to prepare special education teachers and administrators. This article explores the ... responsive school-community partnerships for preparing special educators.
Teacher Education and Special Education 2004, Volume 27, No. 3, 224-230
Preparing Special Educators for CulturaIly Responsive School-Coniummunity Partnershiod ps Bridgie A. Ford, Ph.D. Abstract. Todays increasingly multicultural student population requires that school-community partnerships operatefiom culturally responsive frameworks. Inco orating significant resourcesfrom muliticultural communities is an essential component within school-community partnerships. Although siech a partnership is an essential strategy, it has not been filly integratedinto teacherpreparationprograms. To this end, colleges and universities have an awesome roe to ay in reframini content andfield experiences to prepare special education teachers and administrators. This article explores the necessity of cuilturally responsive school-community partnershipsfor preparingspecial educators.
A ccountability for effective schools is presently viewed as everyone's business. Of late, educators and the public at-large have become aware that schools, in isolation, cannot provide children with the resources they need to be successful as competent citizens. Not surprisingly, shared responsibility between schools and communities has been heralded as a major strategy to address the complexity of issues prevalent in today's schools. The national movement toward school-community partnerships underscores the importance of innovative thinking in teacher preparation programs. A primary goal of this initiative is to create networks to aid all children and youth to succeed in school and in later life (Epstein, 1995). This is accomplished by bringing together schools and a variety of existing social and health agencies; community organizations; individ-
uals; and businesses to promote students' social, emotional, physical, and intellectual development (Banks, 1997; Dryfoos, 2002; Jehl, Blank, & McCloud, 2001; Nettles, 1991; Obiakor, 2001, 2004; Obiakor, Grant, 224
..............
& Dooley, 2002; Sanders, 2001; Wang, 1997). Current student demographic changes necessitate a broad re-structuring of schoolcommunity partnerships to address the needs of multicultural learners with and without exceptionalities. Over one third of the students in U.S. public schools are from multicultural and/or bilingual backgrounds. Thle three fastest growing groups are Hispanic Americans, African Americans, and Southeast Asian Americans (Grossman, 1998). The large population of students from multicultural groups requires that districts embrace school-community partnerships that specifically increase the quality of services for these youth. Doing so demands a culturally responsive framework for school-community action plans that can improve academic success, cultural competence, and critical consciousness (Ladson-Billings, 1995). Through school-community partnerships, general and special educators are challenged to establish authentic bonds with multicultural students and obtain in-depth knowledge about them
School-Community Partnerships Bridgie A. Ford by networking within their communities and incorporating relevant experiences and resources into classroom practices. Using this paradigm, a culturally responsive school-community structure would (a) provide meaningful services which improve educational outcomes for multicultural youth, (b) utilize significant cultural resources that possess knowledge about multicultural students' experiential backgrounds, and (c) support the resiliency and empowerment of multicultural learners and their families. The predicament, however, is that public schools like the general society have traditionally viewed multicultural communities or economically disadvantaged/disenfranchised communities from a deficit perspective (Ford, 1995, 2002). It is no surprise that community neighborhoods are viewed as "good" or "bad" based on their racial or ethnic composition (Obiakor, 2001). The question is, "How can general -and special educators be prepared to take advantage of significant community resources in multicultural neighborhoods?" This article responds to this critical question. School-Community Partnerships: Conceptual Frameworks Communities play dominant roles in students' educational advancements. Logically, partnerships between schools and communities offer optimal opportunities for the growth of children and youth. Sanders (2001) revealed that schools underutilize community partners such as faith based organizations (e.g., churches), volunteer organizations, community-based organizations (e.g., sororities, fraternities, and neighborhood associations), and individuals in the school community volunteering their time, energy, and talents. These are essential elements of multicultural communities. Because of the multidisciplinary needs of some youth with exceptionalities, special education teachers often possess some knowledge of and/or first hand experiences with public service providers (e.g., medical and mental agencies, social services, and juvenile service). This knowledge, however, usually does not extend to significant resources within multicultural communities. Teacher preparation
programs appear
tO have failed to equip their graduates with the knowledge, skills, and attitudes required to develop culturally responsive school-community partnerships. If educators are to effectively use school-community partnership as a strategy to positively reform educational outcomes for all students, including those from multicultural backgrounds, special training must be provided. They must be prepared to partner with Significant Multicultural Communities Resources (SMCR) in order to improve schooling for multicultural learners with exceptionalities (Ford, 1995, 2002). In spite of the historic recommendations advocated within school reform documents and gains made from legislative mandates to promote equitable opportunities and higher academic gains, the educational state of affairs for many multicultural youth with and without disabilities remain dismal (Ford, Obiakor, & Patton, 1995). About 50 years after the Brown decision, racially and ethnically diverse youth still are not afforded quality schooling (Obiakor & Utley, 2004). As a result, they still confront the following issues:
o Low GraduationRates: In 2001, the high school graduation rate was 75% for White students, 53% for Hispanic American students, 51% for Native American students, and 50% for African American students, with lower rates for males within these populations (Orfield & Lee, 2004). @ DisproportionateRepresentations:Multicultural and bilingual youth have limited access to services for learners with gifts and talents and remain over-represented in special education programs for students with cognitive and/or behavioral difficulties (Artiles & Trent, 1994; Cartledge, 2004; Continho & Oswald, 2004; Obiakor, 2004; Obiakor & Ford, 2002). o Catastrophic Conditions in Schools: Presently, 23 of the 25 largest school systems in the country are heavily composed of students from multicultural groups. African American and Hispanic students attend schools where two-thirds of the students are African American and Hispanic with most students being from their own group (Orfield & Lee, 2004). Many of the schools have limited funding and resourc225
TESE,
Volume 27, No. 3
Summer 2004 es, inexperienced or unqualified teachers, lower educational expectations and career options, non-motivating instructional techniques and curriculum content, high teacher turnover rate, and unsafe physical facilities (Obiakor et al., 2002; Orfield & Lee, 2004). 0 Limited Parental/Community Involvement Many multicultural parents have a history of negative experiences with schools. Differences in income, language, dialects, values, and belief systems impact involvement of multicultural parents and communities with the school. Consequently, they are reluctant and/or intimidated to take advantage of their legal rights (Harry, 1995; Marion, 1980; Obiakor & Ford, 2002). The aforementioned problems demonstrate the imperative nature of school-community partnerships. In his classical work, Cummins (1986) concluded that the major reason previous attempts at educational reform have been unsuccessful is that the relationships between teachers and students and between schools and communities have remained essentially unchanged. He emphasized that the required changes needed to involve personal redefinitions of the way classroom teachers interact with children and the communities they serve. A comprehensive culturally responsive school-community partnership can serve as a strategy to authentically address the endemic problems confronting multicultural learners with exceptionalities. Essential components of this partnership incorporates significant resources from multicultural communities. Therefore, preparing special educators to connect with these resources is fundamental. In accomplishing this, teacher preparation programs must respond to three key questions. How do they systemically align accreditation standards, paradigms, and practices to reform the professional development of pre-service students? How do they equip students with the necessary professional tools (e.g., knowledge, skills, and attitudes) to advocate for and incorporate a culturally responsive school-community partnership model in schools? And, how do they prepare special educators and administrators to promote the consistent in226
clutsion and participation of multicultural youth with exceptionalities in schoolicommunity activities?
Components of Culturally Responsive School-Comnmunity Partnerships School-community partnerships vary in type and degree. Terms such as integrated, collaborative, coordinated, school linked services, community schools, fill service community schools, and 21P, centutry schools are used to describe program models that reflect the present school-community movement (Dryfoos, 2002; Rigsby, 1995). This current "linking of resources" paradigm encompasses two interrelated premises. First, as previously stated, schools alone cannot adequately address the multitude of problems confronting today's youth. This reality is more pronotinced for districts in urban, low socioeconomic locales where the prevalent problems include poverty; poor health; hunger; physical, mental or substance abuse; unemployment; and teen pregnancy. These out-of-school, noneducational predicaments serve as barriers to students' academic achievement. The second premise focuses on the need to secure the involvement of significant others (i.e., parents and community leaders) who have a direct stake in what happens to youth. Effective school-community partnerships are beneficial to all students; and they are especially critical in maximizing educational opportunities for students from multicultural and/or bilingual backgrounds (Banks, 19971 Comer, 1989; Epperson, 1991; Ford, 2002; Obiakor, 2001; Obiakor et al, 2002). For instance, Epperson called attention to the need for collaboration among public schools, multicultural communities, and parents as essential toward the enhancement and development of youth. Obiakor (2001) and Obiakor et al. (2002) advocated capitalizing upon community resources to advance the plight of all learners using the Comprehensive Support Model (CSM). Based on this model, students, families, schools, communities, and governmental agencies must collaborate and consult to solve educational and societal problems. However, given the persistent assumptions about multicultural populations
School-Community Partnerships Bridgie A. Ford
and their communities by public institutions, precautions should be taken to help ensure that the delivery of needed services is done within a positive and culturally responsive framework. For example, Kemper, Spitler, Williams, and Rainey (1999) interviewed African American adults about the important characteristics and criteria that their youth needed to be successful. They found that their needs included healthy self concept, appropriate behaviors, and connectedness. Interestingly, these findings have direct implications for teacher preparation programs, especially when the challenge today is on school-community networks. The provision of culturally responsive services must permeate the entire schoolcommunity network. To enhance accountability, a student cultural systems approach may serve as a framework when instituting the inclusion of SMCR into existing schoolcommunity partnerships (Ford, 2002). This student cultural systems framework places multicultural children with and without disabilities at the core of community services to the school by significant nonprofit multicultural organizations/agencies. Thus, the student cultural systems approach includes multicultural community involvement activities which embody (a) the student's values, beliefs, affirmations, and socialization that are reflected in delivery of noneducational and educational offerings to youth and families via the programmatic themes, topics, activities, strategies, maierials, communication styles, program location, and parental involvement; and (b) significant multicultural organizations, agencies, clubs, religious groups, and individuals that make up the immediate school community and those "atlarge" that target youth as a priority. Moll, Amanti, Neff, and Gonzalez (1992) used the term funds of knowledge to refer to historically accumulated and culturally developed bodies of knowledge and skills essential for household or individual functioning and well-being. In their work, they focused on preparing teachers to obtain and use household information regarding Mexican and Yaqui families and communities' funds of knowledge. They concluded that an awareness and incorporation of the student's household and community funds of knowl-
edge can help educators draw on the resources outside the context of the classroom. As indicated, the SMCR include not-forprofit services or social organizations, sororities, fraternities, clubs or agencies, religious group/churches, and individuals that local community residents perceive as providing valuable significant services (Ford, 1995, 2002). For example, within many segments of the African American community, the African American church remains an important leadership institution (Billinsley & Caldwell, 1991). It extends a host of outreach programs to support educational programs (e.g., early childhood and literacy programs). Innovative programs that have made efforts to enhance the quality of Latino parent participation include Fiesta Educativa, the Say Yes to a Youngster's Future, the MALDEF Parent Leadership Program, and the Parent Empowerment Program-Students Included/Padres en Poder-Si (PEP-si) (Casas & Furlong, 1994; Rueda, 1997). In many cities, community resources that target the needs of American Indians may be centralized or confined into a local or regional "Indian Center." Many general and special educators are teaching in "site-based" managed schools whereby the locus of decision making shifts from centralized bureaucracies to more local district and school levels (Cook, Weintraub, & Morse, 1995). Under this organizational arrangement, general and special educators, including teacher educators are required to take on new leadership and collaborative roles and make decisions that impact the entire school. Given the current priority of improving school-community relationships, this is a major decision-making issue. General and special educators must see themselves as advocates for all students, including multicultural youth with exceptionalities. In advocacy roles, they must rethink ways to complement service delivery to these students. Accordingly, they can help facilitate their inclusion within SMCR programming activities. Specifically, SMCR provide numerous benefits to multicultural learners with exceptionalities (Ford, 2002). These include: 0 Resilience-enhancing
resources through 227
TESE,
Volume 27, No. 3
Summer 2004
* o o
o
accessible adult role models, mentors, and advocates. Reinforcement of school-related skills through academic motivation, tutoring, and test-taking skills. Exposure to self-enhancing/affirming activities (e.g., rites of passage). Avenues for sensitivity toward culturally responsive programming through face-toface encounters between administrators, teachers, and multicultural families and community resource persons. Opportunities to enhance communication between schools, families, and communities.
Preparing Special Educators for School-Community Partnerships The type of school-community linkages advocated for multicultural communities requires (a) the support and commitment of all major stakeholders (e.g., school administrators, certified/licensed school personnel, non-licensed staff, and the targeted SMCR); and (b) the adequate preparation of school personnel. The combined efforts of a supportive administrator, a designated coordinator, and committed building level team are correlates of successful school-community partnerships (Dryfoos, 2002; Jehl et al., 2001). To prepare preservice level special education teachers to productively collaborate with SMCR, certain knowledge, skills, and attitudes are imperative. Future teachers and service providers must be exposed to enrichment readings, multicultural workshops, first hand experiences within SMCR, self-reflective activities, and varied systems of communication. These experiences may come in the form of a three-phase model (Ford, 2002), namely: 1. Phase One: This deals with reshaping attitudes and personal redefinitions via selfreflective assignments. Self-knowledge is a critical part of the process because it helps future teachers to know their privilege, power, pride, and prejudice. 2. Phase Two: This deals with reviewing and refining of school-community partnership networks. Specifically, it entails: 0 The proper examination of roles and responsibilities. 228
o The critical evaluation of historic and existing school-community partnerships with SMCR (e.g., policies, goals, practices, and outcomes). O The collaborative participation in SMCR youth activities. O The adequate refinement of existing structures and practices to include SMCR. o The innovative creation of a database detailing SMCR. o The concrete determination of SMCR for school-community partnerships. o The consistent construction of varied systems of communications with SMCR. 3. Phase Three: This deals with promoting successful participation of youth with exceptionalities within school SMCR partnering activities. This entails: o The real institution of collaborative procedures with SMCR regarding participation of youth with exceptionalities. O The collaborative construction of varied systems for disseminating information about SMCR to parents. o The adequate integration of appropriate SMCR activities in the classroom. o The proper implementation of mionitoring systems regarding the impact of SMCR activities on students' school performance.
If SMCR are to be systematically infused within school-community partnerships and used to impact outcomes for youth with exceptionalities, there mrust be changes in knowledge, skills, and attitudes of future school personnel. For instance, teacher preparation programs must offer courses that focus on how to: 1. Examine past and current school-linkages with SMCR. 2. Communicate with SMCR. 3. Share information about SMCR with other professionals. 4. Share information with parents about relevant SMCR. 5. Incorporate into the classroom environment education enhancing knowledge and skills. 6. Document changes in students' school performance and behavior. 7. Share with other professionals and parents
School-Community Partnerships Bridgie A. Ford
changes in school performance and behavior. 8. Share with SMCR impact of programming on students' school behaviors.
Conclusion This article provides a framework for establishing authentic linkages between teacher preparation programs and SMCR. It emphasizes that significant resources from multicultural communities are important elements of a culturally responsive school-community partnership. As a result, teacher preparation programs must engage in systematic processes that connect their future general and special educators with relevant resources within the communities of multicultural learners with exceptionalities. To achieve the goal of maximizing the fullest potential of these learners, preservice programs must make sure that their graduates acquire the knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed for 21S1 century schools. In the end, there must be mutual partnership that respects and treats all involved as equal stakeholders excited about the future of multicultural children and youth.
References Artiles, A, & Trent, S. (1994). Over-representation of minority students in special education: A continuing debate. The Journal of Special Education, 27, 410-437. Banks, C. A. M. (1997). Parents and teachers: Partners in school reform. In J. A. Banks & C. A. M. Banks (Eds.), Multicultural education: Issues andperspectives (pp 408-426). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Billinsley, A., & Caldwell, C. H. (1991). The church, the family and school in the African-American community. Journalof Negro Education, 60, 427-440. Cartledge, G. (2004). Another look at the impact of changing demographics in public education for culturally diverse learners with behavior problems: Implications for teacher preparation: A response to Festus E. Obiakor. In L. M. Bullock & R. A. Gable (Eds.), Qualitypersonnelpreparationin emotional/behavioraldisorders: Current perspectives and f lature directions (pp. 64-69). Denton, TX: University of North Texas, Institute for Behavioral and Learning Differences. Casas, M. J., & Furlong, M. J. (1994). School counselors as advocates for increased Hispanic parent participation in schools. In D. Pederson & J. Carey (Eds.), Multicultural counseling in schools: A Practical handbook (pp. 121-156). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Comer, J. P. (1989). The school development pro-
gram: A psychosocial model of school intervention. In G. L. Berry & J. K. Asaman (Eds.), Black students: Psychosocial issues and academic achievement (pp. 264-285). Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press. Continho, M. J., & Oswald, D. P. (2004). Preparing educators to teach culturally diverse students with emotional and behavioral disorders: A response to Festus E. Obiakor. In L. M. Bullock & R. A. Gable (Eds.), Quality personnelprcparationin emotional/behavioral disorders: Current perpectives andfiture directions (pp. 70-78). Denton, TXY University of North Texas, Institute for Behavioral and Learning Differences. Cook, L., Weintraub, F., & Morse, W. C. (1995). Ethical dilemmas in the restructuring of special education. In J. Paul., H. Rosselli, & D. Evans (Eds.), Integrating school restructuringand special education refonn (pp. 119-139). Fort Worth, TXY Harcourt Brace. Cummins, J. (1986). Empowering minority students: A framework for intervention. Harvard EducationalReview, 56(1), 18-35. Dryfoos, J. (2002, January). Full-service community schools: Creating new institutions. Phi Delta Kappan 83, 393-399. Epperson, A. I. (1991). The community partnership: Operation rescue. Journal ofNegro Edulcation, 60, 454-458. Epstein, J. L. (1995). School/family/community/ partnerships. Phi Delta Kappan, 76. 701-712. Ford, B. A. (1995). African American community involvement processes and special education: Essential networks for effective education. In B. A. Ford, F. E. Obiakor, & J. M. Patton (Eds.), Effective education of African American exceptional learners: New perspectives pp. 235-272). Austin, TX- Pro-Ed. Ford, B. A. (2002). African American community resources: Essential educational enhancers for African American children and youth. In EE. Obiakor & BA. Ford (Eds.), Creatingsuccessjul learningenvironments for 4 African American exceptional learners (pp.159-17 ). Thousand Oaks, CA. Corwin Press. Ford, B. A., Obiakor, E E., & Patton, J. M. (1995.), Effective education of African American exceptional learners:New perspectives. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Grossman, H. (1998). Special education in a diverse society. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Harry, B. (1995). African American families. In B. A. Ford, E E. Obiakor & J. M. Patton (Eds.), Effective education of African American exceptional learners: Newv perspectives. (pp. 211-233). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Jehl, J., Blank, M., & McCloud, B. (2001). Education and community building. Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Leadership. Kemper, K A., Spitler, H. Williams, E., & Rainey, C. (1999). Youth service agencies: Promoting success for at-risk African American youth. Family and Community Health,22, 1-15. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). But that's just good 229
TESE, Volume 27, No. 3 Summer 2004 teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy. Theory Into Practice, 34, 159-165. Marion, R L. (1980). Communicating with parents of diverse exceptional children. Fxceptional Children, 46, 616-623. Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N., (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory Into Practice, 31 (2), 132-141. Nettles, S.M. (1991). Community contributions to school outcomes of African-American students. Education and Urban Society, 24, 132-147. Obiakor, F. E. (2001). It even happem in 'good" schools: Responding to cultural diversity in todays classrooms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Obiakor, E E. (2004). Impact of changing demographics on public education for culturally diverse learners with behavior problems: Implications for teacher preparation. In L. M. Bullock & R. A Gable (Eds.), Quality personnelpreparation in enotional/behavioraldisorders: Currentperpectives andfitture directions (pp. 5163). Denton, TX University of North Texas, Institute for Behavioral and Learning Differences. Obiakor, E E., & Ford, B. A. (2002). Creating sucessfiul learning environments for African American learners with exceptionalities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Obiakor, E E., Grant, P. A., & Dooley, E. A.
230
(2002). Educating all learnes: Refocutsing the comprehensive support modeL Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. Obiakor, F. E., & Utley, C. A. (2004). Educating culturally diverse learners with exceptionalities: A critical analysis of the Brown case. PeabodyJournalofEducation, 79, 141-156. Orfield, G., & Lee, C. (2004). Brown at 50: King! dream or Plessys nightmare?Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project, Harvard University: Rigsby, L. C. (1995). Introduction. The need for new strategies. In L. C. Rigsby, M. Reynolds, & M. Wang (Eds.), School/community connections (pp. 1-18). San Francisco, CA. Jossey-Bass. Rueda, R (1997, January). Fiestaeducativa:A community-based organization.Paper presented at the Council for Exceptional Children Multicultural Symposium, New Orleans, IA. Sanders, M. G. (2001). The role of "community" in comprehensive school, family, and community partnership programs. The Elementary Sehool Journal,
102(1), 19-34. Wang, M. C. (1997). Next steps in inner-city education: Focusing on resilience development and learning success. Education and Urban Society, 29, 255-276. Bridgie A. Ford, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Cgrricular& InstructionalStuidies, University ofAkron.
COPYRIGHT INFORMATION
TITLE: Preparing Special Educators for Culturally Responsive School-Community Partnerships SOURCE: Teach Educ Spec Educ 27 no3 Summ 2004 WN: 0420200450002 The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it is reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article in violation of the copyright is prohibited. To contact the publisher: http://www.cec.sped.org/
Copyright 1982-2004 The H.W. Wilson Company.
All rights reserved.
