Rosettti Collaboration CLD Families - Copy.pdf

Collaboration TEACHING Exceptional Children, Vol. 50, No. 4, pp. 172­–182. Copyright 2017 The Author(s). DOI: 10.1177/0040059918758163...

Collaboration TEACHING Exceptional Children, Vol. 50, No. 4, pp. 172­–182. Copyright 2017 The Author(s). DOI: 10.1177/0040059918758163 Developing Collaborative Partnerships With Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Families During the IEP Process Zachary Rossetti, Janet Story Sauer, Oanh Bui, and Susan Ou This article is a reprint. A full reference to the original work is as follows: Rossetti, Z., Sauer, J. S., Bui, O., & Ou, S. (2017). Developing collaborative partnerships with culturally and linguistically diverse families during the IEP process. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 49, 328-338. doi: 10.1177/0040059916680103 Meagan, an undergraduate teacher fast pace of the conversation, along programs (Turnbull, Turnbull, Erwin, candidate studying special education, with the time it took for the live Soodak, & Shogren, 2011). Indeed, volunteered to take notes in an language interpretation, seemed to family engagement is related to individualized education program contribute to the tension. Meagan was positive student outcomes in special (IEP) meeting for a recently troubled that the parents appeared education (Newman, 2004; Ryndak, immigrated Chinese family whose discouraged because their concerns Alper, Hughes, & McDonnell, 2012). child was diagnosed with disabilities. were not addressed before the school However, many families have indicated Meagan’s professor had been contacted personnel indicated the meeting time a lack of collaboration during the IEP by a cultural outreach coordinator was up and the teachers had to return process and have frequently felt that from the local urban Parent Training to their classrooms. Although the they must fight for services for their and Information Center (PTI) for parents had requested the forms be children (Blackwell & Rossetti, 2014; someone who could “simply take translated into their native Vietnamese Resch et al., 2010; Turnbull et al., 2011). notes” for the family; the district had and sent to them, the school personnel The difficulties experienced while already scheduled an interpreter. said they did not have the resources to interacting with the special education Meagan later told her professor that comply. Meagan wondered, “How system can be even more prevalent for the meeting seemed well organized could these two IEP meetings be so CLD families because they do not and conducive to what she had different?” typically experience collaborative learned in class as illustrative of partnerships with their children’s effective collaboration. Meagan Unfortunately, many teachers might school professionals (Fults & Harry, reported that the mother “was have experiences more like Meagan’s 2012; Harry, 2008; Olivos, Gallagher, & knowledgeable about her rights and second IEP meeting than her first. Aguilar, 2010). Schools often present her son,” and she seemed to adopt the Although there has been a consistent several barriers to collaboration with Western role of parent advocate. The vision for multicultural education and CLD families, including a lack of family had received a translated copy family collaboration in teacher cultural responsiveness, inappropriate of assessment results and a tentative preparation programs for decades, accommodations related to language, agenda from the school beforehand. collaborative partnerships between insufficient information about team During the meeting, the parents were culturally and linguistically diverse meetings, little respect for familial asked questions about what was (CLD) families and their children’s expertise and contributions, and deficit important to them and what they educators remain elusive (Harry, 2008; views of families and children (Harry, thought about the possible Trent, Kea, & Oh, 2008). (Following 2008; Wolfe & Duran, 2013). In studies recommendation options offered by Wolfe and Duran, 2013, we define CLD of IEP participation, CLD families school personnel to support their child. families in the United States as those attended most meetings but were not Meagan felt she had learned a lot from whose primary language is not English provided opportunities to contribute the direct experience and was happy to or who are not European American. due to hierarchical interactions with be of help to the family. We also use family to include a school personnel and marginalization Then Meagan was asked by the guardian or extended family member of families by school personnel interpreter if she would take notes for who represents the student as part of (Blackwell & Rossetti, 2014; Wagner, another IEP meeting scheduled at a the IEP.) Newman, Cameto, Javitz, & Valdes, nearby school with a different family. Some teachers may not even realize 2012). IEPs and parents’ rights She agreed. This meeting also involved that families with whom they work feel documents have frequently been an immigrant family; the parents frustrated with what they perceive as written in ways that are difficult to spoke little and they relied heavily on ineffective and culturally insensitive understand (Fitzgerald & Watkins, having an interpreter. But there had IEP meetings. However, many teachers 2006; Lo, 2014). Assessment results been miscommunication about the recognize a sense of disconnect and other materials have not been language needed; the interpreter could between schools and CLD families and routinely translated in time for IEP speak Cantonese and Mandarin but are seeking ways to improve these meetings, and skilled interpreters the family’s home language was relationships. experienced in special education have Vietnamese. The mother could Family engagement in special not been consistently provided at IEP understand Cantonese so the education has been federally mandated meetings despite being federally interpreter used it, but that excluded for 40 years, since Public Law 94-142 mandated (Lo, 2012; Wolfe & Duran, the father, who could not understand was passed in 1975 and later 2013). Cantonese. There was a district- reauthorized as the Individuals With Without family engagement in appointed advocate for the family, and Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, special education, CLD students can Meagan later described the meeting as 2006). In fact, IDEA emphasizes family be vulnerable to lesser quality and adversarial and very tense, ending engagement in children’s education as more segregated education programs “with no compromises or solutions.” a crucial element in improving the as well as faulty diagnostic processes The idiosyncratic language and the effectiveness of special education (Gay, 2002; Harry, 2008). Moreover, TEACHING Exceptional Children | March/April 2018 173 even as today’s public schools important to acknowledge that effective plan for improving culturally continue to become more diverse, the collaboration can be difficult and responsive collaborative partnerships majority of preservice teachers are complex with the necessary with CLD families during the IEP still from White, middle-class individualization based on each family’s process (see Tables 2 and 3 for backgrounds; this dynamic can result strengths, needs, and experiences. In our examples). We caution readers against in a cultural divide in which teachers view, the persistence of this problem is in making generalizations about various subsequently hold deficit views and part due to how difficult an undertaking cultural or linguistic groups because lower expectations for CLD students this work is, especially with the within each “group,” there are (Castro, 2010; Sleeter & Owuor, 2011). competing demands of the profession in inevitably nuances and individuals We contend that positive outcomes teachers’ daily work. That said, teachers who may adopt or reject norms. for CLD students can be achieved and in American public schools are How Culturally Responsive Am I? this divide can be bridged when increasingly working with CLD students, schools and families engage in many of whom are immigrants or Cultural responsiveness refers to culturally responsive collaborative children of immigrant families. Thus, our teachers’ self-awareness related to partnerships (Blue-Banning, Summers, Frankland, Nelson, & Beegle, 2004; Gay, 2002; Haines, To bring about change in culturally responsive Gross, Blue-Banning, Francis, & Turnbull, 2015; Harry, 2008). As Fults collaboration, teachers should begin by examining and Harry (2012) explained, “in a their own cultural beliefs and experiences. multicultural world, it is not possible to be family centered without being culturally responsive” (p. 28). focus here is to support teachers as they culture and their understanding of and The lack of culturally responsive ask, “What can I do to improve my respect for the CLD family’s collaborative partnerships is commonly relationships with my students’ experiences and background (Turnbull attributed to ethnocentric assumptions families?” et al., 2011). To bring about change in about CLD families by teachers from In this article, we offer research- culturally responsive collaboration, majority-cultural backgrounds, and this based strategies for teachers who seek teachers should begin by examining may be a factor in some situations to improve their relationships with CLD their own cultural beliefs and (Harry, 2008; Wolfe & Duran, 2013). families who have children served by experiences (Harry, 2008). Then, However, many teachers understand the special education. The guidelines are teachers can identify the culturally importance of CLD family engagement in organized around three guiding responsive habits they practice and children’s educational programs and questions (see Table 1) intended to how frequently they engage in them. work to support it (Trainor, 2010). It is scaffold the development of an action Teachers are the constant in this Table 1. Guiding Questions for Developing Collaborative Partnerships With CLD Families Guiding question Purpose How culturally responsive am I? Self-reflect on cultural beliefs and experiences. Develop or increase cultural consciousness. Identify areas of improvement in culturally responsive practices. Who is this family? Gain knowledge about the family’s language and culture. Learn about the family’s perceptions of disability and goals for the child. Convey to the family members that you want to get to know them. Have we developed a collaborative partnership? Assess current relationship and quality of IEP meetings with the Communication family. Commitment Identify areas of improvement in culturally responsive collaborative Equality partnerships with the family. Professional competence Enact practices promoting culturally responsive collaborative Mutual trust partnerships with the family during the IEP process (i.e., IEP Mutual respect meetings and interactions between IEP meetings). Note. CLD = culturally and linguistically diverse; IEP = individualized education program. 174 Council for Exceptional Children Table 2. Action Plan for Developing Collaborative Partnerships with CLD Families: Example 1 Guiding question Purpose Example How culturally responsive am I? Self-reflect on cultural beliefs and I took the Georgetown surveya experiences. and noticed I was hesitant about Identify areas of improvement in answering some questions. Upon culturally responsive practices. reflection, I think I could improve my understanding about various cultures. In particular, I could focus on improving my communication with Robbie’sb family. Who is this family? Gain knowledge about the family’s In the home language survey I learned language and culture. that while Robbie’s family understands Convey to the family members that English and watches some television in you want to get to know them. English, the parents speak Cantonese at home with each other. I plan to attend a local Tet New Year celebration. I will also read about the historical relationship between Vietnam and China. Have we developed a collaborative Assess current relationship and I found out from a colleague that partnership? quality of IEP meetings with the translated materials and live language family. interpretation were not provided at Enact practices promoting culturally Robbie’s IEP meetings last year. responsive collaborative I will find out from our local Chinese partnerships with the family during cultural broker how to organize a the IEP process (i.e., IEP meetings Cantonese interpreter for the next IEP and interactions between IEP meeting. I will ask that the invitation, meetings). parents’ rights document, and the assessment results be translated into Cantonese one week prior to our IEP meeting. Note. CLD = culturally and linguistically diverse; IEP = individualized education program. aThere are several resources on the Georgetown University website for promoting cultural diversity and cultural competency, including the Self-Assessment Checklist (Goode, 2004) referenced in this example. bRobbie is the American name this Southeast Asian family gave to the son to “make it easier for the teachers to pronounce.” His given name is Bingwen. equation because families, like that reflect the concept of cultural attended a meeting may need child care students, will change each year. humility. Cultural humility is an to do so or may need alternative There may be barriers to collaboration ongoing orientation toward others options to a meeting during school that are outside of a teacher’s control. rather than oneself in which one is able hours due to limited ability to miss What teachers can do is examine their to “overcome the natural tendency to work. The parent who has not returned own culturally responsive practices for view one’s own beliefs, values, and any calls or e-mails may work multiple improvement. Thus, the essential first worldview as superior, and instead be jobs during second and third shifts. The step is to self-assess and reflect (Siwatu, open to the beliefs, values, and outcome of this self-reflection should be 2007). The National Center for Cultural worldview of the [CLD parent]” (Hook, to identify at least one area of culturally Competence at Georgetown University Davis, Owen, Worthington, & Utsey, responsive practice for attention and (n.d.) provides numerous resources for 2013, p. 354). In practice, this means improvement. self-assessment. avoiding assumptions about a family’s On the basis of the self-reflection, motives or capabilities and instead Who Is This Family? teachers can become more conscious of trying to understand the family’s the role of culture in their own and experiences and perspectives. In other The emphasis of this question is being others’ lives (Harry, 2008). With words, teachers should withhold snap purposeful and proactive in getting to increased cultural consciousness, judgments of CLD families. For know the family. First, because it is teachers can begin to enact interactions example, the parent who has not essential to CLD families’ engagement, TEACHING Exceptional Children | March/April 2018 175 Table 3. Action Plan for Developing Collaborative Partnerships With CLD Families: Example 2 Guiding question Purpose Example How culturally responsive am I? Self-reflect on cultural beliefs and I took the Georgetown surveya and experiences. noticed I could improve by attending to Identify areas of improvement in our classroom’s physical environment, culturally responsive practices. materials, and resources to be more representative of my student from India. I will also try to incorporate some of the family’s cultural values into classroom routines. Who is this family? Gain knowledge about the family’s I examined a language map of Indiab language and culture. and learned that although Hindi is the Convey to the family members that official national language, there are you want to get to know them. many other distinct languages of India. My student Chanda’s name means “moon” in Sanskrit. I found out from an informal interest inventory that Chanda dances in the north Indian tradition. I plan to watch videos about this form of dance and ask her family if I could be invited to attend one of her performances. Have we developed a collaborative Assess current relationship and During my historical review of partnership? quality of IEP meetings with the Chanda’s IEP, I learned that the family family. stopped speaking Hindi at home Enact practices promoting culturally when Chanda was young because responsive collaborative they thought it was interfering with partnerships with the family during her English language development. the IEP process (i.e., IEP meetings Recently, Chanda and her siblings and interactions between IEP began tutoring in Hindi. I plan to ask meetings). the SLP and the family how I might support Chanda’s bilingual language development. Note. CLD = culturally and linguistically diverse; IEP = individualized education program; SLP = speech language pathologist. aThere are several resources on the Georgetown University website for promoting cultural diversity and cultural competency, including the Self-Assessment Checklist (Goode, 2004) referenced in this example. bSee Maps of India (http://www.mapsofindia.com/culture/ indian-languages.html), and the International Linguistics Community website, The Linguist List (http://linguistlist.org/forms/langs/ get-language-by-country.cfm?country=23). teachers should learn about the family’s but the parent may be fluent in a meetings due to difficulties language preferences and needs. dominant language (e.g., Brazilian understanding technical terms and Specifically, teachers should identify the Portuguese), which may or may not be processing important information related CLD family’s native language, dominant the language he or she speaks at home to their children’s educational programs language, and the primary language (e.g., the parent may also speak some (Larocque, Kleiman, & Darling, 2011; spoken at home. Many U.S. teachers English or Spanish). Understanding the Wolfe & Duran, 2013). assume that most families have one family’s proficiency in English is also Beyond learning about families’ primary language; however, in many important. Another consideration to communication needs, teachers should countries—and families—multilingualism address is whether the family’s language learn about the individual strengths, is the norm (Turnbull et al., 2011). A use changes with context. For example, needs, and nuances of each particular parent’s first language could be an some CLD parents may be proficient in family just as is done with each indigenous language of his or her English but still prefer interpretation in individual student (Larocque et al., country of birth (e.g., Canela in Brazil), their native language during IEP 2011; Turnbull et al., 2011). This is a 176 Council for Exceptional Children broad strategy that can be about their language needs and about interacting with CLD families or accomplished in many ways, but the preferences (deFur, 2012; Edwards & facilitate and interpret meetings with outcome of this approach is for Da Fonte, 2012). Many states mandate CLD families. Over time, teachers teachers to demonstrate intentionality a home language survey for all themselves can become cultural in building relationships with CLD incoming students whose family’s brokers as they learn more about CLD families (Harry, 2008). Initially, this native language is not English. Some families’ perspectives, experiences, means that teachers should show CLD examples are available as models for and cultural history. families that they are interested in teachers in districts that do not yet getting to know and working with require this (e.g., Massachusetts them, such as welcoming CLD families Department of Elementary & Have We Developed a to the IEP team, initiating Secondary Education, 2011; Vermont Collaborative Partnership? conversations with them, and inviting Agency of Education, 2014; The goal of developing a culturally their participation. Eventually, and Washington Office of Superintendent responsive collaborative partnership within the relationship-building of Public Instruction, 2014.) These with CLD families will manifest as the process, teachers should engage in questions can be asked in creation and maintenance of a purposeful and individualized efforts to conversations with CLD families. harmonious environment during the encourage meaningful engagement in In addition, teachers should ask IEP process. Based on all of the IEP meetings by CLD families families about their preferred meeting information gathered in response to the (Rodriguez, Blatz, & Elbaum, 2014a). times and comfort level with the special first two questions, teachers will be In addition, teachers should learn education process. This conveys able to identify whether their IEP about the family’s expectations for the willingness to be flexible and supportive meetings more closely resemble child with a disability and the reasons within the collaboration and helps Meagan’s first or second meeting. underlying these perspectives. CLD families may perceive teachers as unwilling to collaborate if teachers do Teachers should analyze the quality and quantity of not ask about and actively listen to their interactions with CLD families between meetings to perspectives and goals for their children (Turnbull et al., 2011). For example, examine whether there is a reciprocal relationship Hispanic mothers of transition-aged and positive rapport with CLD families. youth with autism spectrum disorder, intellectual disability, or multiple disabilities described experiencing teachers learn more about families. Because collaborative partnerships conflicts with teachers when trying to Based on the family’s response, teachers require more than positive interactions develop meaningful and culturally could offer a variety of possible meeting during annual meetings, teachers responsive transition goals (Shogren, times from which families could choose, should analyze the quality and quantity 2012). The teachers focused on as well as work with administrators or of interactions with CLD families improving the student’s ability to community agencies to offer special between these meetings to examine perform functional skills independently, education training (e.g., workshops) to whether there is a reciprocal which they viewed as essential for CLD families who need it (Larocque relationship and positive rapport with self-determination. However, the et al., 2011). CLD families. families did not view this as an When possible, teachers should Researchers have identified the important goal for their children. Rather reach out to someone who can act as dimensions of collaborative than discussing this and possible a cultural broker to learn about partnerships. After decades of studying concerns with families, the teachers general linguistic and cultural the school and family dynamics in insisted on their goals as written and practices of the CLD family. A cultural special education, Ferguson, Hanreddy, thought families’ opposition was due to broker is a bilingual, bicultural and Ferguson (2013) developed a low expectations for their children. By advocate engaged in the purposeful strengths-based collaboration assuming the families’ motives, they did act of connecting people of differing framework, suggesting “that we first not realize that the families were cultural backgrounds to reduce seriously listen to families’ accounts of actually guided by their cultural valuing conflict and improve collaboration their own experiences with both schools of family interdependence over an (Jezewski & Sotnik, 2001). This could and disability” (p. 767). The largest individual’s independence (Shogren, be an English as a Second Language study to date described six components 2012). teacher or a cultural outreach of collaborative partnerships: (a) Teachers should schedule short coordinator from the local PTI. The communication, (b) commitment, (c) discussions or administer a beginning- cultural broker typically acts as a equality, (d) professional competence, of-the-year survey (i.e., home language liaison, cultural guide, or mediator (e) mutual trust, and (f) mutual respect survey) with CLD families to learn and can provide teachers with advice (Blue-Banning et al., 2004). We present TEACHING Exceptional Children | March/April 2018 177 the remaining strategies within this interpreter attends all IEP meetings administrators) should seek out structured framework because when the family’s native language is resources within their district and developing collaborative partnerships not English. The interpreter should be a community to address these requires intentionality (deFur, 2012). professional who is trained in the role challenges. Some suggestions include These components of collaborative of interpreter and translator, the following: partnerships apply to all families, but knowledgeable of special education the strategies focus specifically on policy and process, and independent of First, try to locate materials in your developing collaborative partnerships both the school and the family (Hart, state or district that have already with CLD families. Cheatham, & Jimenez-Silva, 2012; been translated. Wolfe & Duran, 2013). Although some Train bilingual staff in your district families might speak English as the or school to be translators and Communication primary language at home they still interpreters. Parents have reported desiring both may not be proficient in written English Consult with nonprofit frequent (quantity) and honest and or may be unfamiliar with special organizations and community open (quality) communication (Blue- education terminology (Larocque et al., stakeholders to assess how they Banning et al., 2004). Some 2011). Thus, those who speak English provide language services and to indicators of desired communication may still require an interpreter. In access their services. For example, included being tactful (e.g., addition, within ethnic groups there can Found in Translation (http://www. respecting privacy, focusing on the be subgroups that speak different found-in-translation.org) is a positive in addition to the negatives), dialects, and many of these are nonprofit organization in avoiding use of jargon, and providing mutually unintelligible. In other words, Massachusetts that trains low- information on resources for children the dialects are so different that those income, bilingual women as to families. Parents have also insisted speaking one or the other cannot easily interpreters. that communication should be communicate. For example, a common Look to local universities for reciprocal, especially emphasizing dialect for many Chinese immigrants in students in language programs that educators listen to families the United States is Cantonese, which training to be translators and (Haines et al., 2015). differs from Mandarin, a dialect from interpreters who need to fulfill CLD families require full language northern China chosen by the current practicum or clinical hours. access to participate in conversations central government to be used as the Utilize telephone interpretation and meetings regarding their children’s common language. Families may speak services. educational programs. Per federal Cantonese, Mandarin, or both, and Collaborate with other community guidance, “schools must communicate these distinctions should be known by agencies (e.g., PTI) that have information to limited English teachers to appropriately accommodate bilingual staff to help with proficient parents in a language they each CLD family. translations or to identify bilingual can understand about any program, There are several strategies we community members who may help service, or activity that is called to the recommend for teachers when there with translations or be trained as an attention of parents who are proficient are difficulties providing translations interpreter. in English" (U.S. Department of Justice and live interpretation, such as when & U.S. Department of Education, 2015, the district does not have resources for In addition, companies, such as eSTAR p. 1). This includes special education a family’s particular language (e.g., (https://www.esped.com), provide and related services, meetings to language may not be prevalent in translation services for IEPs. We do discuss special education, and parent– district). Districts should have not recommend using computer or teacher conferences. Schools must resources—or a plan to establish online translators as they tend to be provide language assistance if CLD resources—for providing translated imperfect. families request it. Teachers should documents and live interpretation in at Beyond translations and live work with their teams to ensure that all least the top five to 10 languages interpretation during meetings, teachers written materials necessary for spoken by families in their community. should ask CLD families their participation in IEP meetings are Nationally, the top 10 languages preferences for communication between translated into the family’s preferred spoken in CLD families’ homes include meetings or offer them a variety of language (Lo, 2012). Specifically, these Spanish (71%), Chinese (4%), options from which they can choose. should include progress reports and Vietnamese (3%), French or Haitian School-to-home notebooks may not be evaluation materials at least 2 days Creole (3%), Arabic (2%), Korean the most effective tools for prior to the meeting, and meeting (1%), Hebrew or Yiddish (1%), communicating with CLD families minutes and IEPs within 10 days Filipino or Tagalog (1%), German because of possible misinterpretations following meetings. (1%), and Hmong (1%) (Ruiz Soto, due to language proficiency and Teachers should also work with their Hooker, & Batalova, 2015). The general technical-language use (Davern, 2004). teams to ensure that a skilled approach is that teachers (and Speaking in person may be more 178 Council for Exceptional Children effective as it can limit next to rather than across from them members what else they want to misunderstandings that may occur with (Rodriguez et al., 2014b). address in advance of the meeting. written text (Larocque et al., 2011; Lo, Another way to solicit family input 2012). However, some families may have prior to the meeting is to conduct a Equality a preference for written communication pre-IEP interview focusing on the due to a relative strength in English Parents have reported that they value family members’ comfort with grammar and reading compared to an overall sense of harmony in procedures, their goals, and their spoken communication even though meetings and interactions with concerns (Rodriguez they may be proficient in English (Sohn educators (Blue-Banning et al., 2004). et al., 2014b). Despite best intentions, & Wang, 2006). A sense of harmony can be manifested asking families during the meeting by equality in decision making, what they want to address may cause acknowledgement of parents’ point of anxiety and does not allow them Commitment view, and encouragement of parents to enough time to consider their Parents have reported that they want to participate. This component of responses (Rodriguez see evidence that their children’s collaborative partnerships reflects the et al., 2014b). educators are dedicated to families and importance that educators recognize During the meeting, there are children because such a commitment the strengths and familial expertise of several strategies that promote equality would indicate that they are driven by CLD families and support them to be in decision making. Teachers should more than just their job requirements fully contributing members of the IEP write out agenda items being discussed (Blue-Banning et al., 2004). Educators team (Turnbull et al., 2011). on a large display to help support should convey that they value and Some CLD families may not yet shared understanding (Lo, 2012). recognize the importance of their understand the level of family Teachers should also provide written relationships with families and think of engagement in IEP meetings expected in translations of special education them as people rather than as cases. U.S. schools (Burke, 2013; Trainor, 2010). terminology and key vocabulary in the Again, this helps build relationships In order to engage meaningfully, CLD family’s preferred language (e.g., a with CLD families. To convey commitment to CLD families, teachers should demonstrate Some CLD families may not yet understand through explicit statements and actions that their focus is on the best interests the level of family engagement in IEP meetings of the child (Haines et al., 2015). One expected in U.S. schools. way to do this is to maintain high expectations for the learning potential of the child (Larocque et al., 2011). parents must know that they can (and glossary) as well as avoid jargon as Another is to regularly communicate should) participate and what that much as possible during the meeting the child’s progress and other positive entails. Teachers are uniquely positioned (Larocque et al., 2011; Lo, 2014). experiences to families, rather than to explicitly explain the importance of Teachers can provide visual aids (e.g., only problems (Rodriguez, Blatz, & IEPs and the expectation of family examples of the child’s work and that Elbaum, 2014b). Because CLD families, advocacy during the IEP process to of a comparison peer when discussing like all families, want their children to families (Larocque et al., 2011; Rodriguez the child’s strengths and needs) to be successful, teachers could also et al., 2014b). We recommend that the support understanding by CLD families advocate on behalf of the family for parents’ rights document not only be (Larocque et al., 2011). Because specific services or types of service translated in each family’s preferred interpreters need to translate delivery appropriate for their child language but adapted to be written in everything that is said in a meeting, (Resch et al., 2010). everyday language (i.e., no technical teachers should be sure to allot extra To show commitment to CLD language) and at a fifth-grade reading time for the meeting so the team families, teachers can volunteer at or level (Lo, 2014; Rodriguez et al., 2014b). process is not compromised by time attend local cultural events with the Teachers should discuss the document constraints (Hart et al., 2012). Finally, family, or they can visit a local with CLD families. teachers should track whether their gathering place (e.g., barbershop or Teachers should also ensure that meetings were more like the first or hair salon, place of worship, grocery CLD families understand the purpose the second IEP meeting Meagan store) for families from the same of each meeting and have ample attended. To do this, teachers can pay cultural or linguistic group to learn opportunity to contribute to it. As in close attention—and collect data, if more about the family’s culture Meagan’s first meeting, one way to do possible—as to who initiates topics, (Edwards & Da Fonte, 2012). During this is to provide a draft of the agenda, how long various team members IEP meetings, teachers can demonstrate including the expected participants’ speak, and how decisions are made in commitment to CLD families by sitting names and titles, and to ask the family order to identify opportunities for TEACHING Exceptional Children | March/April 2018 179 more equitable and meaningful because they will be viewed as respect during the IEP process (Haines engagement (Blackwell & Rossetti, professionally competent by families et al., 2015). Parents have indicated 2014). (Rodriguez, Blatz, & Elbaum, 2014a). that it is important that educators value the child as a person rather than as a Trust disability label and that educators Competence engage in simple courtesy (e.g., being Parents reported that they desire Parents want to feel confident in the on time, acknowledging parents’ mutual trust with their children’s professional skills of their children’s efforts) with them during the IEP educators, and they indicated three educators (Blue-Banning et al., 2004). process (Blue-Banning et al., 2004). components of this trust: (a) reliability This seems a universal expectation, As stated in the Competence of educators, (b) assurance that the but, within special education, it section, teachers should move beyond child is treated with dignity and is safe meant parents expected to see clear the disability label to get to know each from physical or emotional harm, and evidence of individualization based student as a unique individual and a (c) discretion when dealing with on the unique needs of their children. person first. This is particularly true for confidential and personal information They also expected teachers to keep students with intellectual and (Blue-Banning et al., 2004). up to date with research-based developmental disabilities who do not Extant research indicates that practices and technology in the field, speak; they are often at risk of being frequent communication and sharing of especially when beneficial to their misinterpreted as incompetent, resources with families is crucial for children. especially if they do not use a mode of developing trust in collaborative CLD families have reported wanting augmentative alternative teachers to avoid taking a deficit view of disability and to understand the child’s language needs (Wolfe & Teachers should explicitly explain instructional Duran, 2013). Thus, teachers should methods to families and clearly describe how incorporate student strengths into services specifically meet students’ needs. instruction and discuss these with families rather than focusing only on the disability label or the student’s communication (AAC; Calculator, partnerships (Resch et al., 2010; Wolfe & deficits (Haines et al., 2015). Teachers 2009). Teachers should work to ensure Duran, 2013). Communication between should also develop a language profile that all students served by special teachers and CLD families may be for the student to understand and education who do not speak, especially enhanced when there is one teacher accommodate his or her language those with the most significant needs, (usually the special education teacher or needs (Wolfe & Duran, 2013). Some of have access to AAC so that they can case manager) assigned as the contact this information (i.e., the student’s participate as much as possible in the person for each family (Rodriguez et al., native language, dominant language, general education curriculum 2014b). One invaluable resource to and primary language spoken at (Calculator, 2009). share with CLD families is the local PTI. home) may come from the home Regarding respectful interactions (Every state has at least one PTI; see language survey. The language profile with CLD families, teachers should http://www.parentcenterhub.org/ should also include whether the certainly make every effort to be on find-your-center.) At the PTI, CLD student can follow instructions in time to IEP meetings, to let families families can attend workshops on English. know as early as possible if they need special education policy and practice, To demonstrate competence to reschedule a meeting, and to value learn about their rights, and participate regarding research-based practices, family contributions in IEP meetings in support groups with other families teachers should explicitly explain (Harry, 2008). Because many CLD who have a range of knowledge and instructional methods to families and families report feeling marginalized experience to share with them (Burke, clearly describe how services when teachers disregard familial 2013). Regarding reliability and specifically meet students’ needs rather expertise and value their own accountability, teachers should ensure than just presenting service options professional knowledge over familial that they follow through in a timely without any context (Rodriguez at al., knowledge, teachers should manner with implementing services and 2014b). Doing so conveys not only proactively support and validate completing tasks that were agreed upon individualization of services but also family contributions in IEP meetings during IEP meetings (Rodriguez et al., the teacher’s understanding of special (Wolfe & Duran, 2013). When 2014a; Wolfe & Duran, 2013). education instruction and policy. In unanticipated situations arise during fact, when teachers implement busy workdays that result in being Respect appropriate services and report student late or stressed, teachers should progress regularly, they may not have Ultimately, collaborative partnerships consider explaining this to families to as many interactions with CLD families with CLD families are rooted in mutual avoid the tardiness or stress being 180 Council for Exceptional Children interpreted as a sign of disrespect References and Special Education, 35, 27–48. (Wolfe & Duran, 2013). doi:10.1177/0888406411399784 Blackwell, W. H., & Rossetti, Z. (2014). Gay, G. (2002). Culturally responsive Development of individualized education teaching in special education for Developing Collaborative programs: Where have we been and ethnically diverse students: Setting Partnerships With CLD where should we go now? SAGE Open. the stage. Qualitative Studies Families doi:10.1177/2158244014530411 in Education, 15, 613–629. doi: Despite widespread awareness of the Blue-Banning, M., Summers, J. A., 10.1080/0951839022000014349 importance of CLD family engagement Frankland, J. A., Nelson, L. L., & Goode, T. D. (2004). Self-assessment checklist in special education, the lack of Beegle, G. (2004). Dimensions of for personnel providing services and supports culturally responsive collaborative family and professional partnerships: to children with disabilities & special Constructive guidelines for collaboration. health needs and their families (Rev.). partnerships with CLD families has Exceptional Children, 70, 167–184. doi: Washington, DC: Georgetown University persisted as a problem. It is essential 10.1177/001440290407000203 Center for Child & Human Development. for teachers to systematically enact Burke, M. M. (2013). Improving parental Retrieved from http://nccc.georgetown. purposeful and individualized involvement: Training special edu/documents/ChecklistCSHN.pdf strategies to address this problem with education advocates. Journal of Haines, S. J., Gross, J. M. S., Blue- their CLD families. Teachers should Disability Policy Studies, 23, 225–234. Banning, M., Francis, G. L., & Turnbull, formally identify areas of need and doi:10.1177/1044207311424910 A. P. (2015). Fostering family-school specific action steps related to each of Calculator, S. N. (2009). Augmentative and and community-school partnerships in the guiding questions. Because it is alternative communication (AAC) and inclusive schools: Using practice as a not realistic to expect to solve this inclusive education for students with the guide. Research and Practice for Persons problem immediately, we recommend most severe disabilities. International with Severe Disabilities, 40, 227–239. Journal of Inclusive Education, 13, 93– doi:10.1177/1540796915594141 that teachers start by choosing one 113. doi: 10.1080/13603110701284656 Harry, B. (2008). Collaboration with strategy that addresses at least one of Castro, A. J. (2010). Themes in the research culturally and linguistically diverse the purposes for each guiding on preservice teachers’ views of cultural families: Ideal versus reality. question. diversity: Implications for researching Exceptional Children, 74, 372–388. millennial preservice teachers. doi:10.1177/001440290807400306 Conclusion Educational Researcher, 39, 198-210. doi: Hart, J. E., Cheatham, G., & Jimenez- 10.3102/0013189X10363819 Silva, M. (2012). Facilitating quality Despite its successes in achieving Davern, L. (2004). School-to-home language interpretation for families of compulsory public education for notebooks: What parents have diverse students with special needs. eligible students with disabilities, IDEA to say. TEACHING Exceptional Preventing School Failure, 56, 207–213. is implemented by a bureaucratic Children, 36(5), 22–27. doi: doi:10.1080/1045988X.2011.645910 system that demands parents become 10.1177/004005990403600503 Hook, J. N., Davis, D. E., Owen, J., advocates for their individual children deFur, S. (2012). Parents as collaborators: Worthington, E. L., Jr., & Utsey, S. O. through negotiations reliant upon on Building partnerships with school- and (2013). Cultural humility: Measuring social and cultural capital (Ong-Dean, community-based providers. TEACHING openness to culturally diverse clients. 2009; Sauer & Albanesi, 2013; Trainor, Exceptional Children, 44(3), 58–67. doi: Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60, 2010). What this means is that the 10.1177/004005991204400307 353–366. doi:10.1037/a0032595 Edwards, C. C., & Da Fonte, A. (2012). Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, parents who have the capital to The 5-point plan: Fostering successful 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq. (2006 & Supp. advocate this way typically get what partnerships with families of V. 2011) they want for their children. CLD students with disabilities. TEACHING Jezewski, M. A., & Sotnik, P. (2001). families may be hesitant or unable to Exceptional Children, 44(3), 6–13. doi: Culture brokering: Providing culturally advocate, and their strengths and 10.1177/004005991204400301 competent rehabilitation services to willingness to participate may be Ferguson, D., Hanreddy, A. N., & Ferguson, foreign-born persons. Buffalo, NY: Center misinterpreted by school professionals P. M. (2013). Finding a voice: Families’ for International Rehabilitation Research because of lack of cultural competence roles in schools. In L. Florian (Ed.), The Information and Exchange. Retrieved or may be disregarded due to SAGE handbook of special education from http://cirrie.buffalo.edu/culture/ hierarchical power relations in which (pp. 763–783). Thousand Oaks, CA: monographs/cb.php professional expertise is valued over SAGE. Larocque, M., Kleiman, I., & Darling, Fitzgerald, J., & Watkins, M. W. (2006). S. M. (2011). Parental involvement: The familial expertise (Harry, 2008; Olivos Parents’ rights in special education: The missing link in school achievement. et al., 2010). Adhering to our guiding readability of procedural safeguards. Preventing School Failure, 55, 115–122. questions for developing culturally Exceptional Children, 72, 497–510. doi: doi:10.1080/10459880903472876 responsive collaborative partnerships 10.1177/001440290607200407 Lo, L. (2012). Demystifying the IEP with CLD families can help to bridge Fults, R. M., & Harry, B. (2012). process for diverse parents of this gap in the IEP process and bring Combining family centeredness and children with disabilities. TEACHING about important positive outcomes for diversity in early childhood teacher Exceptional Children, 44(3), 14–20. these children and their families. training programs. Teacher Education doi:10.1177/004005991204400302 TEACHING Exceptional Children | March/April 2018 181 Lo, L. (2014). Readability of individualized Ryndak, D.L., Alper, S., Hughes, C., & proficient (LEP) parents and guardians education programs. Preventing School McDonnell, J. (2012). Documenting and for schools and school districts that Failure, 58, 96–102. doi:10.1080/10459 impact of educational contexts on communicate with them. Washington, 88X.2013.782532 long-term outcomes for students with DC: Author. Retrieved from http:// Massachusetts Department of Elementary & significant disabilities. Education and www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/ Secondary Education. (2011, February). Training in Autism and Developmental docs/dcl-factsheet-lep-parents-201501.pdf English language learners. Home Disabilities, 47(2), 127–138. Vermont Agency of Education. (2014, language survey. Retrieved from http:// Sauer, J., & Albanesi, H. (2013). Questioning April). Primary/home language survey www.doe.mass.edu/ell/hlsurvey/ privilege from within the special education for all kindergarten and incoming National Center for Cultural Competence. process. In M. Kimmel & A. Ferber (Eds.), students. Retrieved from http:// (n.d.). Self-assessments. Retrieved from Privilege: A reader (pp. 1–21). Boulder, education.vermont.gov/documents/ http://nccc.georgetown.edu/resources/ CO: Westview Press. Reprinted from federal-programs-primary-home- assessments.html Understanding and Dismantling Privilege, language-survey Newman, L. (2004). Family involvement 1(3). Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., in the educational development of Shogren, K. (2012). Hispanic mothers’ Javitz, H., & Valdes, K. (2012). A youth with disabilities: A special topic perceptions of self-determination. national picture of parent and youth report from the National Longitudinal Research & Practice for Persons with participation in IEP and transition Transition Study-2 (NLTS-2). Menlo Severe Disabilities, 37, 170–184. doi: planning meetings. Journal of Park, CA: SRI International. 10.2511/027494812804153561 Disability Policy Studies, 23, 140–155. Olivos, E. M., Gallagher, R. J., & Siwatu, K. O. (2007). Preservice teachers’ doi:10.1177/1044207311425384 Aguilar, J. (2010). Fostering culturally responsive teaching self- Washington Office of Superintendent of collaboration with culturally and efficacy and outcome expectancy beliefs. Public Instruction. (2014, May). Home linguistically diverse families of Teaching and Teacher Education, language survey. Retrieved from http:// children with moderate to severe 23, 1086–1101. doi:10.1016/j. www.k12.wa.us/MigrantBilingual/ disabilities. Journal of Educational and tate.2006.07.011 pubdocs/HLS/HLSEnglish.pdf Psychological Consultation, 20, 28–40. Sleeter, C. E., & Owuor, J. (2011). Research Wolfe, K., & Duran, L. K. (2013). Culturally doi:10.1080/10474410903535372 on the impact of teacher preparation to and linguistically diverse parents’ Ong-Dean, C. (2009). Distinguishing teach diverse students: The research we perceptions of the IEP process: A review disability: Parents, privilege, and special have and the research we need. Action of current research. Multiple Voices for education. Chicago, IL: University of in Teacher Education, 33, 524–536. Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, Chicago Press. doi:10.1080/01626620.2011.627045 13(2), 4–18. Resch, J. A., Mireles, G., Benz, M. R., Sohn, S., & Wang, X. C. (2006). Immigrant Grenwelge, C., Peterson, R., & Zhang, parents’ involvement in American D. (2010). Giving parents a voice: A schools: Perspectives from Korean Zachary Rossetti, Assistant Professor of qualitative study of the challenges mothers. Early Childhood Education Special Education, Childhood and experienced by parents of children Journal, 34, 125–132. doi:10.1007/ Exceptional Education Cluster, Boston with disabilities. Rehabilitation s10643-006-0070-6 University, Boston, Massachusetts; Janet Psychology, 55, 139–150. doi:10.1037/ Trainor, A. A. (2010). Educators’ Story Sauer, Associate Professor of Special a0019473 expectations of parent participation: Education, Education Division, Lesley Rodriguez, R. J., Blatz, E. T., & The role of cultural and social capital. University, Cambridge, Massachusetts; Oanh Elbaum, B. (2014a). Parents’ views Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Bui, Vietnamese Outreach Coordinator, of schools’ involvement efforts. Exceptional Learners, 12(2), 33–50. Parent Training and Information Center, Exceptional Children, 81, 79–95. Trent, S. C., Kea, C. D., & Oh, K. (2008). and Susan Ou, Chinese Outreach doi:10.1177/0014402914532232 Preparing preservice educators for Coordinator, Parent Training and Rodriguez, R. J., Blatz, E. T., & Elbaum, cultural diversity: How far have we Information Center, Federation for Children B. (2014b). Strategies to involve come? Exceptional Children, 74, 328– with Special Needs, Boston, Massachusetts. families of Latino students with 350. doi:10.1177/001440290807400304 disabilities: When parent initiative Turnbull, A., Turnbull, R., Erwin, E. J., Address correspondence concerning this is not enough. Intervention in Soodak, L. C., & Shogren, K. A. (2011). article to Zach Rossetti, Boston University, School and Clinic, 49, 263–270. Families, professionals, and exceptionality: Two Silber Way, Boston, MA 02215 (e-mail: doi:10.1177/1053451213513956 Positive outcomes through partnership and [email protected]). Ruiz Soto, A. G., Hooker, S., & Batalova, J. trust. Boston, MA: Pearson. (2015). Top languages spoken by English U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights language learners nationally and by Division & U.S. Department of TEACHING Exceptional Children, state. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Education, Office for Civil Rights Vol. 50, No. 4, pp. 172–182. Institute. (2015). Information for limited English Copyright 2017 The Author(s). 182 Council for Exceptional Children Copyright of Teaching Exceptional Children is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.