exercise such choice and initiative given strongly held cultural values that education professionals should make decisions for them and their children since educators are deemed to be experts (Parette & Huer, 2002; Roseberry-McKibbin, 2002). The extent to which acculturation occurs across families, or their alignment with values of the mainstream culture or particular school cultures also varies markedly (Parette, Huer, & Scherer, 2004). The issue of de facto segregation of students with disabilities across cultural groups suggested in the study by Fierros and Blomburg may, in fact, be principally a function of shared cultural values demonstrated by charter schools and the resulting dissonance between these values and those demonstrated by many families. Dissonance between school values and those of families have been examined for decades (Boykin, 1994; Gordon & Yowell, 1994; Greenbaum, 1985; Moore, 1985; Valdivieso & Nicolau, 1994; Vogt, Jordan, & Tharp, 1992). For example, African American children, both with and without disabilities, often prefer and do better in cooperative learning settings, while Euro-American students prefer and do better in competitive learning settings (Boykin & Bailey, 2000; Parette, 1998). Other research suggests a relation between cultural differences in child-rearing environments and intelligence test performance (Moore, 1985). Cultural dissonance may also lead to erroneous interpretations of parent behaviors (e.g., head nodding during conferences that might be interpreted as agreement vs. affirmation of having heard and giving deference to the professional position), creating misunderstandings between home and school (Misra, 1994; Valdivieso & Nicolau, 1994). Cultural differences have also been reported to affect the responses that family members have to disability (i.e., they may perceive disability more or less favorably than school professionals; Chan, 1986; Hanline & Daley, 1992; Zborowsky, 1969), as well as their willingness to receive interventions from professionals who use interaction styles that differ from those used by families (e.g., authoritarian or nonauthoritarian) (Harry et al., 1995; McGoldrick, Pearce, & Giordano, 1982). However, despite the presence of dissonance among families from varying cultural and ethnic backgrounds, professionals in special education have historically expected families to adapt to the expectations of the Euro-American culture (Correa, 1987). Given that charter schools focus on shared values and needs among children and families that they serve (Grove, 2004; JoanneJacobs.com, 2003), this unquestionably may result in less diverse school settings and more homogeneous value systems, resulting in the increases reflected in White charter school enrollments reported by Fierros and Blomburg. If a charter school is designed to address certain values, e.g., independent thinking, competition, and individual achievement (Schneider, 1999), it may be less attractive to families who value cooperation, responsibility to the group (vs. the individual), and being accepted by the community. Such values have been reported for many Hispanic, African American, and Native American individuals (Lynch & Hanson, 1997; Roseberry-McKibbin, 2002) who may also have children with disabilities. High context cultures, such as Asian American, Native American, Hispanic (Hall, 1974, 1984; Lynch, 1997) and African American, place greater emphasis on the amount of information transmitted through the context of situations, the relationship of persons involved in the interaction, and physical cues. In a charter school setting that emphasizes oral transmission of information with less emphasis on context, 18

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 17–24, 2005

some families may choose not to participate given the dissonance between their preferred communication styles and what is valued in the charter setting, i.e., they refuse not to be assimilated (Pew Hispanic Center/Kaiser Family Foundation, 2002; Swaidan & Marshall, 2001). Such differences in values—those demonstrated by the charter school and those of families—might very well militate against family decisions to participate in charter schools, particularly if charter personnel are not well-trained in family and culturally sensitive communication approaches. The issue of insensitivity to families from varying cultural backgrounds may further be exacerbated if charter school personnel are unfamiliar with the various cultural positions that a family may present. For example, families may have interaction styles and behaviors that are (a) monocultural (i.e., based on their own individual cultural backgrounds or their perceived similarity to others) (Smart & Smart, 1992); (b) bicultural (i.e., identifying with two cultural groups and interact comfortably with both (Hanson, Lynch, & Wayman, 1990); or (c) multicultural (i.e., identifying with the value systems of more than two groups). Families and their children across cultural groups are also affected by the process of acculturation that involves the extent of accommodation to a newly introduced culture experienced by an individual (Kalyanpur & Harry, 1999; Parette et al., 2004). It is recognized that the process of acculturation varies markedly across individuals in the U.S. where there is both an overarching national culture and ethnic and other subsocieties and institutions (Banks, 1997). Families and their children with disabilities will belong to the U.S. culture, or macroculture, that includes many microcultural groups, each participating in the macroculture to varying degrees while simultaneously retaining aspects of the respective microcultures (Kalyanpur & Harry, 1999). Factors such as “race, ethnicity, nationality, language, social status, and geographic location are key ingredients to the pattern of identity that emerges” (Kalyanpur & Harry, 1999, p. 4). Compounding the problem is the fact that children with disabilities, families, and charter school personnel can develop affiliations with the norms and expectations of other groups and organizations that have differing mores and experiences, such as specific disability, family, or professional organizations. Some charter school personnel, as with public school personnel, may thus be disadvantaged socially since they are required to consume and value the cultural products produced by others (e.g., team decision-making strategies, curriculum; Bowles & Gintis, 1976; Smart & Smart, 1997). This often results in the presentation of cultural products that reflect Euro-American, middle class values (Benner, 1998; Kalyanpur & Harry, 1999), and not necessarily the values of particular cultural groups. For example, top-down, highly structured administrative structures in public schools (as well as business, the military, churches, and other institutions in the U.S.) are often dissonant with values that may be espoused by groups of individuals within schools who are from non-Euro-American backgrounds, and who may strongly feel that shared decision-making among all stakeholders is important (Edmund, 1998; Else, 2000). When such espoused values are not demonstrated in practice, family members may recognize the dissonance in values. Scherer (2003) has referred to this as the hidden curriculum, and the resulting dissonance can make families react in a variety of ways to the prevailing, or mainstream values of the school (Berry, Kim, Power, Young, & Bujaki, 1989; Berry, Poortinga, Segall, & Dasen, 1992; 19

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 17–24, 2005

Berry & Sam, 1997). When families and school staff differ in their opinions about a child’s special education needs, it may become apparent to families that the goals of the school staff are aligned with the goals of the school district (i.e., the hidden curriculum) (Scherer, 2003) rather than with those of the individual student, thus presenting a conflict for families (Harry, 1992b). The family may become assimilated and simply adopt all of the values that are presented within the school culture, and choose not to identify with other values previously deemed important by the family. Some cultural groups prefer not to be assimilated (Pew Hispanic Center/Kaiser Family Foundation, 2002; Swaidan & Marshall, 2001) in varying aspects of American society, including public schools. Other families will become integrated, clinging to certain strongly held cultural values while also desiring a high level of interaction with the school culture (Laroche, Kim, Hui, & Joy, 1996; Swaidan & Marshall, 2001). Still other families might respond by separation, or seeking low levels of interaction with the school culture while desiring a close connection with and affirmation of their native culture (Parette et al., 2004; Swaidan & Marhall, 2001). Finally, there may be other families who choose to respond to the prevailing value system of the school by being marginalized, or choosing not to cling to either of the conflicting value systems exhibited. For example, there has been a lengthy history of marginalizing persons with disabilities in the U.S. (Hahn, 2000; Hanks, n.d.). Separation involves resistance to the dominant culture and its value systems and attempts to change the environment where the person lives (Swaidan & Marhall, 2001). To summarize, then, successful school experiences occur to the extent that students, families, and professionals adhere to a primarily Euro-American “prescribed set of cultural content delivered through a narrowly defined curriculum and set of behaviors” (Carolan, 2001). This may manifest itself in discouraging families with children having disabilities from various ethnic groups from applying for admission, while justifying such practices due to (a) lack of fit between the student's needs and the school's curriculum or instructional approach; (b) concern about behavior problems; (c) inadequate student-staff ratio; (d) lack of needed related services (Fiore, et al., 2000); and of course (e) choice (Donahoo, 2001). Both students with disabilities and their families have historically been expected to adapt to what has been offered, with the expectation that this would perpetuate relationships among groups in the social system (Bowles & Gintis, 1976). However, dissonance (and choices not to participate) may occur when efforts to provide services operate under the assumption that children with disabilities and their families must adapt to the products and processes created by others that diverge markedly from their own. This recognition has led researchers to advocate for cultural reciprocity, or shared understanding of the cultures of professionals and families (Kalyanpur & Harry, 1999). Cultural reciprocity cannot flourish in environments where shared values result in homogeneous groups of students, and results in reticence on the part of families to participate in the charter school environment. Simply being aware of cultural influences on school participation is not enough to ensure effective collaboration with and participation by families across cultures. As noted by Kalyanpur and Harry (1999), awareness is merely the framework for such collaboration. It is just as important to provide strength to the collaborative relationship with families by 20

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 17–24, 2005

having knowledge about the beliefs and values of all parties. Developing cultural reciprocity may be achieved using a 4-step process that involves (a) identifying cultural values underlying the professional’s interpretation of the family and/or student’s school needs or in the recommendation for service; (b) determining whether the family recognizes and values professionally held assumptions, and if not, how their perception differs from that of the professional/s; (c) acknowledging and demonstrating respect to any cultural differences identified, and fully explaining the cultural basis of the professional assumptions; and (d) determining the most effective way to adapt professional interpretations or recommendations to the value system of the family (Kalyanpur & Harry, 1999). Unfortunately, while educators have attempted to better understand the values of broad cultural groups, relatively little is still known about the culture of disability, particularly within specific ethnic groups (Lynch & Hanson, 1997; Stone, 2004), where perceptions of disability and responsibility for providing services may differ markedly. It has been noted that disability categories are defined according to middle-class developmental norms (Luft, 1995) that reflect Western medical interpretations of disability (Harry, 1992a), and that such interpretations are arbitrary (National Center for the Dissemination of Disability Research, 1999). Charter schools, like any other school setting, reflect an array of values that has been shaped by individuals and groups who share a specific constellation of experiences, acculturation influences, perceptions of disability, and other characteristics that are not easily understood, but which, in the final analysis result in the types of issues discussed by Fierros and Blomburg. Phil Parette is Kara Peters Endowed Chair in Assistive Technology at Illinois State University, and Director of the Special Education Assistive Technology (SEAT) Center. He has published extensively regarding children with disabilities and their families, with emphasis on cross-cultural applications of assistive technology.

REFERENCES Ahearn, E. (2001). Public charter schools and students with disabilities. ERIC Digest E609. Retrieved August 17, 2004, from http://www.ericdigests.org/2002–2/public.htm Banks, J. A. (1997). Teaching strategies for ethnic studies (6th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Benner, S. (1998). Special education issues within the context of American society. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Berry, J. W., & Sam, D. L. (1997). Acculturation and adaptation. In J. W. Berry, M. H. Segall & C. Kagitcibasi (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology, Vol. 3: Social behaviour and applications (2nd. ed., pp. 291–326). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Berry, J. W., Kim, U., Power, S., Young, M., & Bujaki, M. (1989). Acculturation attitudes in plural societies. Applied Psychology, 38, 185–206. Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Segall, M. H., & Dasen, P. R. (1992). Cross-cultural psychology: Research and application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America: Educational reform and the contradictions of economic life. New York: Basic Books. Boykin, A. W. (1994). Harvesting talent and culture: African American children and educational reform. In R. Rossi (Ed.), Schools and students at risk (pp. 116–138). New York: Teachers College Press.

21

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 17–24, 2005

Boykin, A. W., & Bailey, C. T. (2000). The role of cultural factors in school relevant cognitive functioning. Description of home environmental factors, cultural orientations, and learning preferences. Report No. 43. Baltimore: Center for Social Organization of Schools, Johns Hopkins University. Retrieved September 21, 2004, from http://www.csos.jhu.edu/crespar/techReports/Report43.pdf Carolan, B. (2001). Technology, schools and the decentralization of culture. First Monday, 6(8). Retrieved August 26, 2002, from: http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue6_8/carolan/ Chan, S. (1986). Parents of exceptional Asian children. In M. K. Kitano & P. C. Chan (Eds.), Exceptional Asian children and youth (pp. 36–53). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children. Correa, V. (1987). Involving culturally diverse families in the educational process. In S. H. Fradd & M. J. Weismantel (Eds.), Meeting the needs of culturally and linguistically different students: A handbook for educators (pp. 130–144). Boston: College Hill. Detrich, R., Phillips, R., & Durrett, D. (2002). Critical issue: Dynamic debate—Determining the evolving impact of charter schools. Retrieved August 23, 2004, from http://www.ncrel. org/sdrs/areas/issues/envrnmnt/go/go800.htm Donahoo, S. (2001). Perspectives on charter schools: A review for parents. ERIC Digest. Retrieved September 7, 2004, from http://www.ericdigests.org/2002–2/charter.htm Edmund, D. S. (1998). A new kind of leadership: The Dolan model. Illinois School Board Journal, July-August. Retrieved September 22, 2004, from http://www.iasb.com/files/ j8070803.htm Else, D. (2000). School-based shared decision-making. Retrieved September 22, 2004, from http://www.uni.edu/coe/iel/sdsum.html Fiore, T. A., Harwell, L. M., Blackorby, J., & Finnigan, K. S. (2000). Charter schools and students with disabilities: A national study. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Retrieved August 23, 2004, from http://www.uscharterschools.org/pub/uscs_docs/fs/sped_natl_study.htm?page=1 Gordon, E., & Yowell, C. (1994). Cultural dissonance as a risk factor in the development of students. In R. Rossi (Ed.), Schools and students at-risk: Context and framework for positive change (pp. 51–59). New York: Teachers College, Columbia University. Greenbaum, P.E. (1985). Nonverbal differences in communication style between American Indian and Anglo elementary classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 22, 101–115. Grove, S. (2004). Quality? At many. The lack, say critics, is in the racial mix. Retrieved August 23, 2004, from http://codmanacademy.org/main/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_ user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=18 Hahn, H. (2000). Accommodations and the ADA: Unreasonable bias or biased reasoning? Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law, 21(1), 166–192. Hall, E. T. (1974). Beyond culture. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books. Hall, E. T. (1984). The dance of life: The other dimension of time. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books. Hanks, L. (n.d.). The diverse quest for civil rights. Retrieved May 4, 2003, from http://www.indiana.edu/~rcapub/v18n2/p2.html Hanline, M. F., & Daley, S. E. (1992). Family coping strategies and strengths in Hispanic, African-American, and Caucasian families of young children. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 12, 351–366. Hanson, M. J., Lynch, E. W., & Wayman, K. I. (1990). Honoring the cultural diversity of families when gathering data. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 10, 112–131. Harry, B. (1992a). An ethnographic study of cross-cultural communication with Puerto Rican-American families in the special education system. American Educational Research Journal, 29 (3) 471–494.

22

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 17–24, 2005

Harry, B. (1992b). Cultural diversity, families, and the special education system: Communication and empowerment. New York: Teachers College Press. Harry, B., Grenot-Scheyer, M., Smith-Lewis, M., Park, H. S., Xin, F., & Schwartz, I. (1995). Developing culturally inclusive services for persons with severe disabilities. Journal of the Association for the Severely Handicapped, 20, 99–109. JoanneJacobs.com. (2003). Charter schools and diversity charter. Retrieved August 23, 2004, from http://www.joannejacobs.com/mtarchives/013008.html Kalyanpur, M., & Harry, B. (1999). Culture in special education. Building reciprocal family-professional relationships. Baltimore: Brookes. Laroche, M., Kim, C., Hui, M. K., & Joy, A. (1996). An empirical study of multidimensional ethnic change. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27, 114–13 1. Luft, P. (1995, April). Addressing minority overrepresentation in special education: Cultural barriers to effective collaboration. Paper presented to the 1995 Meeting of the Council for Exceptional Children, Indianapolis, IN. Lynch, E. W. (1997). 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 (2nd ed., pp. 47–89). Baltimore: Brookes. Lynch, E. W., & Hanson, M. J. (1997). Developing cross cultural competence. A guide for working with children and their families (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Brookes. Manno, B. V., Finn, C. E., Bierlein, L. A., & Vanourek, G. (1998). How charter schools are different-lessons and implications from a national study. Phi Delta Kappan 79, 488–498. McGoldrick, M., Pearce, J. K., & Giordano, J. (1982). (Eds.). Ethnicity and family therapy. New York: Guildford. Misra, A. (1994). Partnership with multicultural families. In S. K. Alper, P. J. Schloss, & C. N. Schloss (Eds.), Families of students with disabilities (pp. 143–179). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Moore, E. G. J. (1985). Ethnicity as a variable in child development. In M. B. Spencer, G. K. Brookins, & W. R. Allen (Eds.), Beginnings: The social and affective development of black children (pp. 201–214). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. National Center for the Dissemination of Disability Research. (1999). A review of the literature on topics related to increasing the utilization of rehabilitation research outcomes among diverse consumer groups. Retrieved August 27, 2004, from http://www.ncddr.org/du/products/dddreview/toc.html Parette, H. P. (1998). Cultural issues and family-centered assistive technology decision-making. In S. L. Judge, & H. P. Parette (Eds.), Assistive technology for young children with disabilities: A guide to providing family-centered services (pp. 184–210). Cambridge, MA: Brookline. Parette, H. P., Huer, M. B., & Scherer, M. (2004). Effects of acculturation on assistive technology service delivery. Journal of Special Education Technology, 19(2), 31–41. Parette, P., & Huer, M. B. (2002). Working with Asian American families whose children have augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) needs. Journal of Special Education Technology, 17(4), 5–13. Pew Hispanic Center/Kaiser Family Foundation. (2002). 2002 national survey of Latinos. Retrieved September 22, 2004, from http://www.pewhispanic.org/site/docs/pdf/ LatinoSurveyReportFinal.pdf Roseberry-McKibbin, C. (2002). Multicultural students with special language needs. Practical strategies for assessment and intervention (2nd ed.). Oceanside, CA: Academic Communication Associates.

23

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 17–24, 2005

RPP International. (2000). The state of charter schools 2000—fourth year report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Scherer, M. J. (2003). Connecting to learn: Educational and assistive technology for people with disabilities. Washington, DC: APA Books. Schneider, J. (1999). Five prevailing charter types. School Administrator, 56(7), 29–31. Smart, J. F., & Smart, D. W. (1992). Cultural changes in multicultural rehabilitation. Rehabilitation Education, 6, 105–122. Smart, J. F., & Smart, D. W. (1997). The racial/ethnic demography of disability. Journal of Rehabilitation, 63(4), 9–15. Stone, J. H. (2004). Culture and disability. Providing culturally competent services. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Swaidan, Z., P., & Marshall, K. P. (2001, November). Acculturation strategies: The case of the Muslim minority in the United States. Paper presented at the Society of Marketing Advances, New Orleans, LA. Valdivieso, R., & Nicolau, S. (1994). Look me in the eye: A Hispanic cultural perspective on school reform. In R. J. Rossi (Ed.), Schools and students at risk: Context and framework for positive change (pp. 90–115). New York: Teachers College Press. Vogt, L. A., Jordan, C., & Tharp, R. G. (1992). Explaining school failure, producing school success: Two cases. In E. Jacob & C. Jordan (Eds.), Minority education: Anthropological perspectives (pp. 53–66). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Zborowsky, M. (1969). People in pain. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Received September 7, 2004 Revised September 22, 2004 Accepted September 23, 2004

24

S UBSCRIPTION O RDER F ORM Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal Bi-Annual—ISBN: 1930877153 ISBN: 1930877153

LEARNING DISABILITIES: A CONTEMPORARY JOURNAL

SUBSCRIPTION PRICES

Price $50 $30 $45 $45* $65* $60* $80*

Category

A N

I N T E R N A T I O N A L

J O U R N A L

Learning Disabilities Worldwide www.ldworldwide.org

Published by:

ELECTRONIC VERSION—PDF US Members of LDW US Non-Members of LDW International—Canada, Europe and S. America Members of LDW International—all other countries—Members of LDW International—Canada, Europe and S. America Non-Members of LDW International—all other countries—Non-Members of LDW September 2004

Editors:

Volume 3, No. 1

Georgios D. Sideridis Teresa Allissa Citro

Subscriptions are entered on a calendar-year basis only and must be paid in advance in U.S. currency—check, credit card or money order. Prices for subscriptions include postage and handling. NOTE: Institutions must pay institutional rates.

Check enclosed (*US Currency only) Total Charge my: VISA ❒ Mastercard ❒ Other Card Number Signature

❒

Exp. Date

/

(credit card orders cannot be processed without your signature)

For information about online subscriptions, visit our website at www.ldworldwide.org Mail orders to: Learning Disabilities Worldwide, P.O. Box 142, Weston, MA 02493, USA (011) 781-890-5399, fax (011) 781-890-0555, [email protected]

LIBRARY RECOMMENDATION FORM Detach and forward to your librarian. ❒ I have reviewed the description of Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal Price $125 $140* $160*

Category Institutional—US Institutional—Canada, Europe and S. America Institutional—all other countries

Name Institution/Department Address E-mail Address *US Currency only

Title

Learning Disabilities Worldwide, P.O. Box 142, Weston, MA 02493, USA (011) 781-890-5399, fax (011) 781-890-0555, [email protected]

GET YOUR FREE TRIAL CD OF KURZWEIL 3000 SOFT WARE AND HELP EVERY STUDENT BECOME A BETTER ONE. When a student’s ability to learn improves,his schoolwork quickly follows suit.Not to mention his self-esteem,his independence, and his confidence in himself. That’s what Kurzweil 3000, the top reading, writing and learning software for struggling students, is all about. By helping students read class material, write reports and essays, and study for and take tests, Kurzweil 3000 helps you help all your students reach their full learning potential. Call 1.800.894.5374 or visit www.kurzweiledu.com/myself today for a FREE 30-day Trial CD and the research summary, Scientifically-Based Research Validating Kurzweil 3000. And make Believe you can learning something all of your students can feel good about.

Kurzweil Educational Systems, Inc.

781.276.0600

www.kurzweiledu.com

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 27–32, 2005

Copyright © by LDW 2005

Restrictiveness and Race in Special Education: The Failure to Prevent or to Return Gwendolyn Cartledge1 The Ohio State University

Disproportionality in special education is a widespread problem for racial minorities, particularly for African and Native American students. Furthermore, special education placements for racial minority students tend to be highly restrictive and permanent. School personnel might approach this problem through a focus on prevention. That is, schools need to develop policies, programs, and goals designed to (1) prevent general education at-risk students from developing a disorder, (2) keep diagnosed students from moving to more restrictive environments, and (3) assist placed students to be transitioned into less and less restrictive settings. Interventions that address administrative procedures, educational programs, and teacher competence are needed to achieve these goals and avoid further jeopardizing the schooling of vulnerable students. These factors are discussed within the context of race.

Keywords: Disproportionality, Restrictive Placements, Special Education, Racial Minority Students, Prevention Issues relative to race and special education have been a concern within the field for nearly three decades and recently researchers, policy makers, and school personnel have increased their focus on this matter. Much of the discussion has centered on the disproportionate placements of racial minorities within special education. In their paper, “Restrictiveness and Race in Special Education Placements in For-Profit and Non-Profit Charter Schools in California,” Fierros and Blomberg address an additional component of disproportionality: the pattern of some minority students to receive the most restrictive placements along the special education continuum. An analysis of the data of the charter schools within the state of California led the authors to conclude that the restrictiveness for racial minority students within charter schools paralleled the same restrictiveness found in the non-charter schools for this group. This finding is not surprising considering that charter schools often operate under the same conditions and biases as non-charter schools. These results are consistent with the national data in general and the state of California in particular (US. Department of Education, 1999; Parrish, 2002). In some earlier work, Fierros and Conroy (2002) determined California to have the 10th highest level of restrictiveness in the U.S. for emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) and showed that African Americans were more than 1.5 times as frequently as whites to be labeled emotionally disturbed. In another analysis of California data, Parrish (2002) observed that black students were likely to be placed in the most restrictive settings and that black students were more likely than whites to be referred to the juvenile justice system. 1. Address correspondence to Gwendolyn Cartledge, The Ohio State University, School of Physical Activities and Educational Services, 356 Arps Hall, 1945 High Street, Columbus, OH 43210. Email: [email protected]

27

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 27–32, 2005

This trend of restrictiveness appears to be in violation of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 1997), which is predicated on the principle of the least restrictive environment for all students with disabilities. One issue not addressed by Fierros and Blomberg or other researchers on this topic is the failure to return. Once placed in special education programs students typically are not returned to general education or to less restrictive placements. Even if schools find it necessary to place some students in more restrictive settings, if special education is truly special, would there not be evidence of behavioral or academic improvements so that students are increasingly re-integrated into mainstreamed environments? Special education enrollments peak in the middle grades with a steady decline in the high school years. Since these students are not returned to general education, it must be assumed that these students drop out of school or experience some other poor outcome. This dismal prognosis with disproportional representation by racial minorities further underscores this restrictiveness concern. Beyond analyzing existing data sets, researchers might also investigate special education programs to determine policies or attitudes that contribute to this restrictiveness. It would be of interest, for example, to learn the rate of return, the degree to which students receive re-evaluations for the purpose of least restrictive environment (LRE), the relationship between parental involvement and restrictiveness, and the role race plays in each of these factors.

RECOMMENDATIONS TO REMEDY RACIAL RESTRICTIVENESS Disproportionality is a complex issue compounded by a variety of factors including socioeconomics, quality schools, and personal bias. Some of these conditions are beyond the control of school personnel, but knowing that some populations are disproportionately affected by these variables should lead schools to take preemptive steps to ward off deleterious effects. Possible actions would include effective administrative and classroom procedures, programs of prevention, effective assessments, and culturally competent personnel. Effective Administrative and Classroom Procedures Before the problem can be addressed, most administrators need to become aware not only that restrictive disproportionality exists, but also that it is discriminatory and harmful. School districts need to periodically review pupil data relative to race and gender to determine the existence and extent of this situation within their schools. Educational restrictiveness has received some attention in the professional literature but there is little evidence that it is systematically being addressed in the schools. Perhaps one of the most direct ways to reduce the disproportionate restrictiveness for racial minorities is for schools to mandate that the initial placement for all students should be in the least restrictive placement. That means that students identified as needing special education supports might first only receive assistance from an intervention specialist who serves the child within the general education classroom or on a pullout basis. At most, the student might be served in a resource room. If it is determined that the student needs more intensified instruction within a more restrictive setting, then the student is moved to another class that provides more supports. A related administrative mandate to ensure that racial minorities are not unfairly 28

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 27–32, 2005

pushed into undue restrictiveness might be that regardless of the setting for services all students would receive continuous and progressive monitoring for academic and behavioral progress. Interventions would be revised for students who failed to show regular academic and social gains. Formal evaluations would be conducted periodically, such as every two years to assess progress and take steps for partial or full reintegration into general education classes/settings. Special attention and accountability would be prescribed for racial minority students who failed to make progress toward less restrictive environments. Programs of Prevention Interventions in the form of special education typically come after an extended period of failure, often at a point when it is too late for the student to make the kind of academic or behavioral gains that would produce school and later life success. Instead, early intervention programs and effective instruction could help to minimize the need for special education supports. Children born into families with specific markers associated with severe school failure (e.g., poverty, premature parenting, parent criminality, family disorganization) need to be targeted for early intervention. This is especially important for racial minorities. These interventions should include family support/education, health services, sustained high-quality care and cognitive stimulation. Recent scientific reports showing lasting effects of quality early childhood child-care into adulthood are instructive (e.g., Campbell, Pungello, Miller-Johnson, Burchinal, & Ramey, 2001). Effective instruction is instruction that meets the learning needs of the targeted population. Academic inefficiency appears to be one predictor of special education disproportionality (Hosp & Reschly, 2004). Racial minorities, who are likely to begin school substantially behind their more affluent peers in readiness skills, will need an instructional program and curriculum that addresses these skill deficits. Instructional programs based on research with middle class white children are likely to be inadequate. Teachers of these young children need to be prepared to deliver interactive lessons, provide for high response rates, provide systematic instruction, and develop critical skills. Reading, for example, is fundamental. Yet, many authorities in reading insist that all children be taught to read using whole language approaches, which de-emphasize phonological awareness and other specific reading skills. This position is contrary to the findings of the National Reading Panel (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000) and is at odds with the obvious needs of many struggling racial minorities. Consider the case of a set of identical twin African American low socioeconomic brothers: Jerry and John. At the beginning of the first grade, we assessed both boys on tests of phonemic awareness and reading readiness. John showed more strengths on these assessments so we included only Jerry in a remedial program that provided instruction in phonemic awareness and alphabetic principle. Intervention was provided three times a week for seven months. End of the year assessments revealed that Jerry out performed John on every measure. More importantly, the following year, when the boys began second grade the reading assessments showed that Jerry scored at the 2.1 grade level while his brother John scored only 1.3. This indicated that Jerry showed good readiness for second grade reading, but his brother, who originally appeared 29

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 27–32, 2005

stronger academically, was now one grade behind in reading. If John continues at his current pace, within the next year or two he will be referred and possibly placed in special education. In contrast, Jerry, who received research-validated interventions in first grade and continues to receive support, is not likely to be referred for services outside the general education classroom. Although not a controlled study, my recent work in the schools convinces me that John’s story is repeated thousands of times for struggling racial minorities in our society. Inappropriate instruction, inadequate readiness, and limited parental advocacy combine to push these children into special education and low academic achievement. Pejorative attitudes and low expectations further compound these conditions, resulting in excessive educational restrictiveness. Effective Assessment The difficulties associated with the assessment of racial minorities in both cognitive and behavioral areas are well documented (Arnold & Lassmann, 2004; Loe & Miranda, 2002). Beyond the typical multifactored evaluations, quality assessments for racial minorities need to consider environmental assessments, along with teacher bias/skill/cultural competence. Influential environmental factors include the (a) working conditions within the school system, (b) pressures within the school, and (c) ecology of the classroom. Loe and Miranda (2002) point out that in urban areas, partly due to large caseloads, thorough evaluations are often sacrificed in the interest of expediency. An assessment of the student’s classroom at the time of referral can provide useful information. For example, behaviorally vulnerable boys enrolled in disorderly first grade classrooms show trajectories across the grades of increasingly aggressive behavior (Harry, Klingner, Sturges, & Moore, 2002). The implication here is the need for these students to be in well-organized and structured classrooms taught by highly competent teachers. Another aspect of the classroom assessment should be the appropriateness of the academic instruction. Is the instruction presented at the performance level of the student(s) or does it contribute further to frustration and learning/behavior problems? Teacher Competence There is legitimate concern regarding teacher bias in the eligibility process. Riccio, Ochoa, Garza, and Nero (2003) report that teachers make the majority (75%) of referrals for programs for EBD. They also note that teachers are more likely to refer minority students than white students and that white children are more likely to be referred by their parents. Harry, et al. (2002) cite research indicating that 90% of referred students will be placed. They offer that the teacher’s decision to refer the student typically triggers the entire process, and depending on the structure of the school and professional team, weighs heavily in the child’s eventual removal from the general education classroom. The preceding leads to the obvious question of teacher characteristics and competence. When considering the referrals of racial minority students to special education, an initial consideration needs to be teacher characteristics and skill. What do we know about the teacher of struggling racial minority students? The concerns raised by various authorities questioning the qualifications, experience, preparations, commitments and beliefs of these teachers (e.g., Kozleski, Sobel, & Taylor 30

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 27–32, 2005

2003; Skiba, Simmons, Ritter, Kohler, Wu, 2003) justify the scrutiny of teacher factors at the point of referral of racial minority students. Some examples of important teacher questions include: 1. Does this teacher have a structured, disciplined class? Does the teacher have a record of making numerous disciplinary referrals? 2. Does the teacher have a good to excellent instructional record? Is there evidence that the teacher is able to teach students who may need mild to moderate modifications in the classroom? 3. Is the teacher resourceful? Does the teacher seek out ways to help challenging students? Racial minority students are more likely to be taught in classrooms with inexperienced or unskilled teachers (Irvine, 1990; Kozleski, et al. 2003; Pang & Sablan, 1998), which only exacerbate their learning or behavior problems. Before making special education placements, certainly within restrictive settings, students should first be assigned to general education classrooms with more experienced/skilled teachers along with specialized supports. Another factor found to be predictive of disproportionality is demographics, that is, the relative proportion between a racial minority group and white students in a district (Hosp & Reschly, 2004). Professionals whose culture or class differs from that of their students are likely to misinterpret the students’ behaviors, often attributing to the student more pathology or punishing consequences than warranted. There is a need for cross-cultural training, especially for teachers with limited experiences with racial minorities. As educators grapple with disproportionality, it is important to recognize that the onus of this phenomenon lies greatly with general educators. This might partly explain the somewhat intractable nature of this problem, since general educators typically are not engaged in attempting to resolve the issue. The child is most likely to be referred to special education by the general educator and the general educator often plays a major role in the child’s success in less restrictive environments. If we are to reduce the disproportionate restrictiveness of racial minorities in special education, it will be necessary for special and general educators to work collaboratively to implement prevention programs, to assess contributing school as well as pupil factors, to provide effective instruction, and to foster the cultural competence of school personnel. Gwendolyn Cartledge is a professor in special education within the School of Physical Activity and Educational Services at The Ohio State University. Her professional interests include children with emotional and behavior disorders, social skills, prevention of learning and behavior disorders, and cultural diversity.

REFERENCES Arnold, M., & Lassmann, M.E. (2004). Overrepresentation of minority students in special education. Education, 124, 230-236. Campbell, F.A., Pungello, E.P., Miller-Johnson, S., Burchinal, M., & Ramey, C.T. (2001). The development of cognitive and academic abilities: Growth curves from an early childhood educational experiment. Developmental Psychology, 37, 231–242.

31

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 27–32, 2005

Fierros, E.G., & Conroy, J.W. (2002). Double jeopardy: An exploration of restrictiveness and race in special education. In D.J. Losen, & G. Orfield (Eds.) Racial inequity in special education. (pp.39–70). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press . Harry, B., Klingner, J.K., Sturges, K.M., & Moore, R.F. (2002). Of rocks and soft places: Using qualitative methods to investigate disproportionality. In D.J. Losen, & G. Orfield (Eds.) Racial inequity in special education. (pp.71–92). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Hosp, J.L., & Reschly, D.J. (2004). Disproportionate representation of minority students in special education: Academic, demographic, and economic predictors. Exceptional Children, 70, 185–199. Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (1999). 34 C.F.R. 300 (Regulations Implementing IDEA (1997) (Federal Register)(1999). 64(48)). Irvine, J.J. (1990). Black students and school failure: Policies, practices, and prescriptions. New York: Greenwood. Kozleski, E.B., Sobel, D., Taylor, S.V. (2003) Embracing and building culturally responsive practices, Multiple Voices, 6, 73–87. Loe, S.A., & Miranda, A.H. (2002). Assessment of culturally and linguistically diverse learners with behavioral disorders. In G. Cartledge, K.Y. Tam, S.A. Loe, A.H. Miranda, M.C. Lambert, C.D. Kea, & E. Simmons-Reed (Eds.) Culturally and linguistically diverse students with behavioral disorders. (pp. 25–36). Arlington, VA: Council for Behavioral Disorders. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. (NIH Publication No. 00–4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Pang, V.O., & Sablan, V.A. (1998). Teacher efficacy: How do teachers feel about their abilities to teach African American students? In M.E. Dilworth (Eds.), In being responsive to cultural differences: How teachers learn. (pp. 39–58). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Parrish, T. (2002). Racial disparities in the identification, funding, and provision of special education. In D.J. Losen, & G. Orfield (Eds.) Racial inequity in special education. (pp.15–37). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Riccio, C.A., Ochoa, S. H., Garza, S.G., & Nero, C.L. (2003). Referral of African American children for evaluation of emotional or behavioral concerns. Multiple Voices, 6, 1–12. Skiba, R.J., Simmons, A.B., Ritter, S., Kohler, K.R., Wu, T.C. (2003). The psychology of disproportionality: Minority placement in context. Multiple Voices, 6, 27–40. U.S. Department of Education. (1999). 20th Annual report to congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, D.C.: Same.

Received September 29, 2004 Revised October 11, 2004 Accepted October 12, 2004

32

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 34–43, 2005

Copyright © by LDW 2005

Restrictiveness and Race in Special Education: Socio-cultural and Linguistic Considerations Sheryl V. Taylor1 University of Colorado at Denver

The relationship between achievement and cultural, ethnic/racial, and linguistic diversity cannot be ignored given that students who struggle to learn are often the ones that are referred to special education even though the failure may not be due to a disability on the part of the student (Presidential Commission on Special Education, 2002). In particular, Fierros and Blomberg’s article, “Restrictiveness and Race in Special Education Placements in For-Profit and Non-Profit Charter Schools in California,” presents readers with urgent concerns regarding the overrepresentation of minority students in Special Education. After a review of the authors’ findings, this commentary presents an overview of considerations relevant to pre-referral interventions grounded in the field of culturally responsive instruction as well as suggestions for the professional development of teachers, both general education teachers and special educators, relevant to addressing the needs of students from diverse ethnic/racial, socio-cultural, and linguistic backgrounds.

Key words: Special Education Placements, Diverse Learners, Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Pedagogy, Pre-Referral Interventions Fierros and Blomberg’s article, “Restrictiveness and Race in Special Education Placements in For-Profit and Non-Profit Charter Schools in California,” presents readers with urgent concerns regarding the overrepresentation of minority students in Special Education, while simultaneously warranting future study as described below. The relationship between achievement and cultural, ethnic/racial, and linguistic diversity cannot be ignored given that students who struggle to learn are often the ones that are referred to special education even though the failure may not be due to a disability on the part of the student (Presidential Commission on Excellence in Special Education, 2002). Indeed, alarming evidence of the overrepresentation of minority students in Special Education is reported in the National Research Council (NRC) report on Minority Students in Special and Gifted Education (2002) and the 20th Annual Report to Congress. Of particular concern is the overrepresentation of students from African-American and Native American backgrounds in particular disability categories. While both reports provide similar data on disproportionate over or underrepresentation for Hispanics and Asians and Pacific Islanders, the NRC report indicates a wide variation among states and notable inconsistencies within states regarding the representation of minority stu1. Address correspondence to Sheryl V. Taylor, Ph.D., Associate Professor, School of Education, University of Colorado at Denver, Campus Box 106, P.O. Box 173364, Denver, CO 80217–3364, (303) 556-8169, FAX (303) 556-4479. E-mail: [email protected]

34

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 34–43, 2005

dents in special education. A focused study on the context of California and special education placements certainly warrants attention. The cultural gap between the current U.S. school-age population and the teaching pool is widely recognized. In California’s typical public school classroom, nearly 50 percent of the students are members of racial/ethnic “minority” groups or recent immigrants and speak a first language other than English. Additionally, more than 25 percent of students are sent to school by families with incomes below the poverty level and about 10 percent have been identified with learning disabilities (DarlingHammond, LaFors, & Snyder, 2001). On the contrary, the diversity of the current U.S. teaching force is decreasing (Simpson, Whelan, & Zabel, 1993; Turnball, Turnball, Shank & Leal, 1999). While the number of European-American, White teachers grew from 88% in 1971 to 90.7% in 1996, the number of African-American teachers decreased from 8.1% to 7.3%. Indeed, teachers today face the strong probability of teaching in schools where their experiential background as well as their cultural and linguistic background may differ from that of their students and their students’ parents (Zeichner, 1993). Teacher quality is inextricably tied to the work of school—student learning (Schalock & Imig, 1999). As stated by Fierros and Blomberg, charter school teachers are allowed to teach with certification or formal training and often have limited knowledge of the Individuals with Disability Education Act (IDEA) or lack understanding of the complexities of special education. Yet, documented concerns about teacher quality and qualifications extend beyond the context of charter schools to the broad landscape of public schools in California. In fact, more than 40,000 California teachers were reported to be working without full preparation or credentialing, almost exclusively in high-minority and low-income schools (Sheilds, Humphrey, Wechsler, Riel, Tiffany-Morales, Woodworth, Youg, & Price, 2001). Such numbers are alarming considering that teacher certification status has been identified as the strongest predictor of school-level student achievement in mathematics and reading, followed by teacher experience (Betts, Rueben, & Dannenberg, 2000; Goe, 2002). What the authors identified as a concern for California charter schools, appears to be a systemic problem in K-12 public schools statewide. Authors Fierros and Blomberg examined the enrollment patterns of students in California’s charter schools to gain a better understanding of whether the for-profit or non-profit status of a charter school can lead to differential enrollment patterns of students who have identified special needs and are eligible for special education services. Specifically, the authors investigated traditional public schools and charter schools to identify differences in placement rates and rates of restrictiveness for students with special needs; and, examined for-profit and non-profit charter schools to determine if students with special needs are equally served. California charter school population represents 2.3 percent of the total state enrollment or approximately 142,148 students. California students enrolled in regular public schools (non-charter) totals slightly more than 6 million. California’s 502 charter schools consist of 265 for-profit schools and 236 non-profit schools (California Department of Education). The authors employed clear selection criteria of charter schools to be included in

35

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 34–43, 2005

the study by taking full advantage of California Department of Education’s most recent data base. Prior to analyzing the data, the authors cleverly collapsed the data categories regarding race/ethnicity in order to match the state-level California data with the U.S. Office of Civil Rights racial categories. This type of adjustment was completed to allow for a potentially rich comparison of California enrollment data with similar date from other U.S. states. Using odds ratio to reflect the probability of disproportionate representation of minority students with special education needs and data supplied by California Department of Education, Fierros and Blomberg reported that American Indian and Black students with special needs are slightly more likely to be placed in special education within charter school settings. Additionally, the authors developed a series of highly descriptive data profiles of minority students with special needs in regular education schools and charter schools including for-profit and non-profit charter schools with attention to disability categories (e.g., specific learning disabilities, behavior disorders, emotional disturbance, and mental retardation). Findings indicate that minority students with special needs are restricted in both charter and noncharter schools; and, minority students eligible for special education services are more likely to be placed in restrictive settings as compared to White students. The data presented by Fierros and Blomberg is rich in its descriptive nature and offers clarity based on the selection process. In future studies, I encourage the authors to include similar data from multiple states—beyond California. While it appeared that they were intending to make such comparisons after collapsing the demographic data categories of California’s enrollment data, the authors missed an opportunity for potentially rich and valuable comparisons. I suggest that Fierros and Blomberg take full advantage of the data categories they collapsed and aligned with U.S. Office of Civil Rights racial categories by comparing data between states, in particular states with similar demographics and placement issues for students from diverse ethnic/racial, socio-cultural, and linguistic backgrounds. Lastly, while highly descriptive, the overall outcomes of this research study would have been greatly enhanced by the application of inferential statistical analysis to the data; a suggested consideration for future investigations. Fierros and Blomberg were able to emphasize valuable information relevant to the stated concern of restrictiveness and overrepresentation of minority students in special education thereby reporting the data by disability categories including highincidence disabilities such as specific learning disabilities, behavior disorders, emotional disturbance, and mental retardation. That said, the study would be enhanced with further explanation of how the restrictive rates and the level of restrictiveness for each placement were determined. Subsequent to a learner being identified with a disability, the type of service is determined—from a least-restrictive level (e.g., consultation and services provided in inclusive classrooms, services offered in parttime resource room, etc.) to highly restrictive level (e.g, services offered in a district school, hospital setting, jail, etc.) (Deno, 1986). An uninformed reader could easily have concluded from this study that learners identified with the aforementioned disabilities were placed in restrictive settings (e.g., segregated classrooms or schools) as opposed to least-restrictive settings such as services offered in inclusive classrooms.

36

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 34–43, 2005

How can we ensure that the ‘right’ students are being identified and served? Disproportionate representation of students from diverse ethnic/racial, sociocultural, and linguistic backgrounds in special education is a complex and persistent concern in the field. Its complexity has made it resistant to change despite ongoing efforts of leading researchers in the field. While a clear set of guidelines from federal and state laws exist for assessment purposes related to identifying students with disabilities and determining their eligibility for special services, considerations and guidelines for conducting nondiscriminatory and unbiased assessment have been developed in the last decade or so (e.g., National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities, 1998). Moreover, researchers in the field of culturally responsive instruction offer considerations relevant to pre-referral interventions. One final area that warrants attention is the professional development of teachers, both general education teachers as well as special educators. Considerations for conducting nondiscriminatory and unbiased assessment and referral An assessment that is nondiscriminatory is defined as “reducing the chance that a child might be incorrectly placed in special classes and increasing the use of intervention programs which facilitate his or her physical, social, emotional, and academic development” (Tucker, 1977, p. 109). Federal guidelines state that evaluations should meet the following three criteria to be fair and unbiased: 1. Assessments should be conducted in the student’s native language or other mode of communication. 2. All evaluation or testing material should be used for the specific purpose for which it has been validated. 3. Standardized tests should be administered by an appropriately trained professional with the expertise to administer it according to the specified guidelines from the test producer. Disproportionate representation of racial/ethnically, culturally and/or linguistically diverse students is also due in part to bias in testing and referral practices. When addressing concerns for bias, educators need to consider the following potential sources of bias (Haager & Klingner, 2005; Overton, 1996): 1. Inappropriate content. Students from diverse backgrounds may not have adequate exposure to constructs included in the assessment instrument. 2. Inappropriate standardization samples. Minority groups may not have been thoroughly represented in the normative sample that was used to establish evaluation standards. 3. Examiner and language of examination. When a test is conducted in English or by an examiner of a cultural or linguistic background difference from the student’s, the student may feel intimidated. 4. Measurement of different constructs. The constructs included in the test may represent a majority culture: these tests may only measure the extent to which a minority student has absorbed the majority culture. 5. Different predictive validity. Tests used to predict future educational outcomes may not be adequate predictors for minority students.

37

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 34–43, 2005

6. Translation of tests in English to other languages. When tests are translated into another language, the original meaning may be lost thereby making the norms for the instrument invalid. It is important to avoid pitfalls related to questionable assumptions when administering standardized tests to students of racial/ethnic, cultural and/or linguistic diverse backgrounds. We cannot assume that a student’s test performance accurately reflects his or her competence or true abilities. Numerous situational factors can affect how the student performs on a given assessment (Haager & Klingner, 2005). For example, a learner’s cultural perspective may influence different interpretations of the test task, perceptions of the problem to be solved, perceived options for reaching a solution, the amount of time best needed to complete a task, and the learner’s comfort level with a particular examiner. Another pitfall, content validity involves the assumption that the learner is familiar with the overall content included in the text and from which test items are drawn. Content validity can be violated when the test reflects content, abilities, and skills valued by the majority culture instead of the culture of the student being tested. Other considerations that can impact the learner’s test performance but are often misinterpreted or overlooked include, home data about primary culture and language practices, stage of English language acquisition, English language proficiency level of the learner, and language of the assessment instrument. Lastly, even though assessment experts have not yet determined how to distinguish between normal second language learning influences and disabilities, it is important to note that every test given in English is testing the learner’s language or literacy in addition to the actual assessment focus (American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education, 1985). A common practice of transitioning English language learners to English-only programs based on their superficial interpersonal communication skills without attention to their cognitive academic language proficiency, often results in underachievement in academic work (Cummins, 1984). Predictive validity of tests, for example, intelligence tests, often misrepresent the ability of students from diverse ethnic/racial, socio-cultural, and linguistic backgrounds by underestimating their potential achievement (Rueda, 1997). Culturally and linguistically responsive pre-referral intervention processes Since the 1970s, when pre-referral intervention emerged relevant to the inappropriate identification of children with special needs, pre-referral models have evolved to ensure that students’ social-cultural, racial/ethnic, linguistic, and other relevant background factors are addressed at all stages of review and assessment (Ortiz, 2002). In many schools, the dominant, majority culture permeates school culture and expectations including behavior, social interactions, academics, instruction, curriculum, and assessment. Teachers must come to understand culture in the broad sense, that is, all learners (and teachers) have cultures that provide the context for teaching and learning (Gollnick & Chinn, 2002). Garcia & Ortiz (2004) recommend that the responsibility for educating all students and providing culturally-responsive instruction, curriculum, and assessment must be shared by all teachers in the school. These responsibilities include: (a) making available a range of supports, services, and 38

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1) 34–43, 2005

programs that accommodate the unique needs of learners (e.g., early childhood education, Title 1 services, English language acquisition/bilingual education, gifted and talented education, services for immigrant students); (b) valuing and building on the knowledge, strengths, and experiences of the students and their families; and, (c) providing professional development for teachers. In the case when students experience academic or behavioral difficulties, early intervention and timely support systems are important components toward improving academic performance and reducing inappropriate special education referrals (Garcia & Ortiz, 2004). At the classroom level, teachers can sequentially teach subjects, concepts or skills, then re-teach them using different strategies when a learner is struggling, and ultimately use informal assessment strategies to identify students’ strengths and weaknesses (Ortiz, 2002). At the school level, a broader range of supports should be available. For example, peers or experts can support classroom teachers toward the development of instructional strategies or resources, ideas for managing behavior, and the coordination of content instruction with a focus on English language acquisition. When prevention and early intervention efforts fail to resolve learning difficulties, data gathering using multiple sources of information need to be considered if and when referral to special education services is warranted (Haager & Klingner, 2005; Ortiz, 1997). Implementing professional development for diversity-responsive teaching Classrooms today need teachers who can educate students varying in race/ethnicity, socio-culture, language, abilities and many other characteristics (Gollnick & Chinn, 2002). If we decontextualize teaching and learning from the ethnicities and cultures of students, we minimize the chances that students’ will achieve their full potential (Gay, 2000). Moreover, Ball and Cohen (1999) advocate for teachers to not only know their students but understand that they teach children who come from backgrounds different from their own. Yet, teachers continue to struggle with students’ needs relevant to cultural and language differences, differences in ability, or social and family differences (Nieto, 1999). In fact, in a recent study, 80% of teachers polled reported that they feel ill-equipped to teach diverse populations (Futrell, Gomez, and Bedden, 2003). Clearly, we are challenged to prepare highly qualified educators who are accountable for educating all learners (Danielson, 2001). Townsend (2002) advances this need for culturally responsive teaching to the arena of standards-based assessment. Teachers are charged with meeting the demands of standards-based reform, both for themselves as well as their students. The way that teachers choose to seize or shy away from these challenges warrants objective assessment. What are the characteristics of a teacher who is successful and accountable to the needs of students from racial/ethnically, culturally, and linguistically diverse backgrounds? What professional development needs to be in place to support teachers’ growth toward such a goal? Although the dynamics of cultural competency have been defined in various ways, Hanley (1999) conceptualized it as “the ability to work effectively across cultures in a way that acknowledges and respects the culture of the person or organization being served” (p. 10). Culturally responsive teachers see learning to have intellectual, academic, personal, social, ethnical, and political dimensions each of which develop in concert with one another (Gay, 2000). LadsonBillings (2001) asserts that culturally relevant teaching is based on three propositions 39

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 34–43, 2005

relevant to the teacher’s ability to create a context in which all students can be successful. Such teachers: 1. focus on individual student’s academic achievement (e.g., using clear goals, multiple forms of assessment); 2. have attained cultural competence and help develop students’ cultural competence; 3. have a developed sense of sociopolitical consciousness and foster students’ sense of sociopolitical consciousness. Villegas and Lucas (2002) expand on this framework of culturally relevant teaching by articulating six characteristics that define the culturally responsive teacher: 1. sociocultural consciousness (e.g., understanding that people’s ways of thinking, behaving, and being are deeply influenced by such factors as race, ethnicity, social class and language; 2. an affirming attitude toward students from culturally diverse backgrounds (e.g., students who differ from the dominant culture); 3. the commitment and skills to act as agents of change (e.g., recognition that schools have served to maintain social inequities and the willingness to take action to change this); 4. constructivist views of learning (e.g., use and build on learners’ prior knowledge and beliefs); 5. learned knowledge about their students (e.g., students’ backgrounds, experiences, lives, communities); 6. culturally responsive teaching practices (e.g., involving all students in construction of knowledge, building on students’ personal/cultural strengths, teaching students to examine curriculum from multiple perspectives, making classroom cultures inclusive). Customized guides that focus on observing, mentoring, and assessing teachers’ abilities to meet the diverse needs of all learners can also be used to meet the challenge of guiding teachers’ professional development. Sobel, Taylor & Anderson (2003a: 2003b), faculty from an urban university and large school district, developed a standards-based observation tool used to evaluate and mentor inservice and preservice teachers’ abilities to meaningfully address issues of diversity in their classrooms. The tool is grounded in state and district standards for diversity-responsive teaching including: competency in and valuing of diversity, subject matter knowledge, effective instruction, effective classroom management, professional commitment to education, and effective interpersonal skills. Designed to foster a discussion between teacher and observer, the tool’s use is two-fold: to meet the requirement of the teaching standard and to support and mentor teachers’ development in culturally responsive teaching. In closing, quality teachers have the responsibility to ensure that all their students have an equal opportunity to achieve. Such teachers must not only possess the knowledge and awareness of culturally relevant practices, but must also be supported by the administrative contexts where they work. These contexts operate within the political, social and cultural worlds called schools. It is the educational system that plans the curriculum for schools. Acknowledging that practice exists within

40

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 34–43, 2005

these systems creates a schema for supporting culturally responsive practice that builds on multiple levels of simultaneous change. It is imperative that teachers recognize and use their influence as they teach other people’s children (Delpit, 1988). In our schools, measuring student performance must coincide with standards for teachers’ practice that create accountability for all, not just some or most students. An important contribution to building culturally responsive systems resides in the tools and procedures we use to measure, encourage, and assess the change and progress of teachers and learners. Sheryl V. Taylor is Associate Professor of Language, Literacy, and Culture in the School of Education’s Reading and Writing Graduate Program at the University of Colorado at Denver and Health Science Center. She works with Denver-area classroom teachers in areas of bilingual education, English as a second language, and multicultural education. Her focus of inquiry includes teachers’ beliefs and practices relevant to meeting the needs of a diverse student population in multicultural, multilingual classroom contexts.

REFERENCES American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1985). Testing linguistic minorities. Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. Ball, D.L. & Cohen, D.K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based theory of professional education. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 127–150). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Betts, J.R., Rueben, K.S., & Dannenberg, A. (2000). Equal resources, equal outcomes? The distribution of school resources and student achievement in California. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California. California Department of Education (2003). Data Quest, Special Education Enrollment by Ethnicity and Disability, (Dec 2003). Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. San Diego, CA: College Hill. Danielson, C. (2001, February). New trends in teacher evaluation. Educational Leadership, 58 (5), 12–15. Darling-Hammond, L., LaFors, J., & Snyder, J. (2001). Educating Teachers for California’s Future. Teacher Education Quarterly, 28 (1), 9–55. Delpit, L. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people’s children. Harvard Educational Review, 59 (3), 280–298. Deno, S.L. (1986). Formative evaluation of individual student programs: A new role for school psychologists. School Psychology Review, 153, 358–374. Futrell, M. H., Gomez, J., & Bedden, D. (2003). Teaching the children of a new America: The challenge of diversity. Phi Delta Kappan 84(5): 381–85. Garcia, S.B. & Ortiz, A.A. (2004). Preventing disproportionate representation: Culturally and Linguistically responsive pre-referral interventions. National Center for Culturally Responsive Educational Systems. www.nccrest.org Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Teachers College Press. Goe, L. (2002). Legislating equity: The distribution of emergency permit teachers in California. Berkeley: Graduate School of Education, University of California, Berkeley.

41

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 34–43, 2005

Gollnick, D. & Chinn, P. (2002). Multicultural education in a pluralistic society. Columbus, OH: Merrill. Haager, D. & Klingner, J.K. (2005). Differentiating instruction in inclusive classrooms: The special educator’s guide. Boston: Pearson. Hanley, J.H. (1999). Beyond the tip of the iceberg: Five stages towards cultural competence: Reaching today’s youth. The Community Circle of Caring Journal, 3(2), 9–12. Ladson-Billings, G. (2001). Crossing over to Canan: The journey of new teachers in diverse classrooms. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (1998). Operationalizing the NJCLD definition of learning disabilities for ongoing assessment in schools. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 21, 182–193. National Research Council. (2002). Minority Students in Special and Gifted Education. Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Nieto, S. (1999). The light in their eyes: Creating multicultural learning communities. Multicultural education series. New York: Teaching College Press. Ortiz, A.A. (1997). Learning disabilities occurring concomitantly with linguistic differences. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 321–332. Ortiz, A. A. (2002). Prevention of school failure and early intervention for English language learners. In A.J. Artiles & A.A. Ortiz (Eds.), English language learners with special education needs: Identification, assessment, and instruction (pp.31–63). Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems. Overton, T. (1996). Assessment in special education: An applied approach (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill. Presidential Commission on Excellence in Special Education. (2002). A new era: Revitalizing special education for children and their families. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. Rueda, R. (1997). Changing the context of assessment: The move to portfolios and authentic assessment. In A.J. Artiles & G. Zamora-Duran (Eds.), Reducing the disproportionate representation of culturally diverse students in special and gifted education (pp. 7–25). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children. Schalock, D., & Imig, D. (1999). Shulman's Union of Insufficiencies + 7: New Dimensions of Accountability for Teachers and Teacher Educators. Washington, D.C.: AACTE. Sheilds, P.M., Humphrey, D.C., Wechsler, M.E., Riel, L.M., Tiffany-Morales, J., Woodworth, K., Youg, V.M., & Price, T. (2001). The status of the teaching profession 2001. Santa Cruz, CA: The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning. Simpson, R.L., Whelan, R.J. & Zabel, R. H. (1993). Special education personnel preparation in the 21st century: Issues and strategies. Remedial and Special Education, 14, 7–22. Sobel, D., Taylor, S.V., & Anderson, R.A. (2003a). Shared accountability: Developing an observational tool for evaluating diversity-responsive teaching. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 35(6), 46–54. Sobel, D., Taylor, S.V., & Anderson, R.A. (2003b). Teacher evaluation standards in practice: A standards-based assessment tool for diversity-responsive teaching. The Teacher Educator, 38(4), 285–302. Townsend, B. (2002). Testing while black: Standards-based school reform and African American learners. Remedial and Special Education, 23(4), 222–230. Tucker, J.A. (1977). Operationalizing the diagnostic intervention process. In T. Oakland (Ed.), Psychological and educational assessment of minority children (pp.91–111). New York: Brunner/Mazel.

42

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 34–43, 2005

Turnball, A., Turnball, R., Shank, M. & Leal, D. (1999). Exceptional lives: Special education in today’s schools, 2nd edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Villegas, A.M. & Lucas, T. (2002). Preparing culturally responsive teachers: Rethinking the curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 20–32. Zeichner, K. M. (1993). Educating teachers for cultural diversity (NCRTL Special Report). East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning, Michigan State University. Received October 21, 2004 Revised October 25, 2004 Accepted November 1, 2004

43

Tough Training for Sharp Educators

Teaching students with learning disabilities is a challenge. NILD has pioneered an innovative approach to meeting the needs of those who struggle to learn. Our graduate level training gives you methods that will help students develop skills to achieve academic independence. Find out more by visiting www.nild.net.

Equipping for Life... One Student at a Time

Educational Excellence since 1982

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 45–50, 2005

Copyright © by LDW 2005

Restrictiveness and Race in Special Education: The Content Mastery Center Model Amelia Jenkins1 University of Hawaii at Manoa

Certain minority students are over represented in special education programs nationwide. Many of these students identified for special education receive services outside of the general education classroom through the resource room (pull out) model. The Content Mastery Center (CMC) is a resource/consulting model that is an alternative to the traditional “pullout” approach to educating students with special needs who are struggling in the general education classroom. The CMC can serve as the first level of support for students who are experiencing academic difficulties, prior to a referral to special education. Students, such as those who are culturally and linguistically diverse, could be assisted to maintain passing grades in general education through the support provided by the CMC. The CMC program requires high levels of collaboration between the CMC teachers and general educators. Studies on CMC programs report satisfactory student performance in general education classrooms with CMC support both for students with mild disabilities and those “at-risk.” More widespread replication and additional studies could provide support for this model as an alternative to placement in special education services for minority students.

Keywords: Content Mastery Center, Inclusion, Diversity, Special Education Fierros and Blomberg (in press) conducted a study of the for-profit and non-profit charter schools in California for the school year 2002–2003. Their study examined the nature of student enrollment in charter schools with respect to disability and ethnicity. Specific data were provided for (a) the number and percentage of students with and without disabilities across several ethnic groups who were attending these charter schools as compared to the regular public schools, (b) the percentage of students with special needs across the various ethnicities attending charter schools, (c) a comparison of the percentages of students with special needs across ethnicities in for-profit and non-profit charter schools, and (d) a comparison of four high incidence disabilities groups across ethnicities in for-profit and non-profit charter schools. The authors provide much needed data regarding student enrollment of students with disabilities in charter schools, and further analyzes data by ethnicity and category of disability. Not surprisingly, the patterns of placement in special education follow that of the public schools, resulting in over and under-represented groups in special education. This is disturbing in light of the attractiveness of charter schools across the country and the increasing numbers of students enrolled in them. 1. Address correspondence to Amelia Jenkins, Ph.D., Department of Special Education, Wist Hall 120, 1176 University Avenue, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, HI 96822. Email: [email protected]

45

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 45–50, 2005

Furthermore, what can be considered the “private school” approach to education in the public school system does not appear to affect the rate of identification of minorities in special education. Data reveal “the racial disproportionality of special education that has been established in regular schools would appear, on the surface, to be mirrored in chapter schools” (p.13). These inauspicious findings further reinforce the already existing trend of the segregation of certain student groups within the public school system. In comparing the differences between non-profit and for-profit chapter schools, the results were variable. The data suggest no clear enrollment pattern between the two types of schools but an overall lower enrollment in chapter schools of students with disabilities across ethnicities. This further supports the segregation of students with special needs in both non-profit and for-profit chapter schools. The study touches on the issue that has been debated in the field of special education since the original passage of P.L. 94–142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act in 1975, renamed in 1990 as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (Vaughn, Bos, & Schumm, 2003), that of disproportionate representation of minority and ethnically diverse students in special education. Data indicate that African-American males are over represented in categories of learning disabilities, mental retardation, and serious emotional disturbance. Hispanic students are over represented in the category of learning disabilities. Asian Americans and European American students are underrepresented in all categories of special education (Salend et al., 2002). The debate typically has focused on the regular public school system. Studies, such as this one by Fierros and Blomberg, seem to suggest that the issue related to chapter schools will only compound the existing problem. Will the chapter schools of tomorrow be the public school setting for students without significant learning problems, and the regular public schools for those who struggle? The American public school system has had a difficult time determining the most appropriate education for ethnically diverse students and in answering the question, “Who is responsible for educating students who are ethnically diverse and struggling academically, general education or special education?” Do we enroll all students in special education who meet eligibility criteria, regardless of race or ethnicity? One side of the issue asserts that special education was meant to serve only students who truly have a disability, excluding differences related to race, culture, and ethnicity. The argument here is to provide better support services within the general education setting rather than through special education. Inappropriate special education labels for ethnically diverse students may be the result of vague definitions, biased methods of assessment, or poor instruction. This overrepresentation results in a tracking system for minority students, which restricts further academic success and career opportunities and is clearly a form of discrimination (Benner, 1998). The other side of the issue purports that special education services should be provided to all students who are struggling academically and meet eligibility criteria. The right to special education should be provided to all who qualify, regardless of an overrepresentation of certain ethnic groups. The argument is that special education should provide the needed remediation and special instruction required to help any student achieve (Benner, 1998). Charter schools provide the opportunity to creatively and effectively meet the needs of students who are struggling, given their 46

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 45–50, 2005

increased flexibility and relative autonomy. It would appear that the answer does not lie in what presently exists in most public schools and the way services are being provided to struggling students, nor in the chapter schools. Recently, much has been written in support of the merging of general and special education into a more unified education system, a system that more widely includes all students into the school environment without separating them into “general education” or “special education.” Studies have found that some inclusive service delivery models, such as the Content Mastery Center, support the learning of all students combining the expertise of special and general educators (Jenkins & Sileo, 1994). There is promise in this particular service delivery model as a support system for the majority of students who struggle to achieve in the general education classroom. The Content Mastery Center (CMC) is a resource/consulting teacher model, which allows students to receive all instruction in the general education classroom and attend the CMC classroom for additional support as needed. The model, originally designed to assist students with mild disabilities, is easily adaptable to include providing services to populations of other students, such as those who are at-risk or second language learners. Services provided in the CMC include both indirect services, such as consultation with general educators, and direct services to students, including strategy instruction, modifications and/or adaptations to assignments and tests. The CMC model allows students to receive instruction from the general education teachers, the content area experts, and support from those trained in remediation and strategy instruction. The model could serve as a “first step” toward providing additional services to students who are falling behind in general education, prior to a referral for special education services, in addition to serving those identified as having mild disabilities. The CMC model varies from the traditional resource room model. Students receiving services in a resource room typically are assigned for specific periods of time daily for specific content areas. There are several disadvantages to this resource room approach. In this arrangement, students miss the instruction being provided in the general education classroom while they are in the resource room. Also, most resource room teachers plan and implement their own curriculum and instruction, which are often times not aligned with the curriculum being taught in the general education classroom. Students generally receive support in resource rooms for remediation in language arts (reading, writing, spelling) and mathematics. When the students attend the general education classroom for other subject areas, such as science and social studies, the general educator must provide appropriate accommodations and modifications with little or no support from the resource room teachers (Jenkins & Sileo, 1994). Studies have reported that most general education teachers need more support, such as personnel and materials support, and time for planning, in order to meet the needs of struggling students in their classrooms. In addition, research over the past two decades indicates that segregating students from the general education curriculum and classroom is detrimental to their academic and social growth (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2000). In contrast, with the CMC approach, students receive all instruction in the general education classroom from the general education teacher. Students are allowed 47

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 45–50, 2005

to attend the CMC classroom when, and as often as, additional support/assistance is needed, to be decided collaboratively by the teacher and the student. This allows the student to become more reflective of his/her own abilities and needs. The general education teacher then sends the student to the CMC with a pass indicating on which assignment the student requires assistance, and provides the appropriate materials needed to complete the assignment (i.e., assistance reading a chapter from the science text). The pass also indicates the time the student is to return to the general education class; a student is not allowed to remain in the CMC while critical instruction is being provided in the general education classroom. For example, with this arrangement, a student may access the CMC three times for reading, math, and science assistance all in one day, and not attend for the next two days. The CMC teachers provide more than just tutoring services; they provide pre-teaching and reteaching of subject matter, accommodations to curricular materials and tests, and study skills instruction. The success of this model depends heavily upon collaboration between the CMC and general education teachers. The CMC teachers must be informed of the general education lesson plans and provided the materials in advance in order to develop accommodations and modifications prior to the students’ attendance. Alternately, the CMC teachers must keep the general educators informed as to the supports needed by and provided to individual students, as well as suggestions for meeting their needs while in the general education classroom. As an added benefit, general education teachers are provided with the modified materials to use in their own classrooms, whenever appropriate (Jenkins & Sileo, 1994). The CMC can be designed to assist any student who may need instructional support, including those with mild disabilities, those who are at-risk, and the culturally and linguistically diverse student. Through this approach, students need not be identified as eligible for special education services before receiving much needed support. Students could receive support in the CMC as soon as they begin to struggle academically, which may alleviate subsequent referrals for special education placement. Two studies in 2002–2003 and 2003–2004 of a CMC in an elementary school in Hawaii, a state of the most ethnically diverse student population in the U.S., found positive results for providing support services to students identified as “at-risk” and students with mild disabilities. Data were collected on attitudes of parents, students, and general education teachers toward the CMC, student grades, student frequency of access to the CMC, and frequency of modification and adaptations provided. Parent, student, and teacher response indicated strong satisfaction and perceived benefit. Students reported overwhelming satisfaction with the CMC and felt they were doing better in school with the support they had received. Since students with and without disabilities attended the CMC, the negative stigma typically attached to special education pullout programs did not seem to apply in this situation. Teachers perceived the CMC to be beneficial to the students who attended, although some collaboration challenges were identified. Many felt the need for more collaboration between the CMC and general education teachers, a common problem with this type of support model. Parents, too, reported overall satisfaction with the CMC (Fujieki & Scheuring, 2004; Mrasek & Jenkins, 2004). Data revealed a positive correlation with time spent in the CMC and effect on student grades. Most students who accessed the CMC were able to maintain passing 48

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 45–50, 2005

grades in the general education classroom. Modifications data revealed similar methods of support for both groups of students, including one-to-one assistance, use of supporting materials (highlighted texts), re-taking tests, and oral reading of directions to students. In general, the studies indicated that this model, which combines the expertise of general and special educators, is a viable approach to providing support services to students. The results of widespread use of the model might yield lowered rates of referrals to special education for those who learn differently. If students who are currently overrepresented in special education, such as those who are culturally and linguistically diverse could first receive support services in a CMC, subsequent referral to special education may not be necessary. Another suggestion receiving wide support is the training of teachers in both general and special education content in order to prepare them to more effectively meet the demands of the increasingly diverse student population. The inclusive schools movement necessitates that general education teachers be prepared to meet the needs of all students. The Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) has developed a set of standards, Model Standards for Licensing General and Special Education Teachers of Students with Disabilities: A Resource for State Dialogue (2001) that specifies the knowledge and skills that all teachers, general and special education, should master to effectively teach students with disabilities. INTASC recommends that states use these Standards to generate dialogue among stakeholders. Institutions of higher education should consider integrating these Standards into their teacher training programs, and state licensing boards should consider the Standards as requirements for licensure. A study, recently conducted at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, revealed that exiting teacher candidates in a Dual Preparation in Elementary and Special Education program reported significantly greater confidence in teaching students with disabilities across all INTASC standards than their counterparts in the Elementary Program (Jenkins & Ornelles, 2004). It would be interesting to determine if this confidence carries over into practice in their teaching careers. More noteworthy would be to determine if dually trained teachers, teaching in elementary classrooms, make fewer referrals to special education than those trained only in elementary education, and specifically referrals of students who are of over represented ethnic groups. Greater numbers of dually trained teachers entering the teaching field into general education classrooms could ultimately impact the numbers and types of referrals made to special education. Dually trained teachers would be the ideal personnel for Content Mastery Centers. They have been prepared in both the general education curriculum and in strategies to meet the needs of struggling learners. The issue will not be resolved in the near future but efforts can be made today to impact tomorrow’s schools. Institutions of higher education must examine their teacher training programs. Public schools must be willing to change existing practices for different approaches to educating all students, such as the Content Mastery Center model. The classrooms of tomorrow will be more diverse, and, clearly, neither special educators nor general educators alone will be able to meet the needs of all students who struggle. Charter schools with their exemption from adhering to local and state regulations are in a position to explore alternative approaches to educating students who are diverse, including those with disabilities. Charter schools 49

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 45–50, 2005

should take the opportunity to pilot programs such as the Content Mastery Center in order to provide data for widespread dissemination. Amelia Jenkins, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Special Education at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. Her research interests are in the areas of inclusive service delivery models, accommodating and modifying general education curriculum, and students with mild/moderate disabilities.

REFERENCES Benner, S. (1998). Special education and cultural diversity in America. Special education issues within the context of American society. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing. Fierros, E.G., & Blomberg, N. A. (in press). Restrictiveness and race in special education placements in for-profit and non-profit chapter schools in California. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal. Fujieki, C. & Scheuring, B. (2004). Content master: A successful model? Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu. Interstate New Teacher Assessment & Support Consortium (INTASC) (2001, May). Model standards for licensing general and special education teachers of students with disabilities: A Resource for state dialogue. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. Jenkins, A., & Ornelles, C. (2004). Teacher candidates confidence in teaching students with disabilities. Manuscript in preparation. Jenkins, A. A. and Sileo, T. W. (1994) The content mastery program: A vehicle to facilitate students’ transition into inclusive education settings. Intervention in School and Clinic, 30(2), 84–90. Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2000). Introduction to inclusive teaching. The Inclusive Classroom: Strategies for Effective Instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Mrasek, K., & Jenkins, A. (2004). Content mastery centers: A study of one school’s implementation. Manuscript in preparation. Salend, S, Garrick, L., Montgomery, W. (2002). A comprehensive approach to identifying and addressing issues of disproportionate representation. Remedial and Special Education, 23(5), 289–300. Vaughn, S., Bos, C. S., & Schumm, J. S. (2003). Special education and inclusive schooling. Teaching exceptional, diverse, and at-risk students in the general education classroom (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Received October 11, 2004 Revised November 13, 2004 Accepted November 15, 2004

50

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 52–55, 2005

Copyright © by LDW 2005

Restrictiveness and Race in Special Education: Practicalizing the Laws Festus Obiakor1, Floyd D. Beachum, Mateba Harris University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

This article is a response to Fierros and Blomberg’s article on “Restrictiveness and Race in Special Education Placements in for-profit and non-profit charter schools in California.” It compliments these scholars for confirming through their findings that ethnically diverse students with special education needs endure segregationist policies in charter schools. To a large measure, this article calls for vigorous critiques and analyses of reform programs such as charter schools before consumers can jump on the emotional band-wagon. In this era of accountability when no child is supposed to be left behind, society cannot and must not condone presumed innovative programs that disenfranchise those that they are expected to help. In a nut shell, this article’s premise is that true quality and equity must go hand-in-glove.

Key words: Charter Schools, Reform Programs, Accountability, True Quality, Equity. Charter schools highlight the United States’ desire to reform public education in its current form. They represent yet another innovative proposal to address issues of accountability, quality, and equity; and to a large measure, they represent the dream of educating all learners (Obiakor, Grant, & Dooley, 2002). Notable scholars and educators (e.g., Gill, Timpane, Ross, & Brewer, 2001) have attempted to critically analyze the viability of charter schools, especially since the promulgation of the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act (Public Law 107–110). In this article, Fierros and Blomberg reported their study on 502 charter schools; 265 of which are for-profit and 237 are non-profit. In this study, they utilized data from the California Department of Education (CADE) to compare regular and special education students in these charter schools. A multilevel analysis was used to determine restrictiveness and placement rates of these schools. Data analysis revealed that (a) California charter schools have fewer numbers of students with special needs, (b) little variability exists with regard to race/ethnicity, (c) ethnically diverse students in both charter and regular schools are restricted, and (d) ethnically diverse students eligible for special education services are more apt to be placed in segregated educational settings as compared to their White peers.

RESISTING THE BAND WAGON MENTALITY As it appears, Fierros and Blomberg’s article recognizes that charter schools are supposed to present smaller classrooms, more attention, and individual programming 1. Address correspondence to Festus Obiakor, Ph.D., University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Department of Exceptional Education, P.O.Box 413, Milwaukee, WI 53211. Email: [email protected]

52

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 52–55, 2005

for all learners, especially those with special education needs. However, it points to the fact that charter schools are restrictive and discriminatory to ethnically diverse learners with exceptionalities. In addition, it acknowledges the lack of accountability prevalent in charter and other presumed innovative schools. While federal laws do not permit discrimination and segregation, Fierros and Blomberg found that in California, more ethnically diverse learners are placed in restrictive environments than their White peers because “there is no de facto penalty for charter schools excluding students with special needs.” In this era of accountability, Fierros and Blomberg must be complimented for resisting the band wagon mentality in their work. As educators, they understand that school choice is a good thing; but they also note that some choices are wrong for individual and collective growth. They recognize that the failure to analyze consequences of reform programs have had far-reaching consequences on today’s critical issues (e.g., inclusion, assessment, placement, and instruction). In addition, Fierros and Blomberg must be complimented for making efforts to expand their investigation to unmask traditional disparities of state-level statistics. Typically, some investigators have been known to abuse data to arrive at some strange conclusions (see Herrnstein & Murray, 1994). With this work, Fierros and Blomberg have added to the body of research on charter schools, general education, and special education. It is important that scholars continue to analyze the effectiveness of reform programs, even when they have well-intended goals and good-sounding titles (e.g. charter schools and No Child Left Behind Act). The utilization of a multilevel analysis of the CADE data shed some light on the relationships between restrictiveness, race/ethnicity, special education, and charter schools. Ultimately, Fierros and Blomberg’s underlying message is that with all their innovative ingredients, charter schools are not immune from segregationist practices. Like public schools, these schools may not be the educational panacea that some politicians claim. Without careful vigilance, public scrutiny, and rigorous research, ethnically diverse learners with special education needs will suffer in programs supposed to help them to maximize their fullest potential. In essence, allowing charter schools to go unchecked and unmonitored will create another school system that perpetuates educational inequities (Noguera, 2004; Obiakor, 2001; Yeo & Kampol, 1999). While Fierros and Blomberg must be complimented for this article, their work manifests limitations that deserve attention. The article’s title includes for-profit and non-profit charter schools; however, Fierros and Blomberg fail to expand their discussion to include the for-profit schools. Although, they discuss issues of race and ethnicity in special education, they fail to mention some leading scholars in that area of research. Incorporating the multiple voices of such scholars would have buttressed the scholarly intensity of this work. Finally, with the rise of specialty schools, it is evident that students will be included or excluded as needed. For instance, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin (U.S.A.), there are many specialty public schools that allow students to excel in measurable ways. Gladly, Fierros and Blomberg acknowledge that the “organization and motivation of a charter, and an examination of its origins may play a role in its enrollment of special education students.” The laws in special education (e.g., the 1975 Education of All Handicapped Children’s Act; its amendment, the 1990 individuals with Disabilities Education Act; and the reauthorization 53

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 52–55, 2005

of this law, the 1997 Individuals with Disabilities Act) support education of exceptional learners in least restrictive environments (LRE). The laws do not support indiscriminate inclusion or integration of students. The fact remains that meeting the unique needs of individuals is central to the sacred existence of special education (Kauffman & Hallahan, 2005; Obiakor, Utley, & Rotatori, 2003).

PRACTICALIZING THE LAWS IN SPECIAL EDUCATION It has become increasingly evident that ethnically diverse students are over represented in special education programs (Artiles & Trent, 2000; Obiakor 2001; Obiakor & Utley, 2004; Utley & Obiakor 2001). In this work, Fierros and Blomberg use examples from other States (e.g., Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Texas) to confirm the relationship between race, ethnicity, special education, and the placement of students in charter schools. As they point out, such placements and uncertainties “create the potential for abuse of students with special needs and a chilling effect for students with special needs that may be interested in attending charter schools.” Since many of these learners come from ethnically diverse backgrounds, they find themselves with shattered dreams (Obiakor & Utley, 2004). More than two decades ago, Staples (1984) argued that the “ideology of equal opportunity masks the reality of a country stratified along racial, gender, and class lines” (p. 12). Today, race has continued to matter in the United States (West, 1993), and the laws that are supposed to help disenfranchised individuals have not been pragmatically pursued (Obiakor, 2001; Obiakor et al., 2002). They appear to be toothless bull-dogs. For instance, there is no formative or summative evaluation on how well teachers, school programs, school principals, and school district personnel respond to civil rights of their students. In reality, it has not been costly to discriminate against ethnically diverse individuals. It is bad enough to inappropriately identify ethnically diverse students as having problems because they look, learn, talk, and behave differently. It is equally bad to use instruments that lack validity and reliability to assess or label these students. But, it is immoral to establish charter schools under the guise of educating all learners and then disenfranchise learners who need the most help. Clearly, all schools, whether chartered or not, must help all learners to optimize their capabilities (Obiakor, 2001; Obiakor et al., 2002; Utley & Obiakor, 2001).

CONCLUSION Fierros and Blomberg’s article is beneficial to scholars and educational practitioners. It critically examines differential enrollment patterns in charter schools and reveals new information on ethnically diverse students with special education needs. This work also has larger educational implications for program planners and change agents. In the rat race to reform public education, we should not hastily accept any and every alternative without appropriate discussion, research, and critique. At the same time, general and special educators must make sure that they are not just reinventing the same broken wheel. Finally, we conclude that we have not truly done our jobs as professionals when solutions that we have so vigorously supported have done nothing but perpetuate past problems.

54

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 52–55, 2005

Festus E. Obiakor, Ph.D., is a Professor in the Department of Exceptional Education at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. He is the author or co-author of more than 100 publications. He is currently the co-editor of Multiple Voices and associate editor of Teacher Education and Special Education; both are divisional journals of the Council for Exceptional Children. Floyd D. Beachum, Ed.D., is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Administrative Leadership at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. His areas of interest include school leadership, multicultural education, and urban education. Mateba Harris, M.S., is a Ph.D. student in the Department of Exceptional Education at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. She is an experienced public school teacher of students with exceptionalities.

REFERENCES Artiles, A.A., & Trent, S.C. (2000). Representation of culturally and linguistically diverse students. In C.R. Reynolds & E. Fletcher-Janzen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of special education (2nd ed., pp. 513–517). New York: Wiley. Education of All Handicapped Children’s Act of 1975, Pub. L. No. 94–142. Gill, B.P., Timpane, P.M., Ross, K.E., & Brewer, D.J. (2001). Rhetoric versus reality: What we know and what we need to know about vouchers and charter schools. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Education. Herrnstein, R.J., & Murray, C. (1994). The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in American life. New York: Free Press. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101–476 and 1997 reauthorization, Pub. L. No. 105–17. Kauffman, J.M., & Hallahan, D. P. (2005). Special education: What it is and why we need it. Boston: Pearson Allyn and Bacon. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107–110. Noguera, P. (2004). Going beyond the slogans and rhetoric. In C. Glickman (Ed.), Letters to the next president: What we can do about the real crisis in public education (pp.174–183). New York: Teachers College Press. Obiakor, F.E. (2001). It evens happens in “good” schools: Responding to cultural diversity in today’s classrooms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Obiakor, F.E., Grant, P.A., & Dooley ,E.A. (2002). Educating all learners: Refocusing the comprehensive support model. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. Obiakor, F.E., & Utley, C.A. (2004). Educating culturally diverse learners with exceptionalities: A critical analysis of the Brown Case. Peabody Journal of Education, 79, 141–156. Obiakor, F. E., Utley, C. A., & Rotatori, A. F. (2003). Effective education for learners with exceptionalities: Advances in special education. Oxford, England: Elsevier/JAI Press. Staples, R. (1984, March/April). Racial ideology and intellectual racism: Blacks in academics. The Black Scholar, pp. 2–17. Utley, C.A., & Obiakor, F.E. (2001). Special education, multicultural education, and school reform: Components quality education for learners with mild disabilities. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. West, C. (1993). Race matters. New York: Vintage. Yeo, F., & Kampol, B. (1999). From nihilism to possibility: Democratic transformations for the inner city. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Received November 11, 2004 Revised November 15, 2004 Accepted November 16, 2004

55

Get the degree you want with the LD support you need to be successful!

For For more more than than 25 25 years, years, Mitchell Mitchell College College has has offered offered one one of of the the nation’s nation’s premier premier support support programs programs for for students students diagnosed diagnosed with with learning learning disabilities disabilities and/or and/or ADD/ADHD: ADD/ADHD: •• Three distinct levels of academic Three distinct levels of academic support support •• Team Team of of individual individual learning learning & & writing writing specialists/advisors specialists/advisors •• Specialized Specialized ADHD ADHD coaching coaching program program •• Professional Professional content content tutors tutors •• Degree Degree options options -- four-year four-year & & two-year two-year programs programs •• Summer Summer Transition Transition Enrichment Enrichment Program Program Begin Begin your your journey journey at at Mitchell Mitchell College College -- let let us us show show you you how how to to succeed! succeed!

Begin Your Journey

Mitchell College • 437 Pequot Ave. • New London, CT 06320 • (800)443-2811 • www.mitchell.edu

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 57–63, 2005

Copyright © by LDW 2005

Restrictiveness and Race in Special Education: Access to a Special Education Infrastructure Courtney Davis1 American Institutes for Research

Parents of students with disabilities want the same access to educational opportunities as parents of students without disabilities. This “right” to particular services and learning environments is securely supported by federal regulations and policies in all schools, including charter schools. However, in the work of Fierros and Blomberg (2004, in this issue) “Restrictiveness and Race in Special Education Placements in For-Profit and Non-Profit Charter Schools in California,” it illuminates the interrelationship of race and placement of minority students with disabilities enrolled in charter schools. In response to the article, I share several remarks that charter schools may be in danger of limiting access to minority students with disabilities, including the following, 1) charter schools are in danger of mirroring traditional public schools in California, 2) inequitable recruiting practices may be evident, 3) there is a lack of support for charter schools concerning special education, and 4) dearth of studies concerning students with disabilities in for-profit and non-profit charter schools is clear. Later, I conclude with recommendations to improve disproportionality of students with disabilities enrolled in charter schools.

Keywords: Access, Special Education, Disproportionality, Charter Schools, Special Education Placement While composing my thoughts for the commentary, I identified the following mission statement for a charter school located in Washington, D.C. It read: Johnson Academy* is a community educational center whose mission is to serve children with and without learning disabilities, which translates into teaching academic and arts skills through an interdisciplinary, project-based curriculum. The program provides support for parents and other community members. Instruction and assessment is based on the most current DCPS standards of learning and is tailored to each child’s individual needs. Johnson Academy emphasizes the development of the whole child: intellectual, emotional, physical and social, assessing progress using portfolio collections of the children’s work and culminating projects at the end of the thematic unit. The school’s thorough accountability plan details quantifiable goals measuring student’s, teacher’s, and administrative success levels in the 1. Address correspondence to Courtney Davis, Ph.D., American Institutes for Research, 1000 Thomas Jefferson St., NW Washington, DC 20007-3835. Email: [email protected]

57

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 57–63, 2005

school’s first five years of operation. (District of Columbia Public Charter Schools, 2003) *Name of charter school has been changed. The sample mission statement is reflective of material shared with students and families interested in the potential of a charter school. After reviewing the advertisement, for a brief moment, I asked myself, “Can this be a viable option for any student, particularly students with disabilities?” My initial reaction quickly resulted in a resounding one-word response, “Yes.” Just as every parent of a child with disabilities wants to provide the elements which will result in success, parents want to believe that their child’s educational needs will be met after enrollment in any school, particularly a charter school. It is logical to understand a parent’s rationale to enroll their child in a charter school. As the facilitator of an educational vision, parents of students with disabilities are choosing schools, for many of the same reasons as other parents, including but not limited to features or description of the facility (Fiore, Harwell, Blackorby, & Finnigan, 2000; Ahearn, 2001), negative experiences of previously attended school (Ahearn, 2001), philosophy of the school (Fiore, et al., 2000), and decreased student population (Lange & Lehr, 2000). However, after reading Fierros and Blomberg’s (2004, in this issue) article “Restrictiveness and Race in Special Education Placements in For-Profit and NonProfit Charter Schools in California,” I have a growing concern regarding the accessibility charter schools grant and provide to students with disabilities, particularly minority students. Though parents are seeking a learning environment to suit their child’s needs, charter schools may not meet the high expectations of the perceived panacea. The authors of “Restrictiveness and Race in Special Education Placements in For-Profit and Non-Profit Charter Schools in California,” express their concerns pertaining to the implementation of special education and access of students with special needs. In turn, they highlight the significant role of charter schools to perpetuate enrollment and placement practices which result in the overrepresentation and underrepresentation of minorities in special education. I will share my perspectives based on the authors’ findings and conclude with recommendations for charter schools. After reviewing the manuscript, it appears that charter schools are tragically mimicking traditional public schools in California. For example, as the school reform movement continues to grow, the enrollment trend is surprisingly consistent between students with special needs by race in regular and charter schools. In addition, the results of an odds ratio indicated uniformity in special education enrollment in regular and charter school enrollment as well. These data cement the beliefs that identical behavior in both systems may be a result of similar or adopted attitudes as California has been identified with an established history of disproportionality. The context of this relationship sets the stage as the regular public school system generates a model for inappropriate practices and processes for the charter school system. During this early phase of development for charter schools, warning signals are apparent and must not be ignored. Despite low enrollment in special education, the warning signs continue to appear. Reflecting the placement patterns of the traditional public schools, White students account for the largest percentage in all special education categories, 58

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 57–63, 2005

including special learning disability, mental retardation, speech and language, and emotional disturbances (Fierros & Blomberg, 2004). This situation begs several questions: What recruitment strategies are utilized to result in more White students? Is the recruitment process different for minority students? It is my view to support the inclusion of equitable practices to determine to what extent each potential student with a special need has the opportunity to enroll in a charter school. However, policymakers are responsible for embedding equitable practices within each stage of the process to become a charter school, including after the contract, or charter, is awarded. Fierros and Blomberg (2004) indicated that two issues may account for the high percentage of White students. First, minority students and students with more severe disabilities are “counseled out” and persuaded to avoid enrollment in a charter school because they are deemed ineligible to be a candidate for the charter school. Second, administrators and instructors at charter schools have limited knowledge of special education and as a result encourage students and their families to receive better services at the local school district. Both trajectories are unacceptable as students with disabilities are supported by three federal laws, including the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In tandem, Fierros and Blomberg (2004) reported that African-Americans are overrepresented in at least two categories, including specific learning disability and emotional disturbance in charter schools. At this point, it is my understanding that some charter schools are facing immediate concerns to reduce disproportionality. Therefore, I must ask: How did the charter schools identify the problem? How will charter schools access needed technical assistance to meet the needs of minority students with special needs? In addition, charter schools will need support and guidance to develop a long-term plan to address, and ultimately end the disproportionate representation of minorities in special education. In addition to the examination of minority students enrolled in charter schools in California, Fierros and Blomberg (2004) probed to uncover variable enrollment trends of minority students identified with mental retardation, speech and language, emotional disturbance, and specific learning disability in for-profit and non-profit charter schools. Unfortunately, due to a significantly small number of students included in the sample, no meaningful comparisons between the two types of schools were available. The authors suggested profit motive may not be an incentive for charter schools to enroll students with disabilities and other issues including charter school policy and school size may play a role. It is my view that this phase of development in charter school history does not lend itself to results that have major impact or provide comparison. However, researchers should not be discouraged from studying this topic as additional study of for-profit and non-profit institutions is needed. As the charter school movement grows, persistent efforts to conduct studies and make keen observations will also continue as long as researchers are aware of the historical context to educate students who have special needs and are culturally and linguistically diverse. For more than 30 years, disproportionate representation of culturally and linguistically diverse students in special education continues to be a major concern in the field (Artiles & Trent, 1994; Patton, 1998). Historically, this student 59

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 57–63, 2005

population has endured school battles, policy changes, and federal regulations in the regular school system to ensure the right to an education. As a result, enrollment trends in traditional schools mirrored in charter schools is frightening to me. Concomitantly, it is an unavoidable sign that sends several signals, including 1) the potential for disproportionality to increase is high, and 2) as researchers, the onus for developing and disseminating research-supported strategies to prevent or decrease disproportionality lies with us. However, collaborative partnerships, including charter school administrators and researchers, can take steps to prevent charter schools from potentially chipping away the rights of students with disabilities. Before the growth spurt of charter schools rages uncontrollably, the following recommendations should be considered to reduce disproportionality and increase the positive academic outcomes for minority students. As these practices are implemented appropriately and consistently, the opportunity for all children to reach their potential may be achieved. Each charter school must have access to a special education infrastructure. Although state laws dictate the operation and admission policies for all charter schools, each one must be awarded a contract, or charter, by a governing board (Ahearn, 2001; Donahoo, 2001). In some states, school boards have been created to specifically monitor charter schools (Nelson, et al., 2000). Responsibility for sharing information, and informing administrators of recruitment, policy and federal laws related to the operation of the school and to special education should be provided. Most importantly, it is an opportunity to guide charter schools to identify signs of disproportionality, monitor their steps, disseminate preventative strategies, and evaluate their progress. Of course, addressing any identified problems would ensure additional time warranted for the renewal of the charter. Create a network among charter schools to provide technical assistance concerning disproportionality. Provided with the appropriate materials and resources, charter schools can make informed decisions to positively impact students with special needs. After receiving a contract, or charter, administrators will be privy to a membership featuring collaborative professionals to share effective research-based strategies, problem-solve solutions for common challenges, identify qualified special education teachers, and exchange ideas to build a community of practice. For example, membership to the network can assist administrators to access technical assistance sponsored by the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), including the National Center for Culturally Responsive Educational Systems (NCCRESt) and Access Center: Improving Outcomes for Students K-8. Develop collaborative relationships with families. Though many charter schools promote policies to encourage linkages between school and parents, they may be unknowledgeable about ways to develop collaborative efforts to positively impact students with disabilities and their families, particularly with culturally and linguistically diverse families. An extension of their current efforts may include a framework which identifies parents and guardians as valuable resources and appreciates their funds of knowledge to promote academic achievement (Garcia & Ortiz, 2004; Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzáles, 1992). In addition, parents are viewed as partners to work with teachers using a posture of cultural reciprocity (Kalyanpur & Harry, 1999). Such efforts will communicate that the values and culture of the family are appreciated, and the educational achievement of the student is significant. As a result, the 60

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 57–63, 2005

opportunity to advance a shared responsibility between parents, and instructional staff will increase (Garcia & Ortiz, 2004). Provide professional development concerning disproportionality and effective strategies and practices for minority students with disabilities. As charter schools tend to be small in comparison to traditional public schools, they also struggle to identify teachers that are “highly” qualified to instruct students with disabilities. It is reasonable to think that the smaller number of staff will encounter students with disabilities, despite limited amounts of training in special education. However, it is critical to engage in professional development to increase awareness of effective, research-based instructional strategies and lead to culturally competent practices for all students (Garcia & Ortiz, 2004). Central to the professional development are topics concerning cultural self-awareness and personal beliefs and attitudes. Knowledge of socio-political contexts that impact the learning and teaching of students are integrated as well (Patton, 1998; Garcia & Ortiz, 2004). However, professional development is not limited to these issues as steps must be taken to share and disseminate effective, research-supported practices and skills to apply in an actual classroom (Gay, 2000; Garcia & Guerra, 2004; Garcia & Ortiz, 2004). Adopt a culturally-responsive prereferral intervention. Prereferral interventions have evolved as a direct response to the overidentification and misplacement of students in special education. Primarily, the purpose of the intervention is to distinguish a student with a disability from other individuals with academic or behavioral problems which may be caused by other factors (Burnette, 2000). There are multiple models of a prereferral intervention including the following: prereferral intervention teams, prereferral consultation teams, student assistance teams, student success committees, and school-based intervention assistance teams. Typically, a prereferral intervention team consists of 4–7 members, including but not limited to the general education teacher, special education teacher, an administrator, school psychologist, or social services personnel that engage in a problem-solving process to address the needs of the student (The Disproportionate Representation of Racial and Ethnic Minorities in Special Education, 2001). Though this intervention is not intended to discourage special education referrals, it is critical to prevent the inappropriate identification of a student with problems resulting from other factors. When the approaches fail to resolve academic problems, based on data collection and appropriate implementation, then special education is necessary. Continue to conduct additional, in-depth studies. For a deeper understanding of enrollment and placement of students with disabilities in charter schools, continued efforts to conduct research are needed. As charter schools are in the early stages of development, some data may be hampered due to small sizes or incomplete documentation. However, researchers may consider a focus on process-oriented studies, including qualitative studies documenting the transition of a student with disabilities from the traditional school system to a charter school. In addition, studies are needed to feature the development of an inclusive program at a charter school (Downing, Spencer, & Cavallaro, 2004). Results from these inquiries will provide documentation of current struggles, promote understanding, and inspire further research needed to increase the opportunity to include students with disabilities with high degrees of success. 61

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 57–63, 2005

Courtney P. Davis received her Doctorate in Special Education from the University of Virginia. She is a research analyst for the American Institutes for Research. Her research interests include cultural issues in special education, teacher preparation, and students with disabilities in correctional facilities.

REFERENCES Ahearn, Eileen (2001). Public charter schools and students with disabilities. (Prepared for the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education). Arlington, VA: (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED ED455656). Artilles, A., & Trent, S. (1994). Overrepresentation of minority students in special education: A continuing debate. Journal of Special Education, 27, 410–437. Burnette, J. (2000). Assessment of culturally and linguistically diverse students for special education eligibility. Prepared for the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education. Arlington, VA: Retrieved November 1, 2004, from http://ericec.org/digests/e604.html Disproportionate Representation of Racial and Ethnic Minorities in Special Education (2001). Retrieved November 1, 2004, from http://www.emstac.org/registered/topics/disproportionality/models.htm District of Columbia Public Charter Schools. (2003). Washington, DC: District of Columbia Board of Education. Donahoo, S. (2001). Perspectives on charter schools: A review for parents. (Prepared for the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education). Champaign, IL: (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 455973). Downing, J., Spencer, S., & Cavallaro, C. (2004). The development of an inclusive charter elementary school: Lessons learned. Research & Practice for Persons wit Severe Disabilities, 29(1), 11–24. Fierros, E., & Blomberg, N. (2004). Restrictiveness and race in special education placements in for-profit and non-profit charter schools in California. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal. Fiore, T., Harwell, L., Blackorby, J., & Finnigan, K. (2000). Charter schools and students with disabilities: review of existing data (Prepared for the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education). Rockville, MD:Westat. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 452657). Garcia, S. & Guerra, P. (2004). Deconstructing deficit thinking: Working with educators to create more equitable learning environments. Education and Urban Society, 36 (2), 150–168. Garcia, S. & Ortiz, A. (2004). Preventing disproportionate representation: Culturally and linguistically responsive prereferral interventions. Retrieved November 1, 2004, from http://www.nccrest.org/publications.html Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Teachers College Press. Kalyanpur, M. & Harry, B. (1999). Culture in special education. Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Lange, C. & Lehr, C. (2000). Charter Schools and Students with Disabilities: Parent perceptions of reasons for transfer and satisfaction with services. Remedial & Special Education, 21(3), 141–152. Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & González, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31(2), 132–141.

62

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 57–63, 2005

Nelson, B. Berman, P., Ericson, J., Kamprath, N., Perry, R., Silverman, D., & Soloman, D. (2000). The State of charter Schools 2000: Fourth-Year Report. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Available: http//www.ed.gov/pubs/charter4th year/.ED 437 724 Patton, J. (1998). The disproportionate representation of African Americans in special education: Looking behind the curtain for understanding and solutions. The Journal of Special Education, 32(1), 25–31. Received September 11, 2004 Revised November 16, 2004 Accepted November 17, 2004

63

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 64–69, 2005

Copyright © by LDW 2005

Restrictiveness and Race in Special Education: Facts that Remain Difficult to Ignore Anymore Bob Algozzine1 University of North Carolina at Charlotte

Perhaps one of the most long-standing concerns in special education is the over-representation of some groups of children in special education. In this issue, Fierros and Blomberg report that racial/ethnic representation of special education students in charter schools mirrors that in general education populations. These finding are not new and are easily reproducible; the position taken here is that illustrating that over-representation exists, or the extent of it, is misplaced effort. If special education worked, few would be concerned about the distribution (or, ‘over-distribution’) of services; but, special education does not work all that well for many children receiving it; and, therefore, research, reassessment, and reform should be redirected to the quality of services students receive not who receives them. This also is not a new idea, but it is among the least long-standing actions taken in special education and the time for change is rapidly approaching a critical edge.

Keywords: Charter Schools, Over-Representation, Ethnic Minority Issues in Special Education In 1991, Minnesota passed the first charter school law, with California following suit in 1992. By 1995, 19 states had signed laws allowing for the creation of charter schools, and by 2003, that number increased to 40 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia. Nearly 3,000 new schools have been launched since state legislatures began passing charter legislation in the 1990s. Chartering is a radical educational innovation that is moving states beyond reforming existing schools to creating something entirely new. Chartering is at the center of a growing movement to challenge traditional notions of what public education means. Chartering allows schools to run independently of the traditional public school system and to tailor their programs to community needs. While not every new school is extraordinarily innovative and some school operations may mirror that of traditional public schools, policymakers, parents, and educators are looking at chartering as a way to increase educational choice and innovation within the public school system. www.uscharterschools.org People establish charter schools for a variety of reasons. The founders generally fall into three groups: grassroots organizations of parents, teachers, and community 1. Address for correspondence Bob Algozzine, BRIC/EDLD/EDUCATION, UNC Charlotte, Charlotte, NC 28223. Email: [email protected]

64

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 64–69, 2005

members; entrepreneurs; or existing schools converting to charter status. According to the first-year report of the National Study of Charter Schools, the three reasons most often cited to create a charter school are to realize an educational vision, gain autonomy, and serve a special population. Parents and teachers choose charter schools primarily for educational reasons—high academic standards, small class size, innovative approaches, or educational philosophies in line with their own. Some also have chosen charter schools for their small size and associated safety (charter schools serve an average of 250 students). Given these foundations, there is no reason to believe that charter schools will address over-representation issues that have plagued special education for many years. What We Know about Charter Schools As is the case with all grand initiatives, the U. S. Department of Education has supported research to document and analyze the charter school movement. Considerable descriptive information is available online and in hard copy relative to the number and type of charter schools that have become operational and about the factors that facilitate or hinder the development and implementation of the “movement;” extensive data on student characteristic are available in each report (U. S. Department of Education, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000). • First year preliminary research did not produce evidence of discriminatory admissions practices or that charter schools “cream” or select “desirable” students from the overall student population (U. S. Department of Education, 1997). • In general, racial enrollments in charter schools mirrored the racial distribution of students in all public schools; with about one-half of charter and all public schools serve predominately White students, about one-quarter of charter and all public schools serve predominately non-White students, and the remainder serve a diverse group of students (U. S. Department of Education, 1998). • One fear regarding the charter movement was that charter schools would be elitist, serving a lower proportion of students of color than other public schools. In recent research, most charter schools had about the same percentage of white students as their district average. More than 70 percent of charter schools were within 20 percent of the average district percentage of white students, while about 16 percent had a distinctly higher percentage of students of color than their surrounding district, and the remaining 12 percent of schools had a lower percentage of students of color than their surrounding district (U. S. Department of Education, 1999). • Critics and advocates alike have feared that charter schools would primarily serve white students. This has not turned out to be the case. Overall, charter schools enrolled a larger percentage of students of color than all public schools in the states with open charter schools. Over the last 3 years, the percentage of white students served by charter schools has slightly declined. At the local level, most charter schools had about the same proportion of white students (within 20 percent) as their surrounding districts (U. S. Department of Education, 2000). 65

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 64–69, 2005

Fierros and Blomburg (this issue) examined the representation of special education in for-profit and non-profit charter schools in California to better understand whether a status can lead to differential enrollment patterns of students with disabilities. Consider these facts: • A small number (2.35%) of students are enrolled in charter schools in California (see Table 1, p. 8) and the representation of special education in them is even smaller (1.11). • Distribution of racial groups in special education is the same as the distribution in regular education (see Table 2, p. 9). • Attitudes toward enrolling certain races in special education are identical across types of schools. • Enrollments by race in non-profit and for-profit are similar (see Table 3, p. 10). • Few disability-based differences were evident across all comparisons. These findings mirror those in larger, national reports and can easily be reproduced in data available in most states (see Figure 1). The risk in grounding broad conclusions in data from a single state is that unless ethnic distributions are representative (n/b North Carolina and California are quite different—see Table 1), generality of specific finding is limited (e.g., what group is “over-represented” depending in large part of general demographics whose edges blend as sampling becomes more diverse). More importantly there is no reason to believe that over-representation issues that have plagued special education for many years have been or will be eliminated by continuing analyses of data from regular schools, charter schools, or any schools. FIGURE 1. Ethnic Enrollment in North Carolina (2003–2004)

Ethnic Enrollment in North Carolina (2003–2004)

■ Special Education ■ General Education ❑ Charter Schools

66

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 64–69, 2005

Table 1. Comparison of Percent of Students Identified with Specific Learning Disabilities, Mental Retardation, Speech and Language Impairments, and Emotional Disturbance by Race/Ethnicity AMERICAN

Ferrios & Blomberg Charter Schools (2001–2002) SLD MR SLI ED North Carolina All Schools (2003-2004) SLD MR SLI ED

INDIAN

ASIAN

BLACK

HISPANIC

1.55 1.89 1.43 0.46

2.80 5.30 4.64 2.78

14.73 11.36 7.86 18.52

39.33 40.15 40.08 24.07

1.63 2.99 2.67 1.01

0.76 0.52 1.07 0.16

30.36 59.02 25.76 53.19

5.41 3.30 3.92 1.26

MULTIRACIAL

WHITE

41.58 41.29 45.99 54.17

1.70 0.97 2.43 2.30

60.14 33.19 64.13 42.07

TAKING THE BROADER VIEW, ALL OVER AGAIN Special education is at a crossroads. Almost 30 years have passed since the enactment of America’s mandatory special education law (The Education for All Handicapped Children Act: Public Law 94–142), today reauthorized as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and the number of students receiving special education has increased at a rate of about 3% a year despite general declines in the general school population (U. S. Department of Education, 2002b). Today, the number of children served has more than doubled, from the first “counts” made public, to close to 6,000,000 and more than half of them are classified with specific learning disabilities. All the growth has been coupled with continuing facts that are difficult to resolve, among them is the “particularly disturbing finding . . . that children of minority status are over-represented in some categories of special education” (U. S. Department of Education, 2002a). More than twenty years ago, in a National Research Council (Heller, Holtzman, & Messick, 1982, pp. 3, 94–95) report, Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity, a blue-ribbon panel of experts identified the same problem: “The overrepresentation of minorities in special education . . .” and based recommendations for change on six “principles of responsibility” that made (and make) abundantly good sense: 1. “It is the responsibility of teachers in the regular classroom to engage in multiple educational interventions and to note the effects of such interventions on a child experiencing academic failure before referring the child for special education assessment.” 2. “It is the responsibility of assessment specialists to demonstrate that the measures employed validly assess the functional needs of the individual child for which there are potentially effective interventions.” 67

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 64–69, 2005

3.

“It is the responsibility of the placement team that labels and places a child in a special program to demonstrate that any differential label used is related to a distinctive prescription for educational practices and that these practices are likely to lead to improved outcomes not achievable in the regular classroom.” 4. “It is the responsibility of the special education and evaluation staff to demonstrate systematically that high-quality, effective special instruction is being provided and that the goals of the special education program could not be achieved as effectively within the regular classroom.” 5. “It is the responsibility of the special education staff to demonstrate, on at least an annual basis, that a child should remain in the special education class. A child should be retained in special education class only after it has been demonstrated that he or she cannot meet specified educational objectives and that all efforts have been made to achieve these objectives.” 6. “It is the responsibility of administrators at the district, state, and national levels to monitor on a regular basis the pattern of special education placements, the rates for particular groups of children or particular schools and districts, and the types of instructional services offered to affirm that appropriate procedures are being followed or to redress inequities found in the system.” Twenty years later, Donovan and Cross (2002) noted that the “principles continue to express the vision of a well-functioning, equitable special education system” (p. 360). More than two decades later, few would argue that these principles have been heeded and the real concern is that conditions in special education are substantially the same today as they were 20 to 30 (or more) years ago. Apparently, critical responsibilities, directions, and expected actions are rhetoric more than reality. What to Do and When to Do It Over the years, judgments as to whether disproportionate placement is problematic have focused on reasons for the disproportion less than on the consequences of placement. Interestingly, if special education worked, few would be concerned about the distribution of services; in fact, parents and other caregivers would likely be clamoring for ways to have their children identified, placed, and served (much like they did in the early days of the learning disabilities movement when promises overshadowed practices). But, special education does not work all that well and therefore concern for change should shift from who (appropriately or inappropriately) receives services to improving the quality of what he, she, or they receive. Obviously, simply listing responsibilities and expecting change is largely ineffective, unrealized, and inept policy. Further, there is no reason to believe that over-representation issues that have plagued special education for many years have been or will be eliminated by charter schools or continuing efforts to uncover, discover, or recover promised benefits that simply have not borne fruit in efforts to improve the lives of children (with or without disabilities). What to do? Teach natural groups of neighbors and peers relentlessly in normal environments guided by beliefs and actions illustrating that all children can learn. Use assessment to inform the process of teaching, not to celebrate the practice of testing. Demonstrate the benefits of alternative placements or do away with them. 68

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 64–69, 2005

Monitor the process and fidelity of teaching so that blaming children (or their backgrounds) for failure becomes a “thing of the past.” Make monitoring progress the daily, weekly, and monthly duty of every professional working in the school. Monitor the effects of teaching and when regressing replaces progressing, check the fidelity, change the intensity, and/or increase the rewards of instruction; but do not blame the child unless it is abundantly clear that high quality teaching, over a reasonable period of time, has been ineffective. When to do it? Now, because “fundamental change in special education will take time . . .” (Heller, Holtzman, & Messick, 1982, p. 93) but sadly, time is running out and the long-standing ineffectiveness of the system is increasingly indicting, embarrassing, and upsetting to all those who seek to improve the lives of children. Do it now (in all classrooms in every school) and concerns about over-representation will take a very different form and function. Bob Algozzine (Ph. D., Penn State University) is a Professor in the Department of Educational Leadership at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. He has been a special education classroom teacher and college professor for more than 35 years in public schools and universities in New York, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Florida, and North Carolina. For nine years, he was coeditor with Martha Thurlow, of Exceptional Children, the premiere research journal in the field of special education.

REFERENCES Donovan, M. S., & Cross, C. T. (Eds.). (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Ferrios, E. G., & Blomberg, N. A. (this issue). Restrictiveness and race in special education placements in for-profit and non-profit charter schools in California. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal. Heller, K. A., Holtzman, W. H., & Messick, S. (Eds). (1982). Placing children in special education: A strategy for equity. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. U. S. Department of Education. (1997). National study of charter schools: First-year report. Washington, DC: Source. http://www.ed.gov/pubs/charter/index.html U. S. Department of Education. (1998). National study of charter schools: Second-year report. Washington, DC: Source. http://www.ed.gov/pubs/charter98/index.html U. S. Department of Education. (1999). National study of charter schools: Third-year report. Washington, DC: Source. http://www.ed.gov/pubs/charter3rdyear/index.html U. S. Department of Education. (2000). National study of charter schools: Fourth-year report. Washington, DC: Source. http://www.ed.gov/pubs/charter4thyear/index.html0 U. S. Department of Education. (2002a). A New Era: Revitalizing Special Education for Children and Their Families. Washington, DC: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. U. S. Department of Education. (2002b). Twenty-fourth annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. Received November 19, 2004 Revised November 21, 2004 Accepted November 22, 2004

69

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 70–74, 2005

Copyright © by LDW 2005

Restrictiveness and Race in Special Education: Educating All Learners Patrick A. Grant1 Slippery Rock University of Pennsylvania

The education of special needs students continues to show a complete disregard for the lack of appropriate services for minority groups. The overrepresentation of African American learners in the more restrictive placement continues. The advent of charter schools have not changed this picture, and in some cases the discrimination of minorities in the less restrictive classes are accepted and tolerated by agencies granting the charter for these schools. General and special educators are feeling the pressure to educate all learners in spite of their abilities, disabilities, socioeconomic backgrounds, racial identities, cultural differences, linguistic differences, and national origins. Charter schools effective denial of access to students with disabilities and their limited enrollment of students of color raise serious misgivings about whether they should continue to operate as they do now. The question of whether a special needs child can and will be served effectively in a charter school should be of great importance to public education.

Key Words: Overrepresentation, Educating all learners, Charter Schools, Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) Fierros and Blomberg have indeed looked at a problem that should be of great concern to all school administrators and parents of children with special needs. The question of whether a special needs child can and will be served effectively in a charter school should be of great importance to public education. The implication that minority children will be overrepresented in restrictive settings is noteworthy and disturbing. Dooley and Dooley (2002) suggests that it is ironic that while the early common law, developed through successful litigation in the area of civil rights, led to tremendous progress and strides in the area of special education, there continues to be concerns about inequitable educational practices for African American Learners. Fierros and Blomberg accurately speak to the attractiveness of the charter school to parents of children with special needs but also point out that “children with more severe needs or emotional disorders that attempt to register in these charter schools are counseled out” (Zollers & Ramanathan, 1998). They further reported that there are fewer students with special needs in charter schools compared with regular public schools. There are numerous reports of outright abuse concerning charter schools and their enrollment and equity practices; charters schools are often granted charters to open their doors even though they only have a limited understanding about the complexity of special education (Rhim & McLaughlin, 2001). The danger 1. Address correspondence to Patrick A. Grant, D. Ed., Professor, Department of Special Education, Slippery Rock University of Pennsylvania, Slippery Rock, PA 16057. Email: [email protected]

70

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 70–74, 2005

here is that because charter schools are allowed to teach without being certified or formally trained they are less likely to be knowledgeable about the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE), and Free and Appropriate Education (FAE) requirements of the law. Addtionally, Blackbourn, Patton and Trainor (2004) have acknowledged that charter schools must operate under the same mandates of IDEA as do regular public schools. Fierros and Blomberg have certainly provided clear warning signs that all parents and school districts should be cognizant of, as we move towards creating an inclusive society. Since charter schools have to produce satisfactory outcomes in a short period of time, this may make them reluctant to integrate special needs students because of the very real financial expense. When the charter school is part of a school district, the responsibility to provide education to the student with special needs often defaults to the district—freeing the charter school from having to enroll students with special needs. Moreover, Fierros and Blomberg clearly show the problem special education students and their parents face when dealing with charter schools across the country. Again they clearly speak to the exclusion of special needs students, citing problems of enrollment in Texas, New Hampshire and Massachusetts. They reported that Texas charter schools have the right to exclude children with a history of behavior problems, even if their misconduct is linked to an emotional disorder (Estes, 2000). They further state that Texas charter law status governing campus charters allow charters to factor in academic credentials in their admission process, in direct contradiction to Texas’s mandate to avoid discrimination in admissions to charter schools (U.S. Department of Education, 1998). In New Hampshire, their charter law states “Charter Schools may select pupils on the basis of aptitude, academic achievement, or need, provided that such selection is directly related to the academic goals of the school” (U.S. Department of Education, 1998). In Massachusetts, charter schools are excused from providing services to students who are classified as severely disturbed and who spend a majority of time outside of the classroom. Foley, cochair of the Worcester Advisory Council in Massachusetts, noted that while it took approximately twenty minutes for most families to get registered at the county’s Seven Hills Charter School, special education families were left to sit for more than two hours. Three months later, she testified that at least two special education children were not receiving services prescribed by their Individual Education Plans (IEP) (McFarlane, 1997, cited in Weil, 2000 p. 153). Fierros and Blomberg reported that the move towards charter schools may be a mistake based on their research that students regardless of race, fare better when they are educated in the regular education setting alongside their non-disabled peers. In reviewing charter school for-profit and non-profit, the authors points out that charter schools in the United States, and specifically in California, have a larger enrollment, of white students than minority students (U.S. Department of Education, 1998). In California many students take advantage of publicly-funded charter schools. Minority students are less likely than whites to attend charter schools across the country and particularly in California (Estes, 2000; Paul, Lavely, Cranston-Gingras, & Taylor, 2002). In effect, minority students are systematically segregated from charter schools (Murphy & Shiffman, 2002). Fierros and Blomberg 71

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 70–74, 2005

raised the level of concern because the number of charter schools is growing and the pattern they have demonstrated is one of not serving minority students with special needs. It is therefore, important that we discover if these patterns will continue to exist recognizing that because of the law and the need of charter schools to show success they often again refuse to integrate children with special needs (Blackbourn, Patton and Trainor, 2004, p.29). This study was supported by the data collected from the California Department of Education comparing special education students in regular education with the special education students in charter schools. The authors examined a study using an (N-502) (N-265) in for profit and (N-237) non-profit. The authors went to great lengths to insure the consistency and accuracy of the research and the reporting of their findings. A multilevel analysis was used to examine placement and rates of restrictiveness in California Charter Schools. They examined state level education and special education placement data. Secondly, they developed a descriptive statistical profile of minority students with special needs in for-profit and non-profit charter schools in California. Additionally descriptive charter school data were analyzed to learn how the school restrictive rates compared with each other. This research was clear in defining and breaking out the areas of disproportionate representation of minorities in special programs as well as being excluded from charter schools. It is apparent that the percentage of students with special needs largely mirrors the trends of regular education students, with an increasing percentage of white students, and small increases in the special education proportion of American Indians and Black students. This research depicts that the racial disporportionality of special education that has been established in regular schools would appear on the surface to be mirrored in charter schools. In a further review of the research data the authors report that a greater number of Asian/Pacific Islanders, Hispanic, and Blacks represented a greater percentage in for-profit compared with non-profits, whites and American Indians had a greater number of students with special needs in non-profit charter schools. The study clearly identifies the inconsistency in placement of minority students as shown that while Whites and Hispanics accounted for the largest percentage of students in all four special education categories, Blacks were overrepresented in classes for the Severely Learning Disabled (SLD) and the Emotionally Disturbed (ED). Grant and Grant (2002) have also reported that African American students are often excluded from classes for students with learning disabilities and placed in classes for people with mental retardation and emotional disturbance. This would suggest that, again, the poor pays more and we continue to blame the victim for the failure of the system to provide the appropriate education in the appropriate environment. Moreover, African Americans, especially males, who engage in certain behaviors that represent artifacts of their culture such as language (Ebonics), movement patterns (verve), and a certain “ethnic” appearance have been found to be overreferred for special education placement (Obiakor, 1994, 1999). The overall discussion of the research focuses on the dramatic increase of student enrollment in charter schools in California and that this increase may stem from the fact that they cater to the needs and desires of white students and their parents while American Indians and African American students saw very little increase. The 72

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 70–74, 2005

researchers have pointed out the some of the limitation to the present research. The value of this work and the direction it has taken in identifying the inequality in special education in the Local Education Agency (LEA) and Charter schools is exceptional. School districts must wake up to the realization that we need to look at how education is provided to all learners regardless of race, sex or religious beliefs. Moreover, they should begin to look at how funding and services are provided in all areas of our educational system. Charter schools, for-profit or non-profit, should make no difference at least in how they are mandated in serving the learning community This is a worthy research that should be published, but more importantly, should be read by all educators. Obiakor, Grant and Dooley (2002) inform us that the die is now cast! The paradigm has shifted! General and special educators are feeling the pressure to educate all learners in spite of their abilities, disabilities, socioeconomic backgrounds, racial identities, cultural differences, linguistic differences, and national origins. In direct response to demographic shifts in power, new ways of learning and teaching are now advocated to prevent misidentification, mis-assessment, miscategorization, mis-placement and mis-instruction. It is now clear that we must educate all learners. Patrick A. Grant, D.Ed., is a professor in the Department of Special Education and Director of the Community Programs for Americans with Disabilities (CPAD) programs. He has earned his Bachelors of Science degree in Art/Speech and Drama from Lincoln University, Jefferson City, MO; and his Masters degrees in Special Education and Counseling, as well as his Doctorate in Special Education from the University of Oregon. He has published numerous articles and has written several scholarly chapters regarding educating all learners in inclusive and gifted settings.

REFERENCES Blackbourn, J. M., Patton, J. R., & Trainor, A. (2004). Exceptional individuals in focus (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall. Dooley, E. A., & Dooley, K. L. (2002). Legal foundations of special education for African Americans. In F.E. Obiakor & B. A. Ford (Eds.), Creating successful learning environments for African American learners with exceptionalities, (pp. 17–25). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. Estes, M.B. (2000). Charter schools and students with special needs: How well do they mix? Education and Treatment of children, 23 (3). Grant, P. A., & Grant, P. B. (2002). Working with African American students with specific learning disabilities. In F.E. Obiakor & B. A. Ford (Eds.), Creating successful learning environments for African American learners with exceptionalities, (pp. 67–77). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. McFarlane, C. (1997). “Charter schools facing scrutiny over special education.” Worcester Telegram and Gazette, 1 April. Murphy, J., & Shiffman, C. D. (2002). Understanding and assessing the charter school movement. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Obiakor, F. E., Grant, P. A., & Dooley, E. A. (2002). Educating all Learners Refocusing the Comprehensive Model. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. Obiakor, F. E. (1994). The eight-step multicultural approach: Learning and teaching with a smile. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Obiakor, F. E. (1999). Teacher expectations of minority exceptional learners: Impact on “accuracy” of self-concepts. Educational Children, 66, 39–53.

73

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 70–74, 2005

Paul, J., Lavely, L., Cranston-Gingras, A., & Taylor, E. ((2002). Rethinking professional issues in special education. Westport, CT: Ablex Publication. Rhim, L. M. & McLaughlin, M. J. (2001). Special education in American charter schools: State level policy, practices and tension. Cambridge Journal of Education, 31 (3) 373–383. U.S. Department of Education (1998). A national study of charter schools: Executive summary. Washington DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U. S. Government Printing Office. Weil, D. (2000). Charter schools: A reference handbook. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, Inc. Zollers, N. J. & Ramanathan, A. K. (1998). For-profit charter schools and students with disabilities. Phi Delta Kappan (79) 297–304. Received December 12, 2004 Revision received December 22, 2004 Accepted December 28, 2004

74

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 75–85, 2005

Copyright © by LDW 2005

Race and Restrictiveness in Special Education: Addressing the Problem We Know Too Well Edward Garcia Fierros1 Villanova University

In addressing the problem of disproportionate placement of minority students with special education in charter schools, Fierros describes the commentaries of this issue’s contributing scholars. The contributions expose a variety of topics to address the needs of inequities experienced by students with special needs. These topics include: the development of appropriate and preventive intervention programs for students experiencing learning or behavioral difficulties; the creation of formative and summative assessment instruments and programs that consider students’ racial and ethnic backgrounds; the improvement of teacher education programs to include culturally responsive training; and the development of collaborative approaches to addressing the needs of all students. The author identifies the themes of accountability, assessment, collaboration, and cultural responsive practice as necessary to change the longstanding inequity that has existed for minority students with special needs in public schools and that now exists in charter schools.

Numerous problems exist in the way schools currently deliver education to students with special needs. Several challenges remain for public schools wishing to address the learning requirements of students with special needs. Among these challenges is the current model of general and special education which has hindered collaborative efforts between special and general educators (National Association of State Boards of Education [NASBE], 1995). Despite NASBE (1995) statements like “inclusion is not just a place or a method of delivering instruction, rather it is a philosophy of supporting children in their learning . . . part of the very culture of a school . . . defining how students, teachers, administrators, and others view the potential of children,” (1) unequal educational opportunities continue to be the norm for minority students with special needs in public schools (Utley and Obiakor, 2001) and charter schools (Fierros & Blomberg, 2005; McLaughlin, Henderson, & Ullah, 1996). Inclusion requires that public schools (charter schools included) must allow all children to learn in the least restrictive environment possible. Yet, charter schools do not admit as many students with special needs as public schools even though the characteristics of charter schools (i.e., more individualized instruction, smaller class size, specialized curricula) would seem to be more conducive than public schools to serving their needs (McLaughlin, Henderson, & Ullah, 1996; Sacchetti, 2005). The restriction of students with special needs from charter schools is likely related to the 1. Address all correspondence to Dr. Edward Fierros, Department of Education & Human Services, SAC 359, 800 Lancaster Avenue, Villanova University, Villanova, Pennsylvania 19085. Email: [email protected]

75

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 75–85, 2005

need for charter schools to produce positive standardized test outcomes in order to remain open (Fierros & Blomberg, 2005). Thus, the success that charter schools claim can easily be explained by the smaller number of students with special needs they enroll in their classrooms, their smaller teacher to student ratio, and the relative bureaucratic freedoms they enjoy (Fierros & Blomberg, 2005; McLaughlin, Henderson, & Ullah, 1996).

BACKGROUND For more than two decades, the research literature has been filled with the problem of unequal placement of minority students with special needs in public schools (Artiles & Trent, 1994; Artiles, 2003; Coutinho & Oswald, 2000; Fierros & Conroy, 2002; Finn, 1982; Hosp & Reschly, 2004; Oswald & Coutinho, 2001). The U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), Office of Civil Rights (OCR), and the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) have conducted surveys of schools and districts across the U.S. to identify placement patterns of students with special needs and have documented the chronic unequal placement of this student population at the national, state, and local levels. For more than two decades, there has been a consistent pattern of disadvantageous placements for racial minority students with special needs (Artiles & Trent, 1994; Artiles, 2003; Fierros & Conroy, 2002; Harry, 1994; Hosp & Reschly, 2004). Coutinho and Repp (1999) reported that for the 1992-1993 school year, nearly 60 percent of students with special needs (ages three to twenty-one) were taught outside the regular classroom— a large majority of these students were racial minorities. These disproportionate placements have meant that minority special education students’ educational experiences are likely to be delivered in unequal and separate classroom environments (Crocket & Kauffman, 1999; Grossman, 1995; Losen & Orfield, 2002). Moreover, as Lipsky and Gartner (1996) point out “the negative consequences of the separate special education system are greater for students from racial minorities” (p. 33). Examinations of restrictiveness1 have focused on the general placement patterns in U.S. public schools. What has been largely absent from the research literature is how these patterns are manifested in the increasing number of U.S. charter schools (Fierros & Blomberg, 2005; McLauglin, Henderson, & Ullah, 1996). In this issue, Algozzine (2005) reports that the number of U.S. charter schools has been increasing steadily since 1991. That was the year when Minnesota passed the first charter school law with California following suit in 1992. With well over 3,000 charter schools in the U.S. and the large number of these schools in California (n > 500), there is increasing concern about how, and if, charter schools address the needs of students with special needs (Fierros & Blomberg, 2005; McLaughlin, Henderson, & Ullah, 1996; Sacchetti, 2005). Fierros and Blomberg (2005) describe the “growing concerns over the way special education is implemented in charter schools and the access they grant and provide students with special needs” (p. 1). They show that disproportionate placement and restrictiveness of minority students exists in California’s charter schools at rates that are similar to public school patterns. They also show that minorities with special 1. Restrictiveness describes the degree to which students with disabilities are educated outside of regular classrooms and isolated from their non-disabled peers (Fierros & Conroy, 2002).

76

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 75–85, 2005

needs are not as likely to enroll in California’s charter schools as their white counterparts. Minority students with special needs are effectively left with little choice but to attend public schools where they are more likely to receive poor educational opportunities. Although Fierros & Blomberg (2005) identify the problems that minority students with special needs face in public and charter schools, they do provide limited solutions for reducing or eliminating the improper placement of these students (Algozzine, 2005; Cartledge, 2005; Grant, 2005; Jenkins, 2005; Taylor, 2005). In this issue of Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, several prominent scholars in the field of special education present engaging perspectives on the role of restrictiveness in special education in general, and for minority students with special needs in particular (Algozzine, 2005; Cartledge, 2005; Davis, 2005; Grant, 2005; Jenkins, 2005; Obiakor, Beachum, & Harris, 2005; Parette, 2005; Taylor, 2005). Their suggestions for ways to address the improper placement of racial minorities with special needs in schools include developing appropriate and preventive intervention programs for students experiencing learning or behavioral difficulties; creating formative and summative assessment instruments and programs that consider students’ racial and ethnic backgrounds; improving teacher education programs to include culturally responsive training; and developing collaborative approaches to address the needs of students with special needs. The purpose of this manuscript is to explore, discuss, and reflect on this issue’s contributors’ main points and to identify possible solutions for students with special needs wishing to attend charter schools.

COMMENTARY MAIN POINTS—WHAT THE COMMENTARIES HAVE CONTRIBUTED In his commentary on the issue of segregation of students with disabilities across cultural groups in U.S. charter schools, Parette (2005) provides in-depth descriptions of acculturation, cultural dissonance, and the four-step process for achieving cultural reciprocity (Harry, Rueda, & Kalyanpur, 1999;Warger, 2001) and how these terms have been defined and operationalized by various researchers. Acculturation, or the adoption of the behavior patterns of the surrounding culture, leads to the process of assimilating new ideas into existing ways of thinking (Parette, Huer, & Scherer, 2004). Cultural Dissonance may result when individuals from different backgrounds have different views about people with disabilities, the goals of education; difficulties the child is presenting, the “stigma” associated with a disability, or how parents should treat children with disabilities. Cultural Reciprocity is the twoway process of information sharing and understanding that helps students with special needs and their service providers to develop acceptance of each others’ goals. Parette (2005) examines the assumption that all family members exercise choice and are proactive in educational decision-making about their children. He concludes that “many families may be reluctant to exercise such choice and initiative given strongly held cultural values that education professionals should make decisions for them and their children since educators are deemed to be experts” (p. 18). He notes that cultural reciprocity cannot “flourish in environments where shared values result in homogeneous groups of students and results in reticence on the part of families to participate in the charter school environment” (p. 20). To remedy the restriction of students with special needs from charter schools and general education classrooms, Cartledge (2005) outlines possible actions, including 77

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 75–85, 2005

effective administrative and classroom procedures, programs of prevention, effective assessments, and culturally competent personnel. She explains that students once placed in special education settings are typically not returned to general or regular education environments. She calls this the failure to return phenomenon and points out that, like other researchers, Fierros and Blomberg (2005) have failed to address this reality. She maintains that students with special needs will benefit greatly from placement in the regular classroom (Cartledge, 2005). Yet, she argues that improving the likelihood that students with special needs return to the regular classroom requires systemic intervention and prevention. Programs of prevention (i.e., early intervention programs) have been shown to have significant positive impact on the lives of the individuals that receive these services. Cartledge (2005) points out that “interventions in the form of special education typically come after an extended period of failure” (p.29), which is often too late for most students. She emphasizes the need for effective assessment of racial minorities’ cognitive and behavioral areas suggesting that current assessment practices do not address the needs of all students. She further argues that the teachers’ role in the restrictive setting placements exacerbates the situation for minority students with special needs. For example, she writes that “teachers are more likely to refer minority students than white students and that white children are more likely to be referred by their parents” (p. 30). Cartledge (2005) details how racial minority students are more likely than their white peers to be taught by inexperienced or unskilled teachers. Yet, it is these unseasoned teachers that will likely refer minority children for special education services. So to ameliorate the teachers’ lack of training and inappropriate placement practices, Cartledge (2005) promotes the idea that teachers who have limited experience with racial minorities should undergo “cross-cultural” training. Taylor (2005) describes ways to ensure that the “right” students are being identified and served by appropriate training and professional development. She says that general and special education teachers must participate in professional development that addresses the needs of learners in general and students from diverse ethnic/racial, socio-cultural, and linguistic backgrounds in particular, and maintains that the professional development of school staff (i.e., administrators, teachers, and counselors) must focus on conducting nondiscriminatory and unbiased assessments and referrals, and on avoiding potential sources of bias in the testing and referral process. Taylor (2005) suggests that, in order for practitioners (i.e., general and special education teachers) to develop culturally and linguistically responsive pre-referrals they will have to understand culture in the broad sense and rethink their responsibilities. She suggests that practitioners must provide timely support to students with academic or behavioral difficulties at the individual, classroom, and school levels. Taylor (2005) also discusses how culturally responsive teaching (Gay, 2002; Villegas & Lucas, 2002) can meet the needs of students with special needs. Moreover, she argues that culturally responsive practices should be considered in all aspects of school. In addition to her focus on teacher competence and cultural responsiveness, Taylor (2005) introduces the issue of teacher race. The author points out that more than “40,000 California teachers are working without full preparation or credentialing, almost exclusively in high-minority and low-income schools” (p.35). There is 78

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 75–85, 2005

also, she maintains, a great probability that teachers will continue to be white while the number of African-American teachers shrinks. For example, during the 19992000 school year, about 84% of U.S. public school teachers were white and the percentage is growing while the number of minority teachers has gotten smaller (American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1994; Topper, 2003). Jenkins (2005) introduces the Content Mastery Center (CMC) and argues for dually trained teachers (i.e., teachers trained in both general and special education content). The CMC model supports the “majority of students who struggle to achieve in the general classroom” (p.47). It differs from the traditional resource room model in that students receive all their instruction from the general education teacher thus removing the negative stigma associated with traditional special education pullout programs. Students (with and without special needs) only go to the CMC classroom when additional support is needed as decided by the regular education teacher and the student. The success of the model depends on collaboration between CMC staff and classroom teachers. Jenkins (2005) also suggests that dually trained teachers would be more effective than regular teachers at meeting the needs of an increasingly diverse student population. For example, she suggests that dually trained teachers would be less likely than regular teachers to make erroneous student referrals. Obiakor, Beachum, and Harris (2005) note that charter schools are not immune from segregationist practices existent in public schools. The authors encourage researchers to continually analyze the effectiveness of educational reform efforts like the charter school movement as it may be subject to the “bandwagon effect,” in which schools begin systemic change without regard for unintended negative consequences. They note that general and special educators should avoid “reinventing the same broken wheel” and both “must help all learners to optimize their capabilities” (p. 54). They argue that laws which are intended to protect students with special needs have not been effective in curtailing the stratification of public and charter schools along racial and socio-economic lines. As a way to show the potential that parents and children see in charter schools, Davis (2005) looked at several charter schools’ mission statements. Despite the attractive nature of charter schools she suggests that charter schools’ recruitment practices and knowledge of special education need to be closely scrutinized during the charter application process so that only schools that are prepared to meet the needs of students with special needs will be granted charters and be allowed to open. She argues that in order to obtain the school charter, the prospective school’s administrators and instructors need to demonstrate how they will accommodate students with special needs when their school’s doors open. If the prospective charter school staff cannot accommodate those students with special needs by themselves, then Davis (2005) suggests a system of collaborative partnerships between existing charter schools and researchers and details practices that charter school administrators can follow to reduce disproportionality in schools. These practices would require charter schools to 1) have access to a special education infrastructure, 2) build a community of practice to share effective research-based strategies, problem-solving solutions for common challenges, and access qualified special needs teachers, 3) develop collaborative relationships with 79

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 75–85, 2005

families, 4) provide professional development concerning disproportionality, 5) adopt a culturally responsive (i.e., Gay, 2002) pre-referral intervention, and 6) continue monitoring the enrollment and placement patterns of students with disabilities in charter schools. Algozzine (2005) describes the development of charter schools in the U.S. and explains the likely reasons for their increasing numbers (i.e., to realize an educational vision, to gain autonomy, and to serve a special population). He notes that parents (of students with and without special needs) and teachers choose charter schools for their small school size and relative safety. He reminds us that the overrepresentation of minorities with special needs has existed in the United States for more than twenty years (Artiles, 2003; Fierros & Conroy, 2002; Hosp & Reschly, 2004). He shares the principles from a 1982 National Research Council (NRC) report on overrepresentation of minorities with special needs and notes that “these important responsibilities, directions, and expected actions have been largely ignored” (p.68). Finally he argues that researchers must not only point out the problem of disproportionate placement but also ask the question, “What are the consequences of placements in special education?”

COMMON THEMES Utley and Obiakor (2001) make the case that “equal educational opportunities for students of diverse cultural, ethnic, linguistic, and socioeconomic backgrounds seem to be deferred dreams” (p. 3). In order to realize these deferred dreams and meet the needs of students experiencing learning or behavioral difficulties, Jenkins and Sileo (1994) argue that students’ context must be at the forefront of any school-reform effort. They state that; “We must strive for curricular relevance and individualized instruction for students with disabilities and those who are at risk for school failure due to the related effects of environmental variables” (Jenkins & Sileo, 1994, p. 84). Moreover, we must continue to focus on charter schools effective denial of access to students with special needs and their limited enrollment of students of color (Grant, 2005). In reflecting upon the contributors’ main points, we discovered common themes across this issue’s articles that might lead us to curricular relevance and individualized instruction for minority students with special needs in public charter schools. The themes, presented alphabetically, are accountability, assessment, collaboration, and culturally responsive practice. Accountability When we think about accountability, it is almost impossible to think of anything other than standardized tests given the assessment environment that exists in our schools today (Browder, Spooner, Algozzine, Ahlgrim-Delzell, Flowers, & Karvonen, 2003). However, the accountability that these commentaries bring to light is not limited to that suggested by the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act’s annual yearly progress (AYP) or standardized test results. Rather this accountability deals with the intent of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in that it is a systemic accountability. As McLaughlin, Henderson, and Ullah (1996) note, “Diversity in the provision of special education across schools, misunderstandings about special education funding policies and practices, and difficulties with students with behavior disorders are all

80

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 75–85, 2005

evident in today’s schools” (p. 10). For years, teachers, schools, and school districts have been shortchanging minority students with special needs (Utley & Obiakor, 2001). Now that these problems (i.e., disproportionality and restrictiveness) are manifesting themselves in charter schools as well, it is imperative that charter school administrators and teachers be accountable to all students with special needs who wish to attend charter schools. There are numerous ideas about what can be done to reduce disproportionate restrictiveness for racial minorities in charter schools. On the one hand, Cartledge (2005) suggests that one blanket system for all students reduces disproportionate restrictiveness for racial minorities by mandating that the initial placement for all students should be in the least restrictive placement possible (p. 28). On the other hand, Parette’s (2005) notion on cultural reciprocity requires a more precise distribution of services to meet the specific needs of students with special needs and their differing ethnic and cultural needs. However, if either of these approaches is going to work, there will have to be effective application of special education laws (Obiakor, Beachum, & Harris, 2005) already in existence. In short, the educational system needs more “teeth” (Obiakor, Beachum, & Harris, 2005) in the enforcement of its existing laws with consequences for administrators, teachers, and educators who do not follow those laws. Moreover, Davis’s (2005) plan to only grant charters to schools that are prepared to meet the needs of students with special needs would be a great improvement to current practice. Assessment As the articles in this issue point out, the disproportionate restrictiveness of minority students with special needs in regular public schools and charter schools often begins with the formal assessments that are used in the placement of students. Cartledge (2005) supports preventative programs with appropriate assessments, and Taylor (2005) argues for “correctly assessing” students for placement in special education. These formal assessments are determined by some combination of federal law (i.e., IDEA), state requirements, and district- and school-level practice. Yet, seldom do existing formal assessments address the cultural diversity in today’s schools (Artiles, 2003; Delpit, 1994; Fierros & Conroy, 2002; Utley & Obiakor, 2001). For example, Thurlow, Nelson, Teelucksingh, and Draper (2001) point out that “there continues to be an ongoing concern among educators about finding an appropriate and unbiased measure to administer to individuals from varying backgrounds” (p. 155). However, Davis’s (2005) holistic assessment approach that incorporates research-based strategies and culturally responsive pre-referral interventions may be effective in changing current assessment practices. Collaboration Collaboration between students with special needs, parents, special and general education teachers, administrators, and researchers is essential if any broad-based change will come to students with special needs in charter schools. Based on the community of practice model (Lave & Wenger, 1991), several contributors (e.g., Davis, Jenkins, Taylor, this issue) each argue for collaborative partnerships that ensure that a range of expertise and strengths will be available to improve the placements of students with special needs. Such collaborations, in turn, help to engage diverse students’ 81

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 75–85, 2005

strengths and improve their opportunities to learn (Buysse, Sparkman, & Wesley, 2003; Kornhaber, Fierros, & Veenema, 2004; Fierros, 2004). These collaborations also make it possible for all parties to develop professionalism through open and informed discussions (Parette, 2005). In order to best determine the most appropriate placement for students in charter schools, it is important to examine the problem of improper placement of students with special needs from the perspective of students and parents, teachers, administrators, and researchers (Davis, 2005). By bringing the different perspectives together, it is more likely that a collaborative solution (Davis, 2005; Fierros & Foley, in press; Giangrego, Edelman, & Broer, 2003; Nevin, Harris, & Correa, 2001) can be developed to serve the needs of students with special needs in charter schools. Moreover, participants must focus on helping all learners to optimize their capabilities (Obiakor, Beachum, & Harris , 2005). Culturally Responsive Practice The final theme identified in the commentaries was culturally responsive practice.2 Obiakor & Utley (2001) argue, “Factors such as urban education, poverty, race, or membership in a particular culture demand new forms of teacher preparation” (p. 193). However, changing teacher preparation programs alone is not enough to address the challenges that minority students with special needs face. Several contributors (e.g., Davis, Parette, Taylor, this issue) suggest that these factors also demand changes in the education system as a whole. We recommend that parents, special and general education teachers, administrators, and researchers must identity the values and beliefs that underlie priorities, goals, and visions for the child. Implementing cultural reciprocity (Parette, 2005) is one example of a culturally responsive practice that requires service providers to identify their own interpretation of a student’s difficulties and the student’s context in the recommendation of service (Harry, Rueda, & Kalyanpur, 1999; Warger, 2001). “General and special educators must interrogate myths, assumptions, and stereotypes. They must assume responsibility for students’ school success . . . the cultural deprivation hypothesis must finally be laid to rest” (Brantlinger, & Roy-Cambell, 2001, p.42). Awareness of one’s own cultural beliefs is an essential first step in addressing the needs of students with special needs in charter schools. The Council for Exceptional Children (CEC)’s Common Core of Knowledge and Skills in Multicultural Education and Special Education” (Obiakor & Utley, 2001, pp. 198–199) could be used as an effective second step into ways of achieving cultural responsiveness.

SUMMARY Accountability, assessment, collaboration, and culturally responsive practice are not the only ingredients for helping to increase the educational choices for minority students with special needs who wish to attend charter schools. What needs to be added to the mixture is a change in the mindsets of students, parents, teachers, administrators, and policymakers (i.e., those involved in the process of placing individuals in schools) so that all educators “teach natural groups of neighbors and peers relentlessly in normal environments guided by beliefs and actions illustrating that all children [regardless of race and status] can learn” (Algozzine, 2005, p. 68). As Grant (2005) succinctly states, “It is now clear that we must educate all learners” (p. 8). 2. See Gay 2002, Obiakor& Utley, 2001; and Villegas & Lucas, 2002 for a more extensive examination of cultural responsiveness practice.

82

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 75–85, 2005

Edward Garcia Fierros, Assistant Professor of Education in the Department of Education and Human Services at Villanova University.

REFERENCES: Algozzine, B. (2005). Facts that remain difficult to ignore anymore in special education. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3 (1), 64–69. American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. (1994). Teacher education pipeline III: Schools, colleges, and departments of education enrollments by race, ethnicity, and gender. Washington, DC: Author. Artiles, A.J. (2003). Special education’s changing identity: Paradoxes and dilemmas in views of culture and space. Harvard Educational Review, 73 (2). 164–180. Artiles, A.J., & Trent S. (1994). Overrepresentation of minority students in special education: A continuing debate. The Journal of Special Education, 27, 410–437. Brantlinger, E.A., & Roy–Cambell, Z. (2001). Dispelling myths and stereotypes confronting multicultural learners with mild disabilities: Perspectives for school reform. In Utley, C.A., & Obiakor, F.E. [Eds]. Special education, multicultural education, and school reform: components of quality education for learners with mild disabilities. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publishers. Browder, D.M., Spooner, F., Algozzine, R., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Flowers, C., & Karvonen, M. (2003). What we know and need to know about alternate assessment. Exceptional Children, 70,(1) 45–61. Buysse, V., Sparkman, K.L., & Wesley, P.W. (2003). Communities of practice: Connecting what we know with what we do. Exceptional Children, 69,(3) 263–277. Cartledge, G. (2005). Restrictiveness and race in special education: The failure to prevent or return. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3 (1), 27–32. Coutinho, M., & Oswald, D. (2000). “Disproportionate representation in special education: a synthesis and recommendations.” Journal of child and family studies, Vol. 9, #. 2. pp. 135–156. Coutinho, M., & Repp, A. C. (1999). Inclusion: the integration of students with disabilities. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company. Crockett, J. B., & Kauffman, J.M. (1999). The least restrictive environment: its origins and interpretations in special education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates. Davis, C. (2005). Restrictiveness and race in special education: Access to special education infrastructure. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3 (1), 57–63. Delpit, L. (1994). Other people’s children. New York, NY: New Press. Fierros, E.G. (2004). How multiple intelligences theory can guide teachers’ practices: Ensuring success for students with disabilities. On Point Series. Denver, CO: National Institute for Urban School Improvement. Fierros, E. G., & Blomberg, N. (2005). Restrictiveness and race in special education placements in for-profit and non-profit charter schools in California. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3 (1), 1–16. Fierros, E.G., & Conroy, J. (2002). Double jeopardy: An exploration of restrictiveness and race in special education: In D.J. Losen, & G. Orfield (Eds.) Racial inequity in special education. (p. 71–92). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Fierros, E.G., & Foley, J. (in press). Examining the role of technology to create a safe haven for student teachers. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education. Finn, J.D. (1982). Patterns in special education placement as revealed by the OCR survey. In Heller, K.A., Holtzman, W., & Messick, S., (Eds.), Placing children in special education: A strategy for equity (322–381). Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53, (2), 106–116.

83

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 75–85, 2005

Giangrego, M.F., Edelman, S.W., & Broer, S.M. (2003). Schoolwide planning to improve paraeducator supports. Exceptional Children, 70,(1) 63–79. Grant, P.A. (2005). Restrictiveness and race in special education: Educating all learners. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3 (1), 70–74. Grossman, H. (1995). Special education in a diverse society. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Harry, B. (1994). The disproportionate representation of minority students in special education: theories and recommendations. (Project Forum, Final Report). Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED374 637). Harry, B., Rueda, R., & Kalyanpur, M. (1999). Cultural reciprocity in sociocultural perspective: Adapting the normalization principle for family collaboration. Exceptional Children, 66,(1) 123–136. Hosp, J.L., & Reschly, D.J. (2004). Disproportionate representation of minority students in special education: Academic, demographic, and economic predictors. Exceptional Children, 70,(2), 185–199. Jenkins, A. (2005). Restrictiveness and race in special education: The content mastery center model. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3 (1), 45–50. Jenkins, A.A., & Sileo, T.W. (1994). The content mastery program: A vehicle to facilitate students’ transition into inclusive education settings. Intervention in School and Clinic 30 (2) 84–90. Kornhaber, M.L., Fierros, E.G., & Veenema, S. (2004). Multiple Intelligences: Best practices from research and practice. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon Publishers. Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Lipsky, D.K., & Gartner, A. (1996). Inclusion, school restructuring, and the remaking of American Society. Harvard Educational Review (4). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Losen, D. & Orfield, G. [Eds.]. (2002) Racial inequity in special education. Cambridge, MA: Civil Rights Project/Harvard Education Press. McLauglin, M.J., Henderson, K., & Ullah, H. (1996) Charter schools and students with disabilities. National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE), Washington, D.C.: Center for Policy Research on the Impact of General and Special Education Reform. National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE). (1995). Report Review. Winning ways: Creating inclusive schools, classrooms and communities. Washington, D.C.: Author. Nevin, A., Harris, K.C., & Correa, V.C. (2001). Collaborative consultation between general and special educators in multicultural classrooms: Implications for school reform. In Utley, C.A., & Obiakor, F.E., (Eds). Special education, multicultural education, and school reform: components of quality education for learners with mild disabilities. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publishers. Obiakor, F., Beachum, F.D., & Harris, M. (2005). Restrictiveness and race in special education: Practilizing the laws. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3 (1), 52–55. Obiakor, F.E., & Utley, C.A. (2001). Culturally responsive teacher preparation programming for the twenty-first century. In Utley, C.A., & Obiakor, F.E., (Eds). Special education, multicultural education, and school reform: components of quality education for learners with mild disabilities. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publishers. Oswald, D.P., & Coutinho, M.J. (2001) Trends in disproportionate representation: Implications for multicultural education. In Utley, C.A., & Obiakor, F.E., [Eds.] Special education, multicultural education, and school reform: components of quality education for learners with mild disabilities. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publishers. Parette, H.P., Huer, M.B., & Scherer, M. (2004). Effects of acculturation on assistive technology service delivery. Journal of Special Education Technology. 19(2), 31–41. Parette, P. (2005). Restrictiveness and race in special education: The issue of cultural reci-

84

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3(1), 75–85, 2005

procity. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3 (1), 17–24. Sacchetti, M. (2005, January 9). Charter students score well on tests: But foes cite ESP specialed ratios. The Boston Globe, pp. A1, B7. Taylor, S.V. (2005). Restrictiveness and race in special education placements: Socio-cultural and linguistic considerations. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 3 (1), 34–43. Thurlow, M.L., Nelson, J.R., Teelucksingh, E., & Draper, I.L. (2001). Multiculturalism and disability in a results-based educational system: Hazards and hopes for today’s schools. In Utley, C.A., & Obiakor, F.E., (Eds.) Special education, multicultural education, and school reform: components of quality education for learners with mild disabilities. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publishers. Topper, G. (2003, July 2). The face of the American teacher: White and female, while her students are ethnically diverse. U.S.A Today, pp. D1. U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Twenty-fourth annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington DC: Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Government Printing Office. Utley, C.A., & Obiakor, F.E., Eds. (2001). Special education, multicultural education, and school reform: components of quality education for learners with mild disabilities. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publishers. Villegas, A. M. & Lucas, T. (2002). Educating culturally responsive teachers: A coherent approach. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Warger, C. (2001). Cultural reciprocity aids collaboration with families. The ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education. Retrieved January 4, 2005, from http://ericec.org/digests/e614.html

Authors Note I would like to thank Neil Blomberg for helping me to produce the feature article in this issue. I would also like to thank Jeffrey Perkel, Karl Strauser, and Tracey Szmajda for their editorial assistance and Teresa Citro for her continuing support. Received January 20, 2005 Accepted January 21, 2005

85

When they learn to read, they gain the world. Students with learning and reading disabilities need special instruction to achieve.Their teachers need specialized skills to help their students learn and succeed.

offers eight online learning modules that cover

crucial skills for reading teachers. Learn from programs developed by the Center for Research on Learning at the University of Kansas – a leader in the research and development of teaching interventions for special needs students.

Help them learn. Give them the world.

To see a demo of these modules click on http://reading.elearningcreations.com

is pleased to offer these modules at nearly a 40% discount to LDW members.

11184 Antioch, #400 Overland Park, KS 66210-2420 Phone: 816.213.6092 www. elearningcreations.com

Coming May, 2005 our newest publication!

RESEARCH TO PRACTICE: EFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS in Learning Disabilities

Editors: Georgios D. Sideridis Teresa Allissa Citro

Foreword by Robert Slavin

Research to Practice: Effective Interventions in Learning Disabilities This book describes the best, up-to-date and well-validated interventions for struggling learners. Each chapter is devoted to a specific intervention which is thoroughly described for teachers and practitioners. The book will be of interest to teachers who may use any of the proposed interventions for changing classroom behaviors and achievement of struggling learners.

EDITORS Georgios D. Sideridis Teresa Allissa Citro FOREWORD Robert Slavin

CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS Robert Brooks Bryan G. Cook Richard J. Cowan Christine A. Espin Barbara R. Foorman Douglas Fuchs Kere Hughes Erica S. Lembke Howard Margolis

Craig A. Michaels Paul L. Morgan Angeliki Mouzaki Pete Peterson Kristi Santi Georgios D. Sideridis Melody Tankersley Gloria Lodato Wilson Caresa Young

781-890-5399 or visit www.ldworldwide.org RESERVE YOUR COPY NOW!

For more information, call LDW at

NEW CD

FOR

PEDIATRICIANS

“The physician and the child with learning disabilities”

Order your copy today! Pediatricians, and other primary care providers, need to develop an organized approach to assessment and understand how the education system works if they are going to help the child with a learning disability succeed. That is what this CD is all about. It is one of many important resources available to physicians, providing a concise overview of the current scientific understanding of causes and treatment of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Worldwide is committed to helping both the medical community and the general public learn more about learning disabilities and how we can help our children grow and learn successfully. Price for members: $12.99 (includes shipping & handling) Price for non-members: $19.99 (includes shipping & handling) Number of CD’s ordering:

Total amount: $

Name Address Telephone

email

Please make check payable and mail to: LDW, P.O. Box 142, Weston, MA 02493 VISA MC AMEX Account # Signature of cardholder Please print name

Exp Date

SAVE THE DATE

Learning Disabilities Worldwide Presents 14th Annual World Congress on Learning Disabilities

A Multidisciplinary Approach to Learning Disabilities: Integrating Education, Motivation and Emotions Friday and Saturday

October 28 and 29, 2005 KEYNOTE SPEAKERS Dr. G. Reid Lyon (Friday)

Dr. Robert Brooks (Saturday)

PROGRAM CHAIRS Dr. David Scanlon Dr. Georgios Sideridis Burlington Marriott Hotel 1 Mall Road (Routes 3A & 128) Burlington, Massachusetts Co-sponsored by:

Commonwealth Learning Centers National Institute for Learning Disabilities Landmark College For more information please visit www.ldworldwide.org

781-890-LDWW (5399)