Journal of Educational and Psychological ...

This article was downloaded by: [Indiana Universities] On: 27 April 2015, At: 10:53 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hepc20

Multidisciplinary Collaboration to Support Struggling Readers: Centering Culture in Concerns About Process and Outcomes a

Kathleen A. King Thorius & Marsha Simon

a

a

Indiana University–Indianapolis Published online: 02 Jun 2014.

Click for updates To cite this article: Kathleen A. King Thorius & Marsha Simon (2014) Multidisciplinary Collaboration to Support Struggling Readers: Centering Culture in Concerns About Process and Outcomes, Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 24:2, 165-182, DOI: 10.1080/10474412.2014.903193 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2014.903193

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Downloaded by [Indiana Universities] at 10:53 27 April 2015

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 24:165–182, 2014 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1047-4412 print/1532-768X online DOI: 10.1080/10474412.2014.903193

COMMENTARY


Multidisciplinary Collaboration to Support Struggling Readers: Centering Culture in Concerns About Process and Outcomes KATHLEEN A. KING THORIUS and MARSHA SIMON Indiana University–Indianapolis

Our commentary responds to the five articles of the special issue on multidisciplinary collaboration to support struggling readers. From our perspectives informed by experiences working with diverse student and family populations in urban settings, preparing pre- and in-service educators and specialists to do the same, and working in federally funded technical assistance and dissemination centers focused on equity issues in general and special education, we highlight themes and raise issues across the articles. Accordingly, we discuss learning to read in the broader context of literacy acquisition, and examine issues of effectiveness, power, and privilege within consultative and collaborative professional relationships aimed at addressing diverse learners reading capacities and outcomes. Our commentary responds to the five articles of the special issue on multidisciplinary collaboration to support struggling readers. From the perspectives of our collective experience working with linguistically, racially, ethnically, and ability diverse student and family populations in urban settings; preparing pre- and in-service educators and specialists to do the same; and in leadership roles in federally funded technical assistance and dissemination centers broadly focused on equity issues in general and special education, we Correspondence should be sent to Kathleen A. King Thorius, Indiana University–IUPUI, School of Education, 902 West NY Street, Indianapolis, IN 46202. E-mail: kathleenkingthorius@ gmail.com 165


166

K. A. King Thorius and M. Simon

highlight themes and raise issues across the articles. Accordingly, we discuss the nature and function of literacy and matters related to effectiveness, power, and privilege within consultative and collaborative professional relationships aimed at addressing diverse learners’ reading capacities and outcomes. As Arzubiaga, Artiles, King, and Harris-Murri posited in Exceptional Children in 2008, central to the relationship between (special education) research knowledge and professional practices is the cultural nature of research itself, which includes attention to the ‘‘sociocultural location of a researcher as an individual and a member of a scientific field (e.g., theoretical categories, data collection and analysis tools; Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992; Goodwin, 2002; Latour, 1999; Rosaldo, 1993)’’ (p. 310). The notion of research as situated cultural practice (Arzubiaga et al., 2008) provides a framework for our commentary on the articles of this special issue on multidisciplinary collaboration to support struggling readers. We elaborate on and illustrate aspects of this notion before moving to our comments on each article, respectively, and finally to a summary of themes and implications across the 5 articles written by our colleagues in the fields of school psychology and special education, for whom we have great respect. Collectively, the articles present multiple research-based suggestions to support struggling readers, including preschool-age students as well as those with disabilities and English Learners. As a result, this special issue serves as a rich resource for educational practitioners engaged in collaborative and consultative relationships with each other and with families as they work together to ensure that all students experience robust literacy curriculum, instruction, and interventions within educational settings. In relation to our own positionality (i.e., sociocultural location), the first author is a White woman who was a school psychologist in urban K– 8 settings, and the second author is a Black woman who was a teacher, placement specialist, and administrator, also primarily in urban settings. We write our commentary in first person to emphasize the ways in which our individual and collective experience mediated our interpretations of the articles written by our colleagues in the fields of school psychology and special education.

KATHLEEN’S STORY I grew up in a working-class household in which my father’s machining job (where neither overtime nor second and third shifts were uncommon) and my mother’s part-time receptionist job required that our grandmother watch my brother and me at least a few days a week. My parents expected that I did my homework, didn’t cause trouble, and brought home grades in the 90s, and their communication with my teachers was limited to annual parent– teacher conferences. Growing up, my parents’ actions showed me that they


Multidisciplinary Collaboration

167

saw literacy as a tool adults used to access information (my father read the newspaper every night) and recreationally escape (my mother read lots of novels during particularly challenging times). For my brother and me, our parents equated reading with academic success; reading well, they believed, meant that unlike them, we would go to college and get jobs with annual salaries rather than hourly wages. Together with my upbringing, other elements of my professional and personal experiences shape my current perspectives. For certain, my status as a White, female, English-speaking school psychologist with conversational Spanish fluency who worked with predominantly Latina/o, immigrant, or first-generation U.S. citizen Spanish-speaking English Learners (ELs) in Arizona (where a voter-passed English-only instruction exists) contributed to the ways in which I understood student learning, defined student progress, and engaged in special education eligibility processes. Relatedly, understandings of the relationship between reading progress, language acquisition processes, and (in)adequacy of sheltered English immersion language programming as well as beliefs about appropriate family involvement, student behavior, and classroom participation held by primarily White female educators (including myself) converged to shape the ways in which reading was defined, taught, and assessed as well as how students’ reading struggles were remediated and the source for such struggles located. Briefly, within the context of the schools’ use of the scripted Success for All reading program (Slavin et al., 1996), students’ reading capacities and progress were often attributed to observed or narrowly assessed levels of English proficiency and/or assumptions about low-income families that approaches to literacy development in the home were inadequate, or even confusing (e.g., practitioners’ beliefs that speaking Spanish in the home made it more difficult for students to learn to read in English). These factors and more mediated the ways in which reading curriculum was selected, assessment was conducted, progress was determined, struggle was defined, and disability was identified. After 7 years as an urban school psychologist, I entered into a doctoral program funded by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs to prepare culturally responsive special education professors who would, in turn, prepare future culturally responsive special educators. As a doctoral student and research assistant with a leadership role in development and delivery of professional learning resources for the National Center for Culturally Responsive Education Systems (NCCRESt; Principal Investigators: Alfredo Artiles, Beth Harry, Janette Klingner, Elizabeth Kozleski, William Tate; Project Officer: Grace Zamora Durán) and the National Institute for Urban School Improvement (NIUSI; Principal Investigator: Elizabeth Kozleski), my faculty advisors facilitated my reflection on the ways in which I, in my former role and from my sociocultural position, both supported and constrained equity-focused educational practice. I continue to reflect on these issues as an assistant professor of special education

168


and principal investigator of a U.S. Department of Education-funded Equity Assistance Center engaged in research specifically focused on the ways in which multitiered intervention frameworks are applied by educators in local districts and schools.


MARSHA’S STORY My story is one of personal and professional evolution induced by my positionality as a Black girl raised in the South (if one considers Florida ‘‘The South’’), parented by a first-generation college-educated mother, an absent military career-oriented father, a strong-willed-before-her-time grandmother, and a silent/silenced fruit-picking illiterate grandfather, laced with the influences of my colored kindred: all descendants of the African Diaspora. I refer first to my roots because contained therein is the explanation of how I came to be. ‘‘Who is Marsha?’’ can be answered only by examining the Big Ws about Marsha’s life. Similarly, culturally responsive researchers must privilege the stories of participants in their research endeavors, as culturally responsive educators must privilege those of their students. I grew up in a family where reading was valued as evidenced by the plethora of reading materials available in my home; I observed my parents reading the newspaper and other reading materials daily, and I attended preschool where I learned to read and became an excellent reader from an early age. These early experiences empowered me as an educator who believed that regardless of metanarratives about my racially and linguistically diverse students’ ability and potential, I could teach all my students to read. Yet, although I always believed that I could teach my students to read, I have not always recognized the need to know about and honor the cultural resources of my students. When I juxtapose the schooling experiences of my Latina/o and Black students from migrant families in my beginning years as a teacher in Central Florida with those of my Black and Latina/o students in urban South Florida and Georgia districts, I can see multiple ways in which I became more mindful of heritage resources as I developed in my career and through my reflections on the role of own personal identity in affording and/or containing students opportunities to learn. The process of gaining credibility, based on developing relationships of trust, was central in my development of awareness of the role of personal and student culture and identity. In my view, one can gain credibility by engaging with others in ways that reflect openness and transparency so that aspects of identities held in common can emerge and thrive. Over time, I developed credibility with my students in Central Florida because I grew up in the county where my first teaching assignment was located. I had credibility with my students in urban settings because I shared with many race and/or gender and all the trappings that can go with these. Moreover, having been



169

bullied mercilessly throughout my middle and high school years, I ‘‘felt the pain’’ that many of my students experienced being bullied. Finally, I knew what it was like to knock on a door and receive an ambivalent response as many of my students did when they entered classrooms. For whenever I knock on a door, depending on the frame of reference the other holds for Black, middle-aged women, my appearance might illicit one among a range of responses, including ignoring my knock, opening the door and inviting me inside, and speaking to me through a cracked door. Each possible response is likely to lead to a different set of outcomes and circumstances for any continued relationship between the other and me. Absent getting to know one another further, a trusting relationship is unlikely to develop, and neither party is likely to have any impact on the life of the other. I suggest that these factors—identity and credibility—are central to building collaborative and consultative relationships with professionals and families in order to support struggling readers as well as in the process of providing instruction and interventions to students that, beyond a focus on improvement of skills, also builds upon their cultural resources.

EDUCATOR AND INSTITUTIONAL CULTURES AS MEDIATORS OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RESEARCH AND PRACTICE In addition to the individual sociocultural locations of researchers, central to the relationship between research knowledge and professional practices is the role of culture in shaping educators’ practice (Arzubiaga, Artiles, King, & Harris-Murri, 2008) including educators’ individual values, experiences, and beliefs as well as norms embedded in schools that afford and constrain practitioners’ opportunities to improve their practices within them. To illustrate, Thorius (née King) and colleagues (2014) found multiple institutional factors already present in an urban elementary school constrained the ways in which Response to Intervention (RTI) was implemented, including individual practitioners’ deficit assumptions about students and their families and looming layoffs across the district to be applied on the basis of teacher seniority and the performance of teachers’ students on standardized assessments. Accordingly, we see it important to account for the ways in which practitioner and school cultures may mediate interpretations of the suggestions for improvements in practice to support struggling readers presented herein. We suggest that the unique convergence of cultures in educational settings contribute to the ways in which reading curriculum is selected, assessment is conducted, progress is determined, struggle is defined, and disability is determined, or in short, the ways in which the suggestions for improvements in practice may be understood and applied by educators. We emphasize these issues within our comments on each of the five articles.

170



Adding to our framework is our consideration of the ways in which culture shapes researchers’ questions, data collection and analysis, and reporting of findings (Arzubiaga et al., 2008). As members of special education and school psychology research communities, culture, in this case, includes not only the technical dimensions of our fields’ research approaches (i.e., the methods and tools utilized) but also personal, social, and ideological dimensions of researchers’ work, including personal assumptions about research participants, types of social interactions engaged between investigators and participants, and ideologically based understandings of educational constructs. In this case, these constructs might include notions such as reading, intervention, and best practices. We comment on these matters throughout.

SUPPORTING COLLABORATIVE EFFORTS IN IMPLEMENTING EVIDENCE-BASED READING INTERVENTIONS: THE ROLE OF ONLINE DATABASES Coffee, Newell, and Kennedy (this issue) assert that streamlining the identification of reading interventions can facilitate professional collaboration among educators seeking to address the ongoing gap in reading achievement among students across race and disability. The authors discuss the functions of the Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching Children to Read (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [NICHD], 2000) and Developing Early Literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel (National Early Literacy Panel [NIL], 2008) in delineating evidence-based curricula and instruction for teaching reading to preschool and school-age children. Next follows description, analysis, and critique of the processes and products of the What Works Clearinghouse, the Center for Data-Driven Reform in Education, and the Taskforce for Evidence-Based Interventions in School Psychology. The article concludes with a description and rationale for using the Evidenced-Based Intervention (EBI) Network as a tool for providing practitioner-centered interventions as well as serving ‘‘as a platform for collaboration among educational professionals’’ (p. 88). By summarizing the types and scope of reading interventions reviewed; resources provided; and pointing out limitations of selected dissemination websites, that is, variability in quality indicators and ratings systems, lack of or limited considerations of cultural variables, reliance upon experimental designs, and ambiguous evaluators, the authors provide a valuable resource to education practitioners. Practitioners including teachers, administrators, school psychologists, and speech-language pathologists can access the databases informed by this critique, which filters what each does and does not offer to inform practice. We enthusiastically join the calls for interdisciplinary dissemination and implementation of evidence-based interventions and also see the possibilities for advancing interdisciplinary collaborative



171

relationships among practitioners; yet, we note also limitations inherent in a database designed according to principles of ‘‘common problems’’ in academic performance and ‘‘common reasons’’ for behavioral performance of children. Granted, the notion of implementing identified evidence-based interventions within a multitiered, collaborative problem-solving framework aligns with conceptualizations of RTI as a remediation model as opposed to a diagnostic model (Kavale, Kauffman, Bachmeier, & LeFever, 2008). However, situating individual student academic and/or behavioral performance as problematic appears to contradict assumptions underlying collaborative problem-solving approaches wherein ‘‘the emphasis is problem solving rather than problem finding, labeling or ‘admiring’ ’’ (Allen & Graden, 2002, as cited in Burns, Vanderwood, & Ruby, 2005, p. 92). We suggest that practitioners, regardless of disciplinary expertise, apply assets-based approaches to identification of reading interventions rather than deficit-based approaches that negate what students know and are able to do in deference to the opposite (Delpit, 1988; García & Guerra, 2004; Trent, Artiles, & Englert, 1998). In this way, practitioners can investigate and refine more deeply professional practices that will ensure teaching of (pre)literacy skills in ways that promote reading mastery among all learners. That the EBI Network provides modeling of reading interventions is encouraging, yet researchers report that sustainability of professional practice hinges on provision of locally contextualized, ongoing, long-term professional learning experiences, which provide opportunities for practice and feedback (Darling-Hammond, Wei, Andree, Richardson, & Orphanos, 2009; Little & Houston, 2003; McLeskey & Waldron, 2002). Additionally, McLeskey and Waldron (2002) emphasize that professional learning should engage practitioner beliefs and attitudes toward students. The added value of professional learning activities that adhere to the aforementioned principles for teachers of students experiencing reading difficulties cannot be overstated. So, although Coffee and colleagues (this issue) emphasize a need to identify ideal consumers for evidence-based review and how consumers can use that research in their practice, we also suggest a simultaneous focus on the preparedness of practitioners to utilize researcher- and/or practitioneridentified evidence-based interventions. Finally, the authors emphasize that the use of evidence-based practices is not a solitary endeavor. Often and hopefully, they are engaged by educators who together provide reading support as an outgrowth of the collaborative and consultative work of problem-solving teams. Accordingly, effective teaming involves the development of shared responsibilities stemming from reliance on each other’s knowledge about data collection, analysis, and application; goal identification; and progress monitoring. We suggest that in addition to relational, logistical, and structural factors that either advance or hinder the work of problem-solving teams (Williamson & McLeskey, 2011), more nuanced analysis of how evidence-based practices are implemented

172


includes ways in which problem-solving teams (PSTs) access, interpret, and apply them. In other words, research on the implementation of evidencebased practice might include how such practice is mediated through the work of these teams.


CAPITALIZING ON CURRICULUM-BASED MEASUREMENT FOR READING: COLLABORATION WITHIN A RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION/INSTRUCTION FRAMEWORK Weiss and Friesen (this issue) push for expanded analysis of curriculumbased measurements (CBMs) of oral reading fluency (ORF) that many schools utilize as part of universal screening efforts within RTI frameworks. The authors present a strong rationale for deeper analysis and broader applicability of CBM data: although schools make considerable investments in time and human resources to administer CBMs, the analysis is often limited to students’ rate and accuracy scores. Weiss and Friesen suggest additional analysis of prosody (i.e., tone, phrasing, emphasis) to better assess students’ comprehension of what they are reading and word recognition within connected text to explore for typical error patterns that may aid in more focused interventions. We see this suggestion as very useful, as we imagine it will serve to better inform the ways in which reading interventions are designed around the types of remediation from which students would benefit. Moreover, we see a major contribution of this article as opening the door to broader conversation about what types of data are collected and how they are analyzed in determining that students are in need of intervention. The authors state that typically, students performing at or below the 25th percentile on ORF CBMs are considered at risk (Hosp, Hosp, & Howell, 2007) and that as a result, educators meet to identify these students and plan interventions (Bender & Shores, 2007). Although a major focus of the article is on using CBM data to understand individual student reading progress to facilitate intervention planning and evaluation, the authors also allude to the power of shared conversations about assessment data to improve instruction. Indeed, the statement of need to build educators’ technical capacities to collect and analyze data as part of shared practice is an important contribution of this article. We also emphasize a subtle yet crucial point. That is, there is power in collaboration around student assessment data to improve quality and appropriateness of student-specific interventions as well as general education curriculum and instruction. In doing so, when educators look for and identify certain patterns of difficulty not only in individual student performance but also within and across student groups (e.g., ELs, third graders, African American boys), they also engage in scrutiny of the quality and appropriateness of general education curriculum and instruction


173


in relation to these student groups. Reflecting back on the unique position school psychologists (SPs) and speech-language pathologists (SLPs) are in to observe and make connections between the curriculum and instructional practices across all the classrooms in a school building or even within a district, they too, can be instrumental in assessing data from ‘‘units of analysis’’ that go beyond individual struggling students. We urge those in our collective fields to engage in simultaneous conversations about what additional data collection and analysis as part of multitiered intervention frameworks are required to ensure the rigor and quality of Tier 1 Universal Instruction and Interventions.

SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGIST/SPEECH-LANGUAGE COLLABORATION TO SUPPORT STRUGGLING READERS WITHIN SCHOOLWIDE APPROACHES Nellis, Sickman, Newman, and Harman (this issue) discuss the roles of the school psychologist and the speech-language pathologist as collaborators with each other and within schoolwide multitiered frameworks of instruction and intervention. Following a brief review of the process of such a framework (i.e., Response to Intervention), the authors emphasize that educational professionals and specialists bring unique knowledge to collaborative practice that has the potential to create ‘‘a seamless system for providing services to students and families’’ (p. 114). Nellis and colleagues further highlight current shifts in roles for two types of professionals—School Psychologists (SPs) and Speech-Language Pathologists (SLPs)—as SPs increasingly mediate schools’ design and carry-out of RTI frameworks, and SLPs lead school personnel in rethinking and reorganizing ways in which and to whom specialized services are provided. Further, grounded in their assertion that the collaborative relationship between SPs and SLPs stands to be enhanced as part of strengthening RTI conceptualizations and processes in local sites, the authors present a sequential approach for doing so as well as observe exemplar activities SLP/SP dyads engaged in within district-wide RTI processes. We see both of these offerings as substantial contributions to the current literature base on professionals’ roles within RTI frameworks. As the authors suggest, SLPs and SPs are uniquely positioned to lead these activities because of their access to broader school contexts as they work directly with educators and students across classrooms and grade levels. In addition to their shared work around provision and implementation fidelity of evidence-based interventions, assessment, and various models of service delivery, these professionals stand to improve RTI frameworks as they are developed and carried out locally. For future consideration, we also suggest that discussions of how SPs collaborate with other school professionals (including SLPs) examine the ideological cultures of schools


174


within which expertise and power in decision making are often more likely to be ascribed to certain professionals over others (Mehan, 1993; Rogers, 2002). SPs’ social power and influence in schools has been a subject of school psychology research for many years, particularly as related to roles as consultants who have mastered interpersonal influence or persuasion processes (O’Keefe & Medway, 1997), including types of SPs’ social power that may be most effective with ‘‘initially resistant teachers’’ (Erchul, Raven, & Whichard, 2001, p. 487). Although indeed, SPs likely hold expertise about the topics on which they are consulting, research in the areas of linguistic anthropology and critical discourse analysis suggests that at times, SPs presented themselves in ways that silenced data and influence of other key stakeholders in educational decisions, particularly those with less ascribed power in the social systems of schools (e.g., parents, teachers, SLPs). To illustrate, Mehan (1993) analyzed the types of discourse used by educators, a parent, a school nurse, and an SP in a series of multidisciplinary meetings. He found that the SPs’ language, in the form of test names and standard scores, was very privileged over that of the other participants and appeared to be the determining factor for a student being labeled as learning disabled despite contradictory evidence the other participants shared with the researchers immediately prior to the eligibility determination meeting and researcher-collected videotapes of the student’s successful performance on the very tasks for which he had initially been referred. Mehan concluded the following: The psychologist’s language obtains its privileged status because it is ambiguous, because it is full of technical terms, because it is difficult to understand. The parents and the other committee members do not challenge the ambiguity of the psychologist’s report because the grounds to do so are removed by the manner in which the psychologist presents information, grounds assertions, and represents the child in discourse. (p. 258)

Rogers (2002) spent 500 hr observing a student identified as disabled in her home and community and came to similar conclusions after observing two ‘‘Committee on Special Education Meetings’’: Different members of the Committee on Special Education meeting are authorized (or not) to speak based on their position in the hierarchy of the school—that is, psychologists speak first because they have ‘‘official’’ standardized tests; speech therapists and teachers speak next; and, finally, parents. Each person calls on different sources of knowledge that are considered more or less credible. Further, parents are asked to contribute information rather than assuming they will provide the information, as the psychologist would. (p. 216)

Although we firmly believe that SPs have benevolent intent in collaborative and consultative relationships, we suggest that discussions about


175


how SPs develop collaborative relationships with other professionals including SLPs address the historical interpersonal power SPs have held in school settings. As these and other research examples illustrate (Donovan & Cross, 2002; Harry & Klingner, 2006), ideological cultures of schools within which expertise and power in decision making might be ascribed to certain professionals (e.g., SPs) over others (e.g., SLPs) may impede collaborative relationships within which all participants are viewed as bringing valid points of view to the topics and decisions engaged. Regrettably, as a former SP, the first author is able to reflect on times where this was not the case in her own practice. As the second author pointed out, who is knocking on the door and who is on the other side matters.

PRACTICES THAT PROMOTE ENGLISH READING FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS Martínez, Harris, and McClain (this issue) synthesize key findings across three reports (Institute of Education Sciences [IES; Gersten et al., 2007]; National Literacy Panel [August & Shanahan, 2006]; Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence [CREDE; Genesee, Lindhom-Leary, Saunders, & Christian, 2006]) on ‘‘best practices that encourage ELs’ academic achievement, especially in English reading’’ (p. 130). Further, the authors position consultation and collaboration as different forms of school service delivery options that support such practices. The authors’ rationale for this discussion includes concerns that ELs are disproportionality under- and overrepresented in special education due to educator confusion about the relationship between new language acquisition, English-language reading, and disability and that educators are often ill equipped to support ELs through universal instruction as well as focused interventions. Further, as others have also suggested (Klingner & Edwards, 2006; Thorius & Sullivan, 2013; Vaughan et al., 2006), the authors assert that literacy intervention researchers more intentionally investigate ‘‘if what works for monolingual children also works for ELs’’ (p. 131). In raising this critical concern, the authors effectively challenge the notion of ‘‘best practice’’ and how it relates to the EL population in relation to existing research on reading instruction and intervention. Martínez and colleagues culled from their sources the following areas of focus to support ELs’ literacy development across all stages of English language acquisition: (a) teaching vocabulary, cross-linguistic transfer strategies, and oral language development of academic English; (b) frequent use of formal and informal progress monitoring that drives the development of specific reading interventions; and (c) small-group, peer-supportive learning environments. We appreciate the authors’ efforts to build educators’ capacity to support ELs’ English reading through collaborative and consultative relation-


176


ships with other school professionals to ‘‘gain a critical understanding of EL students and become better prepared to serve them’’ (p. 132). Although within their discussion of the first set of strategies focused on language development the authors discuss the strengthening of cross-linguistic transfer through emphasis of phonological skills in the first language, we reflect on the status of a U.S. school system that continues to place less and less emphasis on the importance of bilingual education, including learning to read in a language other than English, despite research that demonstrates students who read well in their primary language perform better in learning to read in a second language (August & Shanahan, 2006). Given the authors’ points that the majority of ELs in the United States speak Spanish as their primary language (Fry & González, 2008), that ‘‘second language acquisition is facilitated when the first and second languages are orthographically and phonologically comparable (Ellis & Beaton, 1993),’’ and that ‘‘reading in Spanish and English, two alphabetic languages, both involve similar phonologic and semantic processes (Adams, 1990)’’ (p. 135), we stress a need for inquiry on the extent to which collaborative relationships that support students’ biliteracy within multitiered intervention frameworks would impact literacy development more than a focus on reading only in English. With regard for the second set of strategies around progress monitoring, the authors recommend that progress is monitored more frequently with ELs who are struggling to acquire literacy skills but also note an absence of research on the validity of using CBMs with ELs. Given the dearth of evidence to support the validity of data on pre-existing CBMs with ELs, Martínez and colleagues suggest that collaborative relationships across school professionals provide a more holistic data picture of ELs reading progress. Indeed, as the authors point out, our collective fields have much work to do in designing and conducting research on progress monitoring for ELs within multitiered intervention frameworks. Through their discussion of peer-mediated, small-group interventions, the authors include those that have been characterized elsewhere as reciprocal, interaction-oriented interventions (Thorius, Artiles, & Sullivan, 2012). In doing so, Martínez and colleagues allude to a construct of reading as not only skill-based but also as a collaborative, social process through which readers make meaning of texts (Gee, 1996; Street, 1995). We suggest that future discussion of reciprocal, interaction-oriented strategies build upon the skill-based interventions delivered in small-group, welcoming contexts, as the authors presented, to include interventions that explicitly account for ELs’ goals for literacy development in schools as well as how ‘‘literacy has been used as a political tool that has both afforded and constrained ELs’ social access and power’’ (Thorius et al., 2012, p. 369) in the United States. With regard for both, the selection of reading texts is especially central to reading instruction and intervention.


177


Finally, we suggest that in addition to the promising skill-based strategies presented in the article, the current body of research on ELs and reading interventions more directly attend to the social and personal histories of ELs in U.S. schools and society and examine these in relation to researchers’ beliefs about ELs, and in this case, the purpose of reading. We appreciate the authors’ focus on collaboration between researchers, practitioners, and families and their identification of logistic (e.g., need for interpreters) and ideological barriers such as deficit thinking that may shape educators’ explanations for why ELs are struggling with reading. Yet, we also contend that the opportunities for collaboration between researchers, practitioners, and EL families around EL reading vis-à-vis the aforementioned set of concerns remain open.

COLLABORATION AND CONSULTATION IN PRESCHOOL TO PROMOTE EARLY LITERACY FOR CHILDREN: LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE CSS CURRICULUM Friesen, Butera, Kang, Horn, Lieber, and Palmer (this issue) applied lessons learned from their analysis of collaborative and consultative relationships in early childhood settings engaged in the Children’s School Success early literacy project (CSS; Odom et al., 2003) to the planning of how these relationships will be leveraged in their application of CSS to include students with disabilities (CSSC). The authors make clear distinctions between collaborative and consultative relationships among educational professionals as well as between educators and families. Collaborative relationships are those in which adults work together to solve problems. Consultative relationships are those characterized by collaboration among adults in which a consultant brings expertise to the process. From their analysis of CSS project data, the authors note several factors that afforded and constrained practitioners’ collaborative relationships with each other. First, the authors state that motivation (or lack thereof) to collaborate impacted the effectiveness and use of the CSS curriculum. They also present data that suggest collaborative partnerships were fostered, and in turn implementation of the CSS curriculum was strengthened, through consultative relationships between the collaborating parties and third-party CSS experts who provided additional support and validation to the practitioner team. Within the context of consultative relationships in the CSS program, the authors point to problems that arose when a Head Start teacher perceived that the special education consultant with CSS expertise looked down on her due to the consultant’s higher level of formal education. Relevant to the analysis of the effectiveness of consultative relationships both within and outside of the CSS program are issues of power inherent between more and less knowledgeable (perceived or actual) parties.


178


The authors also present a findings from a related study in which problems emerged from practitioners’ constraint of family participation by setting up teacher-led and dominated interactions where parents were expected to sit and listen to information about CSS presented to them (Butera, Friesen, & McDonald, 2011). The authors also note relational dissonance stemming from class and ethnicity differences between practitioners and families, which further limited collaboration. We agree wholeheartedly that it is imperative to examine the ways in which professionals position themselves in relation to families, including how class, race, ethnicity, and language mediate such positioning as of less than, equal, or greater status. Although the authors do not present analysis of this relationship directly, it appears that less successful home– school ‘‘collaboration’’ functioned more like consultative relationships in which professionals assumed themselves to be more knowledgeable about students than their families. These assumptions appeared to undermine the very collaboration professionals desired with families, instead contributing to unidirectional relationships within which they expected families to complete schoolwork without understanding home and community resources that could be incorporated into the curriculum. Therefore, it was promising that in another instance a teacher understood and tapped into the home cultures and areas of expertise of families in the design of curricular themes and activities and collaboration, and in turn, student outcomes were stronger. In sum, the authors’ analysis of the implementation of the CSS project illustrate how both consultative and collaborative relationships in early childhood settings may support access and meaningful progress (Martínez, Harris, & McClain, this issue) in early literacy for all children, including those identified with disabilities. The strategies that appeared most effective will be applied to their new project—CSSC—to support what the authors assert are necessary features of a curriculum that promotes early childhood literacy education for all students: that it is clearly described, comprehensive and cohesive across content areas, differentiated, and focused on strengthening home–school connections. The authors provide examples of ways in which consultative relationships may support the development of such a curriculum by providing expertise about, but not limited to, (a) the importance of early literacy skill building; (b) a specific curriculum that integrates literacy activities across content areas, combines social and academic literacy activities, and is aligned with formal learning standards; (c) Universal Design for Learning and its usefulness as a framework for the design of instruction; and (d) varied forms of student participation that maximize small-group instructional time. The authors also emphasize the importance of collaborative partnerships in supporting early literacy development and explain that future early childhood family literacy projects connected to their development of CSSC curriculum will include emphasis on school–home partnerships for



179

the planning of instructional activities that build on children’s existing home literacy practices. Within the context of CSSC, we suggest that consultative relationships may also support educators’ learning more about on how to recognize and build upon home literacy practices in light of research that suggests that such practices are often under- or unaccounted for by teachers as well as culturally mediated. We suggest this is particularly relevant for majority background educators whose ideas of what counts as appropriate or valid literacy practices may differ from those engaged in the families of students who belong to minority racial, ethnic, and linguistic groups. To illustrate, in a seminal study on educator and student discourse during a routine literacy activity—‘‘sharing time’’—Michaels (1981) found that mismatch in discourse style between a White teacher and African American first grader resulted in the teacher limiting the student’s opportunities to engage in the activity. Alternatively, when the discourse patterns used in home literacy practices (e.g., storytelling) are valued in the discourse of narrative and writing in school curriculum, we suggest that early literacy programs may be strengthened.

CLOSING COMMENTS We hope that our comments are received as appreciative, constructive, and supportive in advancing conversations about the centrality of culture in how researchers and practitioners alike situate reading and its importance to students and their families and approach it as both an individual and social activity within collaborative and consultative relationships focused on supporting struggling students. We applaud the editors’ creation of a special issue synthesizing research knowledge from a multidisciplinary group of scholars and practitioners to address a ‘‘seemingly intractable literacy achievement gap between children of poverty or from nondominant cultures and those of more economically advantaged and mainstream communities’’ (p. 75). We, too, see gaps in educational opportunities and outcomes between student groups as one of the most important equity concerns of our time. Accordingly, deep knowledge of our participants is crucial to ensuring that research supports effective practice that engenders relevant and rigorous learning content and processes, particularly in reading, where achievement gaps persist based on student classifications.

FUNDING We acknowledge the support of the Great Lakes Equity Center under Grant S004D110021 awarded by the U.S. Department of Education. Funding agencies’ endorsement of the ideas expressed in this article should not be inferred.

180



REFERENCES Allen, S. J., & Graden, J. L. (2002). Best practices in collaborative problem solving for intervention design. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (4th ed., pp. 565–582). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists. Arzubiaga, A. E., Artiles, A. J., King, K. A., & Harris-Murri, N. (2008). Beyond research on cultural minorities: Challenges and implications of research as situated practice. Exceptional Children, 74, 309–327. August, D., & Shanahan, T. (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the national literacy panel on language-minority children and youth. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Bender, W. N., & Shores, C. (2007). Response to intervention: A practical guide for every teacher. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press & Council for Exceptional Children. Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. D. (Eds.). (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Burns, M. K., Vanderwood, M. L., & Ruby, S. (2005). Evaluating the readiness of pre-referral intervention teams for use in a problem solving model. School Psychology Quarterly, 20(1), 89–105. doi:10.1521/scpq.20.1.89.64192 Butera, G., Friesen, A., & McDonald, A. (2011, April). Understanding teacher instructional decision-making in a rural Appalachian Head Start program: An ethnography. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association Conference, New Orleans, LA. Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the United States and abroad. Dallas, TX: National Staff Development Council. Retrieved from http://www.nsdc.org/news/NSDCstudy2009.pdf Delpit, L. D. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people’s children. Harvard Educational Review, 58, 280–298. Donovan, M. S., & Cross, C. T. (Eds.). (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Ellis, N. C., & Beaton, A. (1993). Psycholinguistic determinants of foreign language vocabulary learning. Language Learning, 43, 559–627. Erchul, W. P., Raven, B. H., & Whichard, S. M. (2001). School psychologist and teacher perceptions of social power in consultation. Journal of School Psychology, 39, 483–497. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4405(01) 00085 Fry, R., & González, F. (2008). One-in-five and growing fast: A profile of Hispanic public school students. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center. García, S. B., & Guerra, P. L. (2004). Deconstructing deficit thinking: Working with educators to create more equitable learning environments. Education and Urban Society, 36(2), 150–168. doi:10.1177/0013124503261322 Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. London, UK, and Bristol, PA: Taylor & Francis. Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W., & Christian, D. (2006). English language learners in U.S. schools: An overview of research findings. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 10, 363–385.



181

Gersten, R., Baker, S. K., Shanahan, T., Linan-Thompson, S., Collins, P., & Scarcella, R. (2007). Effective literacy and English language instruction for English learners in the elementary grades: A practical guide. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Goodwin, C. (2002). Time in action. Current Anthropology, 43(Suppl.), 19–35. Harry, B., & Klingner, J. (2006). Why are so many minority students in special education? Understanding race & disability in schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Hosp, M. K., Hosp, J. L., & Howell, K. W. (2007). The ABCs of CBM: A practical guide to curriculum-based measurement. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Kavale, K. A., Kauffman, J. M., Bachmeier, R. J., & LeFever, G. B. (2008). ResponseTo-Intervention: Separating the rhetoric of self-congratulation from the reality of specific learning disability identification. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31, 135–150. doi:10.2307/25474644 Klingner, J. K., & Edwards, P. A. (2006). Cultural considerations with response to intervention models. Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 108–117. Latour, B. (1999). Pandora’s hope: Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Little, M. E., & Houston, D. (2003). Research into practice through professional development. Remedial and Special Education, 24(2), 75–87. doi:10.1177/07 419325030240020301 McLeskey, J., & Waldron, N. L. (2002). Professional development and inclusive schools: Reflections on effective practice. The Teacher Educator, 37, 159–172. Mehan, H. (1993). Beneath the skin and between the ears. In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice (pp. 241–269). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Michaels, S. (1981). Sharing time: Children’s narrative style and differential access to literacy. Language in Society, 10, 423–432. National Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy. 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: Reports of the subgroups (NIH Publication No. 00-4754). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Odom, S. L., Butera, G., Diamond, K., Hanson, M. J., Horn, E., Lieber, J., & Palmer, S. (2003). Children’s school success: An experimental study of a school readiness curriculum. Bloomington: Indiana University. O’Keefe, D. J., & Medway, F. J. (1997). The application of persuasion research to consultation in school psychology. Journal of School Psychology, 35, 173–93. Rogers, R. (2002). Through the eyes of the institution: A critical discourse analysis of decision making in two special education meetings. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 33, 213–237. Rosaldo, R. (1993). Culture & truth: The remaking of social analysis. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Dolan, L., & Wasik, B. A. (1996). Every child, every school: Success for all. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.


182


Street, B. V. (1995). Social literacies: Critical approaches to literacy in development, ethnography, and education. London, UK, and New York, NY: Longman. Thorius, K. A. K., Artiles, A. J., & Sullivan, A. L. (2012). Effective reading interventions for English language learners. In M. Tankersley & B. Cook (Eds.), Effective practices in special education (pp. 44–60). Columbus, OH: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall. Thorius, K. A. K., & Sullivan, A. L. (2013). Interrogating instruction and intervention in RTI research with students identified as English language learners. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 29, 1, 64–88. Thorius, K. A. K., Maxcy, B. D., Macey, E., & Cox, A. (2014). A critical practice analysis of Response to Intervention appropriation in an urban school. Remedial and Special Education. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0741932514522100 Trent, S. C., Artiles, A. J., & Englert, C. S. (1998). From deficit thinking to social constructivism: A review of theory, research, and practice in special education. Review of Research in Education, 23, 277–307. Retrieved from http://www.jstor. org/stable/1167293 Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., Mathes, P. G., Cirino, P. T., Carlson, C. D., Hagan, E. C. : : : Francis, D. J. (2006). Effectiveness of Spanish intervention and an English intervention for first-grade English language learners at risk for reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 56–73. Williamson, P., & McLeskey, J. (2011). An investigation into the nature of inclusion problem solving teams. The Teacher Educator, 46, 316–334. doi:10.1080/08878 730.2011.604399 Kathleen A. King Thorius, PhD, is an Assistant Professor of Special Education and Principal Investigator of the Great Lakes Equity Center, both at Indiana University’s School of Education at Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI). Dr. King Thorius’s research is concerned with educational access, participation, and outcomes for students, with particular attention to the ways in which systemic factors, including educational policy and educator practices, converge in classrooms to shape the experiences of underrepresented students, including those with disabilities. Marsha Simon, PhD, brings to bear more than 25 years of experience in K-12 educational settings as a special education teacher, school improvement specialist and site administrator. Dr. Simon currently works as the Assistant Director of Technical Assistance and Professional Learning for the Great Lakes Equity Center—a U.S. Department of Education Equity Assistance Center located at Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI)—where she provides strategic direction for technical assistance to local and state agencies in Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin. Note: The authors report that to the best of their knowledge neither they nor their affiliated institutions have financial or personal relationships or affiliations that could influence or bias the opinions, decisions, or work presented in this article.