Blog Post #4: Richard Wilkins

           Throughout the journey of human civilization, education has been considered a privilege—not a right. There are many debates as to the rational of such a notion; however, the underlying fact is knowledge is empowerment. Thus, one who holds the knowledge wields power. Consequently, withholding intelligence was a societal injustice and an act of subjugation. Throughout the following text we discuss how this thesis is still relevant in contemporary society and outline several ideas to combat the disproportionalities minorities endure within the special education population.

Before we continue, it important to mention that bigotries of judgment that have been present in the public education system for generations. In Education for All, we find that minority cultures such as the African-Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, and Asian-Americans were routinely segregated despite ratification of various amendments to end its practice. Additionally, we also discover that these intolerances were fueled by a skewed defense of nationalism, xenophobia, and national identity. It was not until a series of court rulings that individual recognition was achieved (but socially and educationally). However, the larger issue of cultural acceptance loomed and will prove to be a major part of our discussion.

According to an article entitled, Promising Practice for Curbing Disproportionate Representation of Minority Students in Special Education, the authors Echevarria and Powers discuss issues surrounding the culture of public education. They argue that the after the 1954 decision of Brown vs. the Board of Education, the subsequent foundations of educational professionals and institutions continued to emulate the values of the suburban middle class Americana and did not adapt to the growing urban influence. Therefore a lack of diverse professionals, and progressive thought/training, actually aggravated issues of representation and led to many of the disproportionalities witnessed throughout the latter half of the twentieth century.

As we crossed the threshold of a new millennium, a recognition of these concerns led to a changing narrative. The conversation shifted from the exclusion of these individuals, to embracing their presence, to finally developing and implementing strategies to deal with their exceptionalities—one of these is Response to Intervention. RTI is the ‘practice of providing high-quality instruction and interventions matched to the student’s need’. Matched is the key phrase within that statement as placement is no longer arbitrary. RTI has three main subsections—focusing on a broad range of outcomes (which allow for a greater sampling of information to be analyzed), focusing on the individual (which tailors a person’s education specifically to their needs), and embracing tangible data sets (which seeks to eliminate much of the subjective nature and inconsistencies of placement by corroborating each educational decision with substantiated statistics). By collaborating with a series of professionals, RTI can be a useful tool to purge disproportionalities throughout special education.

In conclusion, we must be mindful that many students face a multitude of issues including socio-economic factors, the crossroads of cultures (sometimes positive and sometimes negative) throughout the classroom setting, and various domestic trials and tribulations that can culminate in multitude of behavior scenarios. Therefore, the inclusionary landscape must be ever-adapting. Thus, we must strive to be curious—we must strive to be inquisitive. By doing so, we will develop a relationship, rapport, and most importantly, trust that will not only bridge the gap of exclusion; but also, reduce the cultural misunderstandings of diversity and empower a new generation to embrace their purpose.

Blog Post #4: Andrea Barber

                  Disproportionate representation in special education has been an ongoing issue and continues to be a consistent problem.  The disproportionately high representation of racial and ethnic minorities as well as culturally and linguistically diverse students in special education classrooms has been a problem for more than thirty-five years.  This has been particularly acute for select groups (African American and Latino) and in select categories (mild mental retardation, learning disabilities, emotional disturbances, speech, and language).  Unfortunately, this debate over disproportionate representation, inappropriate placement, and misclassification of minority pupils is far from being resolved (Jimenez & Graf 2008).

                  Culturally responsive instructional practices can offer the promise of providing opportunities to learn for culturally and linguistically diverse students and reduce disproportionate representation.  Wiley (1996) provides useful framework educators can use to implement culturally responsive instructional practices.  Accommodation is one type of practice that refers to the need for educators, administration, and other school personnel to understand the cultural norms, communication styles, and literacy practices of their students to help adapt their instruction accordingly.  The second to type of practice is incorporation, taking accommodation one step further requiring researchers and educators inn understanding diverse cultures that also acknowledge certain community practices that have not been valued previously by the schools and what can be learned from other ethnic groups.  The third type of practice that can be used is adaptation.  This relates to how the  adults and children can acculturate to the norms of those who control the school, institutions, or workplace (Wiley 1996). In doing so, the school has a responsibility to give parents information and support that is needed to help the children with the new forms of culture to adapt to.  In combination, these 3 types of practice can provide a framework to implement working toward educational equity for diverse students and culturally responsive teaching.  Response to intervention models has been an important implication to the principle of  cultural responsiveness (Jimenez & Graf 2008).

                  In my opinion, it is most important to find out the needs of the student academically.   Rather, society tends to label someone based on their culture or ethnicity instead of  taking the time to reach a student and get to know them individually.   I strongly agree with the culturally responsive instructional practices as mentioned above.  Stated in the three types of practices, research suggests that it is possible to design and implement culturally responsive interventions that enhance learning for diverse populations .  I also believe that offering the promise of providing an opportunity to learn for culturally and linguistically diverse students reduces disproportionate representation (Jimenez & Graf, 2008).

Blog Post #4: Cassie Guerrieri

Disproportionate representation in special education is an issue that has been in schools for many years. As educators we need to remember that these are children and we owe them an appropriate education. I feel that sometimes children are lost in the shuffle and are not treated as though they are as important because they are children. We must remember that children at the future. Education for All said it best “no characterization of the history of public schooling in the United States would be complete without considering the dynamics of race and education” (pg 132). Throughout the years it has been shown that minorities have always fought to receive appropriate education, this is shown through the various lawsuits; Brown v Board of Education, Diana v. California Board of Education and etc. I think that we are trying to place a more conscious effort on this but it tends to be overlooked by all the stigmas we put on children.

            I recently did a paper Youngstown community and it showed that almost 98 percent of their children at one school got free or reduced lunches and 61 percent of the population are a minority (city-data.com, 2016). If a child is embarrassed at the fact that they qualify for this then they could be skipping that meal and going hungry. When a child goes hungry they cannot focus on the school work and then can come off as lazy. This is a common misconception that I have seen happen first hand. It takes a teacher who really knows his or her students to find out what is really occurring in that child’s life rather than ruling them out as lazy.

There are also teachers who do not want to advocate for their children because they may have prejudices and they discriminate. When I was in the counseling program at YSU for a brief time they asked the most important questions, they said “what would you do if you had to counsel someone who was the complete opposite of you”. Most of us said we would accept their differences and move on but it really made some think. I feel as though this needs to be addressed in education as well but for teaching. There are so many times instead of trying to form a connection we focus on the differences and allow those to drive our emotions. In order to create a safe, educational environment for the students we have to focus on the positives. It is our job, our duty as educators to help them thrive not to tear them down. I feel that this is often forgotten because we are “too busy” to work on the connections. As educators our children come first, we are the advocates and it is our job to fight. We need to fight to make connections, for appropriate placements, no matter who is discriminating, and fight to teach them the way that they can learn.