W2 d1

Vol. 74. No. 3, pp. 372-388. ©2008 Council for Exceptional Children.

Collaboration With Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Families: Ideal Versus Reality

BETH HARRY University of Miami

ABSTRACT: This Teview identifies research-based definitions of ideal collaborative relationships be-

tween special education professionals and culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) families of

children with disabilities, examines research on actual collaboration with such families, and makes

recommendations regarding improvement of such collaboration. The main sources of literature are

research and opinion publications in peer-reviewed journals and books by leading scholars. The re-

view concludes that barriers to the implementation of ideal practices include deficit views of CLD

families, cross-cultural misunderstandings related to the meanings of disability, differential values

in setting goals for individuals with disabilities, and culturally based differences in caregivers' views

of their roles. Recommendations for change and improvement focus on personnel preparation and

on implementing existing models of effective practice.

F amily participation is one of the central tenets of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA). Implementation of

this mandate is important to all families of chil- dren with disabilities. There are three main areas of concern, however, regarding the participation of culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) families. First, children of African American, Latino, and Native American groups represent a disproportionately large percentage of certain dis- ability categories and a disproportionately small percentage of gifted programs (Donovan & Cross, 2002; Ford, Crantham, & Whiting, 2008; U.S. Department of Education, 2007). An un- derstanding of parents' views of and roles in the placement process should be an integral aspect of

professional preparation and professional prac- tice. Second, our nations history of exclusion and marginalization of CLD groups continues to pre- sent the education system with the challenge of historically embedded prejudices that are rein- forced when children from such groups have the further characterization of disability (Artiles, 2003; McHatton & Correa, 2005). Third, be- cause the concept of disability is defmed differ- ently across cultures (Fadiman, 1997; Kalyanpur & Harry, 1999; Lo, 2005), the potential for cross-cultural miscommunication is extremely high when service providers' cultural frameworks differ from those of the families they serve.

The purposes of this review are three-fold: (a) to identify the key requirements for collabora- tive relationships between professionals and CLD families, (b) to examine the nature of actual

3 7 2 Spring 2008

collaboration with CLD families of children with disabilities, and (c) to provide recommendations regarding improving such collaboration.

A previous review of literature on profession- als' interactions with CLD caregivers (Harry, 1992) provided a summary of studies in the pe- riod between the Education of all Handicapped Children Act (EHA) in 1975 and IDEA in 1990. Because of the paucity of research on this topic during that era, that search strategy was broad based, including doctoral dissertations and com- missioned, unpublished documents in the ERIC database. The current review builds on this earlier effort, and incorporates published studies and po- sition statements from 1990 to 2006 identified through a combination of electronic database and hand searches. The ERIC and Psych Lit databases provided the main vehicles for electronic searches, supplemented by hand searches of the journals Exceptional Children, Topics in Early Cbildhood Education, The Journal of Special Education, and Mental Retardation. The search focused on views of collaboration between CLD families and ser- vice providers in special education, and included all age ranges and types of disability served under the IDEA.

THE VISION OF COLLABORATION

IN SPECIAL EDUCATION

The vision of ideal home-school interactions in education during the second half of the 20th cen- tury shifted from one of supporting the school administration to a wide range of types of partici- pation (Epstein, 2001). Epstein oudined six roles, any or all of which should be available to care- givers: (a) parenting that supports children's participation in schooling, (b) parental communi- cation with the school as needed, (c) volunteering at the school, (d) supervising and/or assisting in homework, (e) participating in school-based deci- sion-making committees, and (f) serving as a liai- son between school and community.

In special education, however, the vision is more intense. The governing principles of IDEA include requirements for the informed consent of caregivers, and recent reauthorizations (in 1997 and 2004) have made these demands even more stringent. Specifically, these reauthorizations in-

clude the requirement that school districts take all necessary steps to ensure that caregivers under- stand the proceedings of individualized education program (IEP) conferences (e.g., include an inter- preter in the case of caregivers who are deaf or whose native language is other than English). IDEA also requires schools to provide adequate notice of meetings, attempt to schedule meetings at a mutually agreed on time and place, maintain accurate records of such attempts, and provide caregivers with copies of their children's IEPs.

As reflected in Part C of the law, conceptual- izations of early intervention services have moved from provider-centered services to an ideal of family-centered services (Dunst, 2002). In this model, goals should be determined by families and in response to family needs, resources, and cultural norms (Turnbull & Turnbull, 2000). This principle has also been recommended for prereferral practices under Part B of the law (Argus-Calvo, Tafoya, & Grupp, 2005). In an even stronger statement pertaining to children with emotional disturbance, Osher and Osher (2002) called for a "paradigm shift" that differen- tiates between "family-focused and family-driven approaches" (p. 47), underlining a shift in power from professionals to caregivers. As a caveat to this view, Kalyanpur, Harry, and Skrtic (2000) emphasized that because many parents have nei- ther the skills nor the time to engage in initiating advocacy, this responsibility should be assumed to be the appropriate purview of service providers.

Visions of home—school collaboration with families of children with disabilities have evolved within an emerging "adaptational context" (Fer- guson, 2002, p. 127). Professionals gradually have come to understand that caregivers' reactions to disabilities represent resilience and adaptation rather than pathology, and that providing ade- quate external supports can make a tremendous difference in outcomes for family members with disabilities. As the subsequent section will show, this realization has generated several attempts to define, in operational terms, those characteristics that constitute effective collaboration between professionals and the families they serve.

Singer (2002) pointed to caregiver satisfaction as a key indicator of the effectiveness of home-school collaboration. In his review of stud- ies on this topic. Singer concluded that caregiver

Exceptional Children

satisfaction seemed to be generally higher than re- searchers' expectations. This apparently surprising conclusion has been explained by some researchers in terms of the relativity of satisfaction to one's prior expectations and to cultural variations in conceptualizations of the role of professional ser- vices (McNaughton, 1994; Meyers & Blacher, 1987). Findings on this topic are mixed for CLD families, however. For immigrant groups, previ- ously limited access to schooling for children with disabilities, cultural assumptions regarding the high status of school authorities, and limited as- sumption of individual rights sometimes result in expectations that would be low by traditional mainstream American standards (Kalyanpur & Harry, 1999; Lynch & Hanson, 2004). On the other hand, expressions of satisfaction should not always be taken at face value; some studies point to the difficulty in knowing whether apparent caregiver satisfaction is really a function of defer- ence to authority (Harry, 1992; Lai & Ishiyama, 2004). Moreover, other studies expose CLD fami- lies' expressions of dissatisfaction with services, such as translation at conferences (Lo, 2005; Park & Turnbull, 2001; Park, Turnbull, & Park, 2001). A study using in-depth focus groups with Japanese mothers in Japan (Kasahara & Turnbull, 2005) suggested rather high expectations for nonhierar- chical, collaborative relationships with service providers. Meanwhile, for historically oppressed or marginalized CLD groups such as African Ameri- cans or Hispanic Americans, the notion of satisfac- tion is rather different: Scholars have long argued that caregiver expectations may be negatively af- fected by the history of exclusion from or marginalization in public schools, and by aware- ness of prejudice and discrimination (Artiles, 2003; Marion, 1979; Zionts, Zionts, Harrison, & Bellinger, 2003).

SEEKING CLD FAMILIES'

DEFINITIONS OF COLLABORATIVE

RELATIONSHIPS

Researchers have used a range of methods to elicit caregivers' own definitions of the characteristics of collaborative and helpful relationships with pro- fessionals. These efforts have yielded some clear directions but continue to face several challenges.

specifically, a relatively narrow range of racial and socioeconomic diversity in the samples, low response rates to survey methods, and a limited age range of students.

Conceptualizations of early intervention services have moved

from provider-centered services to an ideal of family-centered services.

The issue of age range is notable; the concern with home-school interactions in special educa- tion has been spearheaded by leading researchers in early intervention, who have tended to focus on the development of family-centered profes- sional practice (Dunst, 2002). Dunst's compre- hensive review of this work observed that early interventionists were perceived by families as being kinder and more responsive than were providers of services to older students, but noted that creating positive relationships was not the same as encouraging genuine caregiver participa- tion. Dunst's review, however, did not mention the percentage of CLD families involved in the range of research on the topic.

Researchers continue to be challenged in ac- cessing the views of CLD families, particularly when using survey methods. In a study of care- giver's views of collaboration, Dinnebeil, Hale, and Rule (1996) noted that their conclusions were limited by the fact that of 1,134 caregivers to whom questionnaires were sent, only 397 (35%) responded, of whom 76% were Caucasian. In a study of 147 caregivers. Summers, Hoffman, Marquis, Turnbull, Poston, and Nelson (2005) re- ported that, despite efforts to diversify the sample through organizations serving traditionally under- served communities, the response rate appeared to be between 15% and 18%, of whom approxi- mately 19% represented four CLD groups.

Blue-Banning, Summers, Frankland, Nelson, and Beegle (2004) have provided the most de- tailed information on CLD families' definitions of collaboration. With a diverse sample and a more interactive process, this research involved 34 focus groups and 18 face-to-face interviews across 137 families. The sample included a range of age, socioeconomic status, and ethnicity: 4 1 % African

3 7 4 Spring 2008

American, 17% Latino, 30% White, and 4% other. Six central characteristics of effective col- laboration emerged: (a) communication that is positive, understandable, and respectful; (b) com- mitment to the child and family; (c) equal power in decision making and service implementation; (d) competence in implementing and achieving goals; (e) mutual trust; and (f) mutual respect. The researchers concluded that inculcating these principles should not require a great investment in new resources because "common sense and or- dinary human decency are at the heart of positive partnerships between families and professionals serving children with disabilities" (p. 181).

Building on the characteristics identified by Blue-Banning et al. (2004), Summers, Hoffman, Marquis, Turnbull, Poston, and Nelson (2005) developed the Family-Professional Partnership Scale, a tool for assessing "parents' perceptions of the importance of, and their satisfaction with" (p. 65) partnerships across age and severity of disabil- ity. The authors concluded that the scale is useful for assessing caregiver satisfaction across a range of service types, ages, and disability levels. How- ever, they observed two continuing limitations: the need for testing the tool on a more diverse group and the likely instability of the psychomet- ric properties of "satisfaction," which they de- scribe as a "relatively temporary state" (p. 11^. In a follow-up study by Summers, Hoffman, Mar- quis, Turnbull and Poston (2005), the Family- Professional Partnership Scale yielded significant differences between caregivers' levels of satisfac- tion according to children's ages. However, de- spite efforts to recruit a diverse population and administering the survey through presentations at parent meetings, the authors once again found their sample limited by socioeconomic status and ethnicity. Citing Dillman (2000), the researchers offered the opinion that fewer CLD groups and respondents with low levels of formal education tend to volunteer for or complete paper-and-pen- cil surveys.

The continuing difficulty in accessing the views of CLD parents in survey research under- scores the need for face-to-face, qualitative re- search methods (Arzubiaga, Artiles, King, & Harris-Murri, 2008). Blue- Banning et al. (2004) succeeded in reaching a broad range of families because of the use of carefully designed personal-

ized contacts and interactions that included focus groups and individual interviews, conducted by community-based coordinators. The quality of data from such a study can be relied on because the design included responsive interviewing (Rubin & Rubin, 2005) in which the interviewer invited caregivers to clarify their points through examples, follow-up probes, and group debrief- ing.

Criteria for credibility in qualitative research continue to stimulate debate. In a review of re- search on the participation of African American caregivers, Davis, Brown, Bantz, and Manno (2005) called for an "operational definition" (p. 26) of caregiver involvement in the context of es- tablished criteria for trustworthiness in qualitative research. As explained by an established body of scholarship on qualitative methods (e.g., Guba & Lincoln, 2005), such criteria are an absolute re- quirement. Nevertheless, research such as that by Blue-Banning et al. (2004) oudined a convincing analysis of a multiplicity of complex cultural per- spectives, without the restraining impact of re- searchers' preconceived "operational" definitions. Charmaz (2006), in challenging the deductive logic on which such definitions are based, argued that with such an approach, "the research is locked into the [researcher's] original concepts" (p. 17). Certainly, as Singer (2002) and Davis et al. recommended, combinations of methods pro- vide the field with greater balance in research findings. For example, in a study by Cho, Singer, and Brenner (2003), a combination of qualitative interviewing and quantitative analysis demon- strated consistent findings that Korean mothers in their home country experienced more difficulties with social stigma than did their immigrant coun- terparts in the United States.

" C O M M O N S E N S E A N D

O R D I N A R Y H U M A N D E C E N C Y "

OR ENC U L T U R A T I O N ?

The above phrase from the conclusion of the Blue- Banning et al. (2004) study of parents' views of the characteristics of professional collaboration must resonate with all who have entered the homes of families and found that honesty and re- spect are truly "at the heart of positive partner-

Exceptional Children

ships" (p. 181). In that study, extensive examples of parents' positive statements about effective pro- fessional characteristics supported the researchers' conclusions. Similarly, in a study of Puerto Rican families' views, Harry (1992) cited the words of Ana, a mother who initially had low expectations of Elizabeth, a Spanish-speaking American who had recently been hired as the school liaison for Puerto Rican families. Over the course of 2 years, because of Elizabeth's consistent demonstrations of respect and support. Ana's description of her changed from "una Americana" (said with a shrug) to "someone you can trust" (said with a smile).

Yet, a crucial caveat is warranted here. Cer- tainly, with respect, trust can be earned, and "or- dinary human decency" should dictate what respect looks like. Nevertheless, because our cul- tures and accustorried contexts provide us with lenses that predispose us to a particular view of re- ality, common sense may represent the unques- tioned, taken-for-granted assumptions that Bowers (1984) described as being central to the process of enculturation. Bonilla-Silva (2006), in considering the insidious nature of racism, argued that "common sense" represents the interests of "the ruling ideology" and excludes "alternative frames, ideas and stories based on the experiences of subordinated races" (p. 10). Moreover, because deeply rooted beliefs influence pur interpretation of all that we encounter, even efforts at "human decency" may be interpreted differently according to cultural and/or historical lenses.

In analyzing the concept of "normalization," Harry, Rueda and Kalyanpur (1999) observed that what is "riormal" to one group may be an anathema to another. Moreover, assumptions ahout what is "normal" can restilt in distorted in- terpretations of the lives of those perceived as "other." For example, in a study by Harry, Klingner and Hart (2005) of the strengths of three African American families living in poverty, "common sense" assumptions about appropriate family structure resulted in school personnel's be- lief that, because only five of a mother's nirie chil- dren lived with her, the others must have been "farmed out somewhere" (p. 107). The other four oldest children, in fact, lived with their paternal grandparents in another state. Further, because this mother was known to have a history of drug abuse, school personnel also believed that her

weight loss over a summer vacation indicated that she had resumed her drug use. The mother, it turned out, had beeri on a Slim-Fast diet. Further, because this family's home was in a very poor, urban neighborhood, "conimon sense" dictated that home visits were beyond the purview of school personnel. Yet, without such visits, this mother's personal organizational skills and nur- turing approach to her children were invisible to school personnel, whose incorrect stereotypical interpretations continued unchecked.

A similar gap in understanding was poignantly illustrated by Lea (2006) in her ethno- graphic study of the views of six adolescent moth- ers (five Black and one White) of children with disabilities. Extensive interviews and observations with mothers and service providers revealed that assumptions of deficit mothering blinded the ser- vice providers to the mothers' strengths. The re- sulting lack of trust was exemplified by one mother who stated that she did not inform her provider that she was getting private speech ther- apy for her son, because the provider saw her as "just another young Black girl who had a baby and not married . . . I know she look down on me but I just play the game . . . They don't know me. They don't know nothin' about me" (p. 272).

The challenge of being aware of the limita- tions of one's cultural lens was revealed in an in- teresting study by Sexton, Lobman, Constans, Snyder, and Ernest (1997). These researchers sur- veyed 170 early interventionists in a southern state regarding their perceptions of their own multicultural practices with African American families. The gtoup coniprised 67% White, 29% Black, and 4% Hispanic/Asian/other early inter- vention practitioners. Overall, all groups rated their own attitudes and interactions with African American families as being more sensitive to mul- ticultural issues than were the administrative sup- ports provided by their agencies. However, there was a significant difference benyeen White and Black interventionists' self-ratings of their own in- teractions with African American families: The White interventionists' self-ratings were more positive than those of their African American col- leagues. The researchers refiected on this apparent puzzle as follows: "Cultural empathy . . . may eri- able these [African American] interventionists to appraise more realistically how accomplished they

3 7 6 Spring 2008

and their colleagues are in their multicultural practices with African American families" (p. 6). The researchers concluded that, without "vigor- ous" training of service providers in multicultural practices, we should not be surprised at the con- tinued low involvement of families of color in early intervention programs. Sontag and Schact (1994) also noted the possibility of unacknowl- edged discriminatory practices in their survey of 536 families in the southwest receiving early in- tervention services. The findings revealed signifi- cantly less provision of and access to services among low-income and minority families. Sontag and Schact believed that service providers were "unconsciously or unknowingly" (p. 430) limiting the information they provided to such families.

Professional enculturation and the influence of school cultures may also taint one's lens in in- sidious ways. Mehan, Hartwick, and Meihls' (1986) classic 5-year ethnographic study of deci- sion making in special education referral, assess- ment, and placehient revealed the built-in hierarchies, social pressures, and logistical realities that determined decision outcomes. These re- searchers found that caregivers had a minimal role in decisions, and that team decisions typically rep- resented "ratifications" of previous, often unoffi- cial, agreements among team members—for example, when team members were already aware that there were only limited placements available. Harry and Klingner's (2006) 3-year ethnographic study of the placement process for Black (African American, Haitian, and other Caribbean ethnici- ties) and Hispanic students in a large urban school system produced similar findings, with the addi- tion of pressures of statewide testing and ethnic and linguistic bias. Further, analysis of 240 audio- taped interviews with Black, White, and Hispanic school personnel revealed a widespread, explicit negativity toward Black families living in poverty. Stereotypical assumptions about drug abuse, promiscuity, and family dysfunctionality often re- placed attempts to discover families' real situa- tions, and influenced the decisions that were made about children's diagnosis and programs. Similarly, Knotek's (2003) microethnographic analysis of the discourse in 40 student conferences with African American families from predominantly low in- come backgrounds produced very similar findings, including that school personnel's impressions of

parents' socioeconomic conditions, marital status, and educational level negatively affected children's diagnoses and anticipated prognoses.

An ideal vision of coUabotation is dominant in special education and is typified by the find- ings of Blue-Banning et al. (2004), which speci- fied six characteristics: positive communication, commitment to children and families, equity, competence, trust, and respect. However, includ- irig the views of CLD families in such assessments requires considerable face-to-face, personalized forms of research. Moreover, cross-cultural misun- derstanding, assumptions of family deficit, and professionals' unawareness of their own biases can serve as obstacles to implementing this vision with CLD families in special education.

I M P L E M E N T I N G T H E V I S I O N :

S T U D I E S OF P R O F E S S I O N A L

C O L L A B O R A T I O N W I T H C L D

C A R E G I V E R S

Research focusing specifically on professional col- laboration with CLD caregivers is now extensive. Viewing the entire spanof thiS Hterature—from early studies soon after initial passage of the Edu- cation for all Handicapped Children Act (EHA) in 1975, and those since the reauthorizations of IDEA—provides a view of the continuing issiies that need to be addressed as well as the progress that has been made.

IN THE WAKE OF EHA

Within the first 15 years after the passage of EHA, several studies of the participation of CLD families highlighted issues that were to become central themes of subsequent research. As cited below, these key themes were

• The history of mistrust engendered by previ- ous exclusion from public schooling.

• Professional insensitivity to the logistics of family participation among low-income groups.

• The limited provision of information on parental rights and responsibilities under EHA.

Exceptional Children 3 7 7

Studies of the obstacles faced by low-income African American parents in the IEP process set the stage for this body of research (Cassidy, 1988; Marion, 1979; Patton & Braithwaite, 1984). Marion stated that a history of mistrust between African American parents and desegregated school systems was exacerbated by caregivers' knowledge that their children were being placed in special education programs at disproportionately high rates. Caregivers emphasized school personnel's insensitivity to the need for logistical supports, such as appropriate scheduling of conferences, child care, and transportation, as well as the nega- tive impact of professionals' assumptions that family differences represented deficits. Further, it was evident that parents were poorly informed about their rights under EHA. Studies by Sullivan (1980) and Tomlinson, Acker, Canter, and Lind- borg (1977) evidenced the role of professionals in this disempowerment. Specifically, Sullivan found that professionals offered minimal or no explana- tions of the special education process, as they be- lieved that parents living in poverty either did not care about, or would not understand the issues. Tomlinson et al., in a survey of 355 students re- ferred for services in an urban school system, found that service providers contacted African American parents less than other groups and of- fered them a narrower range of services.

Studies of Latino, Asian, and Native Ameri- can caregivers were also noted during this period. Bennett (1988), examining the placement process for Latino deaf students, found exclusionary prac- tices very similar to those described with African American populations. Lynch and Stein (1987), comparing the perceptions and involvement of African American, Latino, and White parents in the special education process, found lower rates of participation and awareness of rights among the former two groups. Chan's (1986) study of Asian American families and studies of Native American families by Connery (1987) and Sharp (1983) identified cultural conflicts based on difiering in- terpretations of disabilities and of professional roles.

IN THE WAKE OF IDEA

As awareness increased regarding cultural issues in communicating with parents of children in spe-

cial education, the 1990s saw a spate of studies focusing on African American and Latino parents' perceptions, with a lesser number addressing the needs of Asian and Native American families. Overall, these studies underscored the patterns al- ready identified and revealed: That despite the in- creasing emphasis on family involvement in the IDEA of 1990, professional interactions with CLD families in special education continued to fall far from the ideal. This literature identified four main themes: cross-cultural differences in understandings of the meaning of disability, deficit views of CLD families, cultural conflicts in the setting of transition goals, and differential un- derstanding of caregivers' roles in the education system.

Cross-Cultural Communication and Cultural Views of Disability. Harry's (1992) ethnographic study of 12 Puerto Rican families' perspectives and participation revealed severe cultural mis- matches in understandings of the meaning of the disability construct. Puerto Rican parents' defini- tions included much broader parameters of nor- malcy, resulting in shock and disbelief at the application of labels, such as "mentally retarded," "learning disabled," and "emotionally disturbed" for children who could speak both Spanish and English, could read and write (sometimes better than their parents), and were seen by their fami- lies as bien educado (well brought up/socialized). Communication gaps were equally severe, with one mother not knowing that her child had been moved to another school, and others having no understanding that their "meetings with the teacher" were actually conferences that produced an official document (the IEP). In a replication of the study, Harry, Allen, and McLaughlin (1995) spent 3 years investigating the participation of 24 African American caregivers of preschoolers desig- nated as having high-incidence disabilities. The study found parental confusion about and dis- agreement with labels, similar to those of the Puerto Rican families in the earlier study. Just as a Puerto Rican mother had exclaimed that retar- dado refers to a person with severe impairments, so did an African American father, who explained that mental retardation meant, "when you really need some heavy personal attention . . . But, I guess, in the schools they use that term for any litde difference" (p. 370). The study also docu-

3 7 8 Spring 2008

mented that a professional emphasis on compli- ance rather than communication undermined parents' efforts at advocacy and deterred parents' intentions to attend conferences. Over the course of 3 years, parental participation declined as a re- sult of these deterrents.

A series of studies based on 250 Mexican and Puerto Rican mothers of children with disabilities provided multiple perspectives on issues related to discrimination and cross-cultural misunderstand- ing (Bailey, Skinner, Correa, et al., 1999; Bailey, Skinner, Rodriguez, Cut, & Correa, 1999; McHatton & Correa, 2005). Along with a study of Latina mothers by Zetlin, Padron, and Wilson (1996), these studies demonstrated the powerful cultural discontinuities between the perspectives of school personnel and families. In the study by Bailey, Skinner, Correa, et al. (1999) a survey of 200 families (couples) with children under age 6 who had developmental disabilities revealed that their greatest needs were in the area of informa- tion about services, the child's disability, and how to teach their children. With the exception that caregivers with higher levels of English profi- ciency reported higher levels of support, the wide variability in needs and supports reflected individ- ual variation rather than any particular trend re- lated to variables, such as gender or number of years in the country.

Fadiman's (1997) ethnographic study of be- liefs about epilepsy and other medical conditions among the Hmong dramatically illustrated the difficulties of understanding cross-cultural issues by means of "common sense." This report of the intense conflicts between a young girl's family and the medical establishment highlights the need for collaborative professional approaches. Although the family's attribution of epilepsy to a spiritual condition would challenge the common sense of most Western professionals, the doctors' refusal to collaborate with the family around their beliefs re- sulted in the child receiving minimal help.

Deficit Views of Eamilies. Discussions of the concept of family "risk" have produced a list of factors that typically include poverty, family struc- ture, and mother's age and educational level (Sameroff, Seifer, Baldwin, & Baldwin, 1993). Al- though it is beyond dispute that poverty increases the probability of numerous other risk factors (Donovan & Cross, 2002; Scarborough et al..

2004), Harry and Klingner's (2006) ethnographic interviews with service providers revealed that thoughtless generalizations of such information were fueled by racial stereotypes embedded in the taken-for-granted belief systems of professionals of all ethnic groups.

Most distressing is the finding that these be- liefs actually infiuenced the decisions made about children. In Knotek's (2003) study of school con- ferences, the most infiuential negative perceptions were of families' economic level, marital status, and educational level. The deficit view was exac- erbated when school personnel knew family members' personal histories because the parents themselves had been in the school system. This information tended to be introduced early in the problem identification phase of child study con- ferences and infiuenced the outcomes of delibera- tions about placements and services. Language introduced by high status team members set the terms of the discourse, such as use of the term "lightbulb" as a metaphor for a child's intrinsic cognitive competence, and then took precedence over a lower status team member's suggestion that home routines, such as bedtime, might be related to the child's variable performance. In contrast, Knotek found that students from higher SES families were more likely to be viewed positively and from multiple perspectives. Similarly, in Harry and Klingner's (2006) study, interview and observation data revealed that a psychologist's pre- conceived and untested assumptions about family dysfunction were major contributors to the deter- mination of emotional disturbance (ED) for Kanita, an African American second grader whose mother was incarcerated but who lived in a strong, extended African American family unit headed by her paternal grandmother. In a differ- ent school, Robert, an African American second grader who displayed troubling behavior, was placed on half-day school placement. His mother, who was single, unemployed, and had two chil- dren younger than Robert, was required to pick him up from school at 11:00 every morning. This arrangement lasted for 5 months, during which time Robert's behavior deteriorated to such a point that his diagnosis of ED had become a fore- gone conclusion.

In contrast to the prevailing stereotype oflow involvement, Harry et al. (1995) found that, of

Exceptional Children

24 African American mothers involved in a 3-year study of parental participation, the 6 who were single and living alone were noted to be particu- larly proactive and assertive, despite discouraging actions by service providers such as scheduling conferences at the last minute without considera- tion of mothers' availability. Kalyanpur and Rao (1991) and Rao (2000) also noted the potential of such mothers for efî ective advocacy. Kalyanpur and Rao's study of the experiences of single African American mothers in an outreach pro- gram focused on the disempoweting effects of practitioners' deficit views of the mother's child- rearing strategies. Similar issues of labeling, nega- tive judgment, and disrespect of families were the central themes of Rao's qualitative case study of the disillusionment and exclusion of a single African American mother.

The theme of deficit views of families is at the center of many CLD families' call for respect. Zionts and colleagues (2003), through interviews with the caregivers of 24 African American chil- dren with moderate to severe emotional or cogni- tive disabilities, found that over half the gtoup did not feel respected by service providers. Parents felt that professionals' negative judgments were based on disrespect (both of families' culture and children's disabilities) and that their satisfaction with their children's services was "inextricably tied to issues of respect and levels of comfort (or rela- tionship quality) between parents, teachers and children" (p. 50). Similar concerns were expressed in McHatton and Correa's (2005) examination of perceptions of stigma and discrimination among Mexican and Puerto Rican mothers. These moth- ers experienced much discrimination that they in- terpreted as being based on culture and on disability, in both community and professional contexts.

Darling and Gallagher's (2004) survey of needs and supports among 120 (60 African American and 60 European American) caregivers of young children with disabilities emphasized the importance of attending to the individual circum- stances of families, as opposed to assuming that all members of an ethnic group needed the same services. In noting responses both by ethnicity and by rural or urban location, the researchers found that urban African American caregivers noted greater needs in the area of personal and

family growth than the other groups. However, on the dimension of family supports, the opposite was true: The researchers found significant differ- ences by rural/urban status but not by ethnicity. Most notable was the fact that urban parents re- ported receiving less overall support than their rural counterparts. Coming almost 12 years after a similar survey by Sontag and Schact (1994), the continuation of this pattern of differential access to services is of great concern.

The theme of deficit views of families is at the center of many

CLD families' call for respect.

The legacy of racism and negative stereotypes pervades education at all levels. At the opposite end of the cognitive ability spectrum, we would expect that the hope of the future lies in children determined to have particular gifts and talents. Yet, one study on the views of African American parents of children in gifted programs (Huff, Houskamp, Watkins, Stanton, & Tavegia, 2005) displayed the same theme of deficit thinking that marks the attitudes of professionals towards fami- lies of children with disabilities. The researchers, through interviews with 12 families whose socioe- conomic status ranged from low to upper-middle income, found consistent themes of inadequate identification and services for their children, and racist barriers that limited their children's success. Despite proactive and assertive involvement in their children's education, these families found advocacy to be an uphill battle and, in the words of one mother, felt that "the teachers' expectations are that they [the children] are kind of stupid . . . even when they're working with gifted clusters . . . the teachers' expectations for the most part, I think . . . is that they're not going to do well" (p. 219).

As Dading and Gallagher's (2004) differentia- tion of unique family needs indicated, an empha- sis on cross-cultural mismatches is not intended to encourage a stereotypical view of diversity. General statements about traditional beliefs and practices of a group may be true in the big picture, but may be modified according to generational, socioeco- nomic, or geographical status. In a review of stud-

3 8 O Spring 2008

ies on the involvement of African American fami- lies, Davis et al. (2005) expressed the concern that a focus on low-income families may obscure or ig- nore important intragroup differences and may perpetuate a vision of low parental involvement. It is, indeed, important to broaden the sample base of CLD families. In a 5-year action research study of 8 families' visions of their children's social lives (Harry, Kalyanpur, & Day, 1999), the parents of four African American children, who were all mid- dle-income professionals, were strong advocates for their children. One mother's advocacy for in- clusion for her preschooler with Down syndrome was so powerful that her daughter became the first child in their county to receive on-site interven- tion services upon her transition from Part C to Part B of IDEA. However, it is crucial to note that several studies of low-income CLD families re- vealed that, although such caregivers were less skilled in engaging in advocacy, their high levels of involvement clearly contradicted professionals' be- liefs about such families' low involvement (Harry et al., 1995; Harry, Kalyanpur, et al., 1999; Harry et al., 2005).

Cross-Cultural Conflicts in Setting Coals for Transition. The IEP is the centerpiece of IDEA's vision of individualization. However, setting goals for individuals does not occur in a social or cul- tural vacuum. Although goals for various transi- tional points are likely to vary across cultures throughout the lifespan, the two most obvious points of confiict tend to be in early childhood and young adulthood. For infants and young chil- dren, commonly cited issues revolve around de- velopmental timetables for weaning from breast or bottle, independent feeding and exploration, and toileting (Lynch & Hanson, 2004). In young adulthood, the press for decision making becomes more urgent. Because mandated special education services stop at age 21, well-meaning professionals are anxious to set effective transition plans for their young adult clients (Blacher, 2001; Kraemer & Blacher, 2001).

Studies of Latina mothers' views of transition planning for their young adult children with moderate to severe disabilities reveal the continu- ing need for professionals in special education to recognize that their vision of transition to adult- hood represents assumptions shared by the domi- nant society, rather than universal values (Rueda,

Monzo, Shapiro, Gomez, & Blacher, 2005; Shapiro, Monzo, Rueda, Gomez, & Blacher, 2004). Rueda et al. referred to such confiicts as representing contrasting "cultural models" (p. 403), which may challenge some of the most deeply embedded values in American society, namely, independence, autonomy, economic pro- ductivity, and assimilation into the larger society. In this study of 16 Latina mothers of young adults with developmental disabilities, the re- searchers warned that, although cultural models must be taken into account in developing transi- tion plans, it is equally important not to assume that group membership will dictate cultural prac- tices. Their findings, nevertheless, revealed a strong pattern of shared vision by these mothers, which contrasted with the aforementioned values that underpin the field's vision of transition ser- vices. The researchers stated, "the overarching theme that emerged from the data was mothers' view of transition as home-centered, sheltered adap- tation as opposed to a model emphasizing inde- pendent productivity" (p. 406). Conflicting expectations were related to professionals' as- sumptions (a) that school-leaving rather than marriage was a natural transition period, (b) that independence was assumed to take precedence over family interdependence, and (c) that service providers did not recognize mothers' right to make final decisions about their adult children's lives—which included the responsibility to pro- tect their vulnerable children from a dangerous outside world.

Similar themes were found with a Domini- can and a Salvadorean family in Harry, Kalyan- pur, and Day's (1999) action research. Rosa, the Salvadorean mother of a young woman with cere- bral palsy, was pleased at the researchers' efforts to engage 21-year-old Silvia in travel training, but when the researchers proposed actually testing Sil- via's independent travel skills, her mother refused and made it clear that she saw this activity as a di- version rather than a real goal for Silvia. The Do- minican parents, Felix and Felicita, were delighted with the opportunity for their son Rafael, who had Down syndrome, to participate in a YMCA summer camp—but only if he were accompanied by his brother.

Most pertinent to this discussion is the im- pact of deeply embedded cultural models on com-

Exceptional Children 3 8 1

munication. Essentially, the Latina mothers in Rueda et al.'s study (2005) expressed mistrust of service providers, who they believed deliberately failed to provide the mothers with access to infor- mation that would empower them. The re- searchers concluded that "the lack of a shared model [with service providers] appeared to lead to confusion, misunderstanding, and isolation" (p. 412). In the case ofthe 5-year action research by Harry, Kalyanpur, et al. (1999), the researchers, who prided themselves on cultural sensitivity, were surprised to discover that their own assump- tions about independence as a goal had blinded them to Rosa's real view of the travel training ef- fort. Harry (1996) offered extensive refiections on the impact of various aspects of researcher iden- tity in that study, such as increased comfort level because of shared gender with the mothers, the researcher's personal history as a mother of a child with a disability, and intrapersonal confiicts en- gendered by the researcher's "inclusionist" stance.

An additional point regarding CLD families and transition planning is the potential for profes- sionals' underestimation of parents' actual partici- pation. In a study comparing service providers' and CLD parents' views of participation, Geenen, Powers, and Lopez-Vasquez (2001) reported sig- nificantly less caregiver involvement than did the families themselves. First, the researchers ac- knowledged that this could refiect bias in parents' self-reports. Nevertheless, they also proposed the possibility that professionals' definitions of "in- volvement" were based on school-based transition planning, not taidng into account that this may represent "only one arena in which parents seek support and begin preparing for their child's tran- sition" (p. 271). If professionals' interactions with parents are limited only to school-based activities, their lack of awareness of community and other cultural contexts will limit their understanding of families' cultural models and practices.

Culturally Based Views of Caregivers' Roles. Confiicts regarding parental empowerment are often exacerbated by CLD parents' traditions of deference to authority and their expectations that professionals' expertise should trump caregivers' knowledge. Although this issue has long been noted among Latino families (Harry, 1992; Lynch & Hanson, 2004), studies of mothers of Chinese (Lai & Ishiyama, 2004) and Korean (Cho et al..

2003) origins point to this pattern as one of the key issues in acculturation for such groups. In these studies, the tradition of deference was rein- forced by caregivers' appreciation of services that had not been available in their home countries. The impact of deferential behavior to authorities has also been noted among American-born mi- norities, as in examples of African American care- givers in studies by Harry and Klingner (2006) and Harry et al. (1995).

I M P L I C A T I O N S FOR

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

Closing the gap between ideal and reality in col- laborating with CLD families requires intensive efforts at professional preparation. Further, limita- tions inherent in the research point to the need for a range of methodologies that can be effective in reaching and including CLD families.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES

A combination of research methodologies is es- sential in gaining an authentic understanding of families' perspectives. We often do not know why CLD caregivers have not responded to research invitations; it seems reasonable to assume that is- sues would include logistical challenges, level of education and English language literacy, and is- sues of mistrust and misunderstanding that occur in the provision of services. Further, although rat- ing scales and surveys provide a broad view of re- spondents' perspectives, they do not provide the reasons or the processes by which the respondents came to these views. Educational programs must prepare academicians who understand the value of qualitative methods and the skills to seek the reasons behind numbers.

PRESERVICE AND INSERVICE PERSONNEL

PREPARATION

Both inservice and preservice personnel prepara- tion programs must be revised to place cross- cultural education at the highest priority. Essen- tial aspects of such preparation should include (a) coursework in multicultural histories and issues, (b) personal values clarification regarding diver- sity, (c) critical perspectives on the assumptions

Spring 2008

and processes by which CLD children are placed in special education, (d) preparation and practice in the actual communication processes needed in cross-cultural situations, and (e) internships or practicum placements in diverse racial and socio- economic settings.

Coursework on Multicultural Issues. The histo- ries of oppressed or excluded groups have often been omitted or distorted by school curricula (Spring, 2007). In my experience in leading doc- toral seminars on diversity, even mature students express shock at discovering the histories of minor- ity groups within our country. Despite their shock and, in many cases, an initial tendency to resist the information, these students eventually express ap- preciation at being exposed to this information, and begin to understand the reasons for the con- tinuirig mistrust evident in the interactions of some traditionally underserved groups of parents.

Personal Values Clarification. Becoming aware of others' histories and cultures allows profession- als to begin to become aware of their own precon- ceptions and prejudices. For example, in collaborating with families, common sources of misunderstanding include unawareness of racial privilege (Mclntosh, 1989), as well as assump- tions about the value of science over spirituality in treating disabilities; the importance of the indi- vidual over the gtoup; and culturally different at- tributions of disability (Kalyanpur & Harry, 1999; Lynch & Hanson, 2004) or giftedness (Ford et al., 2008).

Critical Perspectives on tbe Assumptions and Practices of Special Education. As Skrtic (1995) ob- served, professional preparation in special educa- tion has not reflected a critical perspective; students are seldom encouraged to examine their own and the field's assumptions about disabilities and about professional expertise. Skrtic pointed to the impact of bureaucratic structures and hier- archies on decision making in special education. Understanding these issues is essential to profes- sionals' efforts to engage in unbiased and rational practice. The following are but a few of the ques- tions that need to be addressed:

• To what extent is the emphasis on individu- ality in special education law (IDEA) a re- fiection of American cultural values?

• How might this and other values come into confiict with those of diverse families?

• To what extent do the disability categories recognized by the law represent verifiable conditions, and to what extent are they social constructions?

• How do socially constructed notions of dis- ability vary across cultures?

• How has the history of racial segregation in the United States interacted with the devel- opment of special education?

Preparation and Practice in Cross-Cultural Communication. Although respectful interactions are the basic underpinning of all effective com- munication with families, professionals are often unaware of how their communication styles may serve as barriers to rather than facilitators of col- laborative partnerships. Scholars have developed various approaches to this issue.

Common sources of misunderstanding include unawareness of racial privilege, as well as assumptions about the value of science over spirituality in treating

disahilities, the importance ofthe

individual over the group, and culturally different attrihutions of disahility.

Lynch and Hanson (2004) proposed the term "cross cultural competence," which they de- fined as "the ability to think, feel, and act in ways that acknowledge, respect, and build upon ethnic, sociocultural, and linguistic diversity" (p. 50). Whereas Barrera and Corso (2002) focused on the role of "skilled dialogue" (p. 103) in such competence, Boyd and Correa (2005) outlined a framework for "family and culture-centered plan- ning" with African American families. Harry, Kalyanpur, and Day (1999) recommended a re- ciprocal process, moving from practitioner self- awareness to a mutual exchange of parents' and service providers' cultural explanations, towards a collaborative determination of goals. Sanchez (1999) called for practitioners to step outside of their "comfort zone," to consider formal school- ing as only one significant source of education.

Exceptional Children 3 8 3

and to place their work within the context of the distribution of power in the society. The need for prejudice reduction, seeking bilingual and cul- tural information, providing logistical supports for parents' participation, and developing parent training programs have also been identified by Boyd and Correa; Cillis-OIion, Olion, and Holmes (1986); Obiakor, Algozzine, and Ford (1993); Rogers-Atkinson, Ochoa, and Delgado (2003); Thorp (1997); and Zhang and Bennett (2003).

Recommendations for cultural competence have also been directed toward specific disability groups. With regard to families of children with ED, Cartledge, Kea, and Simmons-Reed (2002) emphasized the importance of understanding cul- tural norms related to social behavior, as well as culturally variable family values, help-seeking be- haviors, and communication styles. Parette, Huer, and Wyatt (2002), in discussing cultural compe- tence in working with families of young African American children with communication disor- ders, emphasized that assessment of such chil- dren's need for augmentative and alternative communication systems must be conducted within the child's context and culture. At the other end of the special education spectrum are less often expressed concerns about professional interactions with parents of gifted children. Ac- cording to Ford (2004), the underrepresentation of African American children in gifted programs presents a challenge for parents who are con- cerned that this special placement may alienate children from their social groups.

Internships or Placements in Diverse Cultural and Socioeconomic Settings. Practical learning in real-life settings is essential to overcoming the kinds of barriers identified in this review. It is not enough for professionals to learn about "others" from books and discussions. Most importantly, the fact that professionals are typically in a posi- tion of power in relation to the families they serve is a built-in barrier to learning from those fami- lies. Consequently, field placements for preservice teachers should be a central part of their training, with an emphasis on participating as learners, not as tourists or experts, in diverse settings to which they are unaccustomed. Course work should in- clude situations where students have to interview and participate with families in their own con-

texts and in the posture of learners, not teachers (Harry, Torguson, Guerrero, & Katkavitch, 1993; Johnson, 2007).

PUTTING CULTURAL LEARNING TO WORK

IN SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITIES

The vision of collaborative home-school practices is well established in the literature, yet the link to practice eludes us. Challenges to established hier- archies and deficit oriented views of families could include efforts to reverse the process of pro- fessional—caregiver service, as in a report by Gal- lagher, Rhodes; and Darling (2004) on the effectiveness of a program in which parents were trained as educators in early intervention pro- grams in Georgia.

Field placements for preservice teachers

should be a central part of their training,

with an emphasis on participating as

learners, not as tourists or experts, in diverse

settings to which they are unaccustomed.

Perhaps most important in our pursuit of ef- fective collaboration is to look at the big picture and broaden the focus of our attention to schools as communities and to the communities of schools. As Epstein (2001) stated, schools must create intentional designs for collaboration. A col- lection of reports from the Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence (Cooper & Gandara, 2001) documents the efforts of seven projects to build on community-based organiza- tions and community funds of knowledge rather than "seeing diversity as a liability ot deficit from the mainstream" (p. 1). Buysse, Wesley, and Skin- ner (1999) have also reported effective commu- nity development models in early intervention. Similarly, a qualitative study by Morris (1999) of one all-Black school showed how the school "cre- ates and sustains strong communal bonds with African American families from a low-income community" (p. 584). The report detailed how school personnel and a committed principal built community bonds over time, resulting in a school

3 8 4 Spring 2008

that served the function of a "stabilizing institu-

tion" (p. 600) in the community.

CONCLUSION

Three decades of literature on the involvement of CLD families in the special education process un- derscores the continuing challenge of collabora- tion across perceived barriers of race, culture, language, and social class; The vision of a collabo- rative partnership between caregivers and profes- sionals has been detailed in the law and has been promoted and studied by researchers and practi- tioners. Caregivers who have participated in such studies have made it clear that their vision is one of respect and support. Yet attainment of these goals rehiains elusive for many CLD families.

This is not to say that the literature shows no positive practices, or that there may not be CLD families who have benefited from the extensive and continuing work of leading scholars whose work is dedicated to improving school-home rela- tionships. Certainly, early interventionists' thrust toward family-centered practice has brought the field a long way from the early days of "expert"- oriented services. Nevertheless, themes of cultural misunderstanding and mistrust, deficit views of CLD families, and conflicting beliefs about ap- propriate goals for individuals with disabilities stride forcefully through the data. These themes indicate the continuing need for intense efforts to prepare researchers and education professionals for the tremendous diversity that is America.

REFERENCES

Argus-Calvo, B., Tafoya, N. G., & Grupp, L. L. (2005). Prereferral: A time to empower culturally and linguistically diverse families through a family-centered approach. Multiple Voices, 8{\), 71-83.

Artiles, A. (2003). Special education's changing iden- tity: Paradoxes and dilemmas in views of culture and space. Harvard Educational Review, 73, 164-602.

Arzubiaga, A. E., Artiles, A. J., King, K. A., & Harris- Murri, N. (2008). Beyond research on cultural minori- ties: Ghallenges and implications of Research as situated Gultural practice. Exceptional Children, 74, 309-327.

Bailey, D., Skinner, D., Rodriguez, P., Gut, D., & Gor- rea, V. (1999). Awareness, use, and satisfaction with services for Latino parents of young children with dis- abilities. Exceptional Children, 65, 376-381.

Bailey, D. B., Skinner, D., Gorrea, V., Arcia, E., Reyes- Blanes, M., Rodriguez, P, et al. (1999). Needs and sup- ports reported by Latino families of young children with developmental disahilities. American Journal on Mental Retardation, W4{5), 437-451.

Barrera, L, & Gorso, R. M. (2002). Gultural compe- tency as skilled dialogue. Topics in Early Childhood Spe- cial Education, 22(2), 103-113.

Bennett, A. T. (1988). Gateways to powerlessness: In- corporating Hispanic deaf children and families into formal schooling. Disahility, Handicap, and Society, 3, 119-151.

Blacher, J. (2001). Transition to adulthood: Mental re- tardation, families, and culture. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 106(2), 173-188.

Blue-Banning, M., Summers, J. A., Frankland, H. G., Nelson, L. L., & Beegle, G. (2004). Dimensions of family and professional partnerships: Gonstructive guidelines for collaboration. Exceptional Children, 70, 167-184.

Bonilla-Silva, E. (2006). Racism without racists (2nd ed). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Bowers, G. A. (1984). The promise of theory: Education and the politics of cultural change. New York: Longman.

Boyd, B., & Gorrea, V. (2005). Developing a frame- work for reducing the cultural clash between Aftican American parents and the special education system. Multicultural Perspectives, 7(2), 3-11.

Buysse, V., Wesley, P, & Skinner, D. (1999). Commu- nity development approaches in early intervention. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 19(4), 236-243.

Gartledge, G., Kea, G., & Simmons-Reed, E. (2002). Serving cultutally diverse children with serious emo- tional disturbance and their families. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 11(1), 113-126.

Gassidy, E. (1988). Reaching and involving Black parents of handicapped children in their child's education program. Lansing, MI: GAUSE Inc. (ERIG Document Reproduction Service No. Ed 302 982)

Ghan, K. S. (1986). Parents of exceptional Asian chil- dren. In M. K. Kitano & P G. Ghinn (Eds.), Excep- tional Asian children and youth (pp. 36-59). Reston, VA: Gouncil for Exceptional Ghildren.

Gharmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory. London: Sage.

Exceptional Children 3 8 5

Gho, S. J., Singer, G., & Brenner, B. (2003). A com- parison of adaptation to childhood disahility in Korean immigrant and Korean mothers. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 18(1), 9-20.

Gonnety, A. R. (1987). A description and comparison of Native American and Anglo parents' knowledge of their handicapped children's rights. Unpublished doctoral dis- sertation. Northern Arizona University, FlagstafF.

Gooper, G., & Gandata, P (2001). When diversity works: Bridging families, peers, schools, and communi- ties at GREDE. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 61(1 &c2), 1-5.

Darling, S. M., & Gallagher, P A. (2004). Needs of and supports fot African American and European American caregivers of young children with special needs in urban and rutal settings. Topics in Early Child- hood Special Education, 24(2), 98-109.

Davis, G., Brown, B., Bantz, J., & Manno, G. (2005). African American patents' involvement in their chil- dren's special education programs. Multiple Voices, 5(1), 13-27.

Dillman, D. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The tai- lored design method. New York:, Wiley.

Dinnebeil, L. A., Hale, L. M., & Rule, S (1996). A qualitative analysis of parents' and service coordinators' descriptions of variables that influence collaborative re- lationships. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 16(3), 322-347.

Donovan, S., & Gross, G. (2002). Minority students in special and gified education. Washington, DG: National Academies Ptess.

Dunst, G. J. (2002). Family-centered practices: Birth through high school. The Journal of Special Education, 36(3), 139-147.

Epstein, J. L. (2001). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools. Boulder, GO: Westview Press.

Fadiman, A. (1997). The spirit catches you and you fall down: A Hmong child, her American doctors, and the col- lision of two cultures. New Yotk: Farrar, Strauss, & Giroux.

Ferguson, P M. (2002). A place in the family: An his- torical interpretadon of reseatch on parental teactions to having a child with a disability. The Journal of Special Education, 36(3), 124-130.

Ford, D. (2004). A challenge fot culturally divetse fam- ilies of gifted children: Forced choices between achieve- ment ot affiliation. Gified Child Today, 27(3), 26-28. Ford, D. Y, Grantham, T. G., & Whiting, G. W (2008). Gulturally and linguistically diverse students in

gifted education: Recruitment and retention issues. Ex- ceptional Children, 74, 289-306.

Gallagher, P A., Rhodes, G. A., & Darling, S. M. (2004). Parents as professionals in early intervention: A parent educator model. Topics in Early Childhood Spe- cial Education, 24(1), 5-13.

Geenen, S., Powers, L. E., & Lopez-Vasquez, A. (2001). Multicultutal aspects of parent involvement in transition planning. Exceptional Children, 67, 265-282. Gillis-Olion, M., Olion, L., & Holmes, R. (1986). Sttategies for interacting with Black parents of handi- capped childten. The Negro Educational Review, 37, 8-16.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y S. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging conflu- ences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed). Thou- sand Oaks, GA: Sage.

Hatry, B. (1992). Cultural diversity, families, and the special education system: Communication and empower- ment. New York: Teachers GoUege Press.

Harry, B. (1996). "These families, those families": The impact of researcher identities on the reseatch act. Ex- ceptional Children, 62(3), 292-300.

Harry, B., Allen, N., & McLaughlin, M. (1995). Gom- munication vs. compliance: A three year study of the evolution of African Ametican parents' participation in special education. Exceptional Children, 61, 364-377. Harry, B., Kalyanput, M., & Day, M. (1999). Building cultural reciprocity with families: Case studies in special education. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Harry, B., & Klingner, J. (2006). Why are so many mi- nority students in special education? Understanding race and disability in schoob. New York: Teachers GoUege Press.

Harry, B., Klingner, J. K., & Hart, J. (2005). Aftican American families undet fire: Ethnogtaphic views of family strengths. Remedial and Special Education, 26(2), 101-112.

Harry, B., Rueda, R., & Kalyanput, M. (1999). Gul- tural reciprocity in sociocultural perspective: Adapting the normalization principle for family collaboration. Exceptional Children, 66, 123-136.

Hatry, B., Torguson, G., Guerrero, M., & Katkavitch, J. (1993). Grossing social class and cultural barriers in working with families: Implications fot teacher educa- tion. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 26(1), 48-51. HufF, R. E., Houskamp, B. M., Watkins, A. V., Stan- ton, M., & Tavegia, B. (2005). The experiences of parents of gifted African American chUdren: A phe- nomenological study Roeper Review, 27(4), 215-221.

Spring 2008

Johnson, S. K. (2007, February). Families as agents for change in teacher preparation. Paper presented at the NGGRESt 2nd Annual National Fotum, Washington, DG.

Kalyanpur, M., & Harry, B. (1999). Culture in special education: Building reciprocal family-professional rela- tionships. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Kalyanpur, M., Hatry, B., & Skrtic, T. (2000). Equity and advocacy expectations of cultutally divetse famUies' participation in special education. Journal of Intema- tional Disability, Development and Education, 47(2), 119-136.

Kalyanpur, M., & Rao, S. (1991). Empoweting low-in- come black families of handicapped childten. American Joumal of Orthopsychiatry, 61, 523-532.

Kasahara, M., & Turnbull, A. P (2005). Meaning of family-professional partnerships: Japanese mothers' per- spectives. Exceptional Children, 71, 249-265. Knotek, Steve. (2003). Bias in problem-solving and the social ptocess of student study teams: A qualitative in- vestigation. The Journal of Special Education, 37(1), 2-14.

Kraemer, B. R., & Blacher, J. (2001). Transition for young adults with severe mental retardation: School preparation, parent expectations, and family involve- ment. Mental Retardation, 39, 423-435.

Lai, Y, & Ishiyama, E I. (2004). Involvement of immi- grant Chinese Ganadian mothers of children with dis- abilities. Exceptional Children, 71, 97-108.

Lea, D. (2006). "You don't know me like that": Pat- terns of disconnect between adolescent mothers of chil- dren with disabilities and theit eady interventionists. Joumal of Early Intervention, 28(A), 264-282.

Lo, L. (2005). Barriers to successful partnerships with Ghinese-speaking parents of children with disabilities in urban schools. Multiple Voices, 8(1), 84-95.

Lynch, E. W , & Hanson, M. J. (2004). Developing cross-cultural competence: A guide for working with chil- dren and their families (3rd ed.). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Lynch, E. W , & Stein, R. (1987). Parent participation by ethnicity: A comparison of Hispanic, Black, and Anglo families. Exceptional Children, 54, 105-111.

Marion, R. (1979). Minority patent involvement in the IEP process: A systematic model approach. Focus on Ex- ceptional Children, 13, 1—16.

McHatton, P A., & Gorrea, V. (2005). Stigma and dis- crimination: Perspectives from Mexican and Puerto Rican mothers of children with special needs. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 25(3), 131-142.

Mclntosh, Peggy. (1989). White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack. Peace and Freedom, 49(4), 10-12.

McNaughton, D. (1994). Measuring parent satisfaction with early childhood interventions programs: Gurrent practice, problems, and future perspectives. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 14(1), 26-48.

Mehan, H., Hartwick, A., & Meihls, J. L. (1986). Handicapping the handicapped: Decision-making in stu- dents' educational careers. Stanford, GA: Stanford Uni- versity Press.

Meyers, G. E., & Blachet, J. (1987). Parents' percep- tions of schooling fot severely handicapped childten: Home and family variables. Exceptional Children, 53, 441-449.

Morris, J. E. (1999). A piUar of strength: An African American school's communal honds with families and c o m m u n i t y since Brown. Urban Education, 33, 584-605.

Obiakot, F., Algozzine, B., & Ford, B. (1993). Urban education, the general education initiative, and service delivery to African American students. Urban Educa- tion, 28, 313-327.

Osher, T. W , & Oshet, D. M. (2002). The paradigm shift to true collaboration with families. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 11(1), 47-60.

Parette, P, Huer, M. B., & Wyatt, T. A. (2002). Young African Ametican children with disabilities and aug- mentative and alternative communication issues. Early Childhood Education Joumal, 29(5), 201-207.

Park, J., TurnbuU, A , & Park, H. S. (2001). Quality of partnerships in service provision for Korean-American parents of children with disabilities: A qualitative in- quiry. Joumal ofthe Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 26, 158-170.

Park, J., & Turnbull, A. P (2001). Cross-cultural com- petency and special education: Perceptions and experi- ences of Korean patents of children with special needs. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and De- velopmental Disabilities, 36, 133-147.

Patton, J., & Braithwaite, R. (1984, August). Obstacles to the participation of black patents in the education ptograms of their handicapped children. Centering Teacher Education, 34—37.

Rao, S. (2000). Perspectives of an African American mother on parent-ptofessional relationships in special education. Mental Retardation, 38, 475-488.

Rogets-Adkinson, D. L., Ochoa, T. A., & Delgado, B. (2003). Developing ctoss-cultural competence. Focus on Autism & Other Developmental Disabilities, 18(1), 4 - 8 .

Exceptional Children 3 8 7

Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, L S. (2005). Qualitative inter- viewing: The art of hearing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rueda, R., Monzo, L., Shapiro, J., Gomez, J., & Blachet, J. (2005). Cultural models of transition: Latina mothers of young adults with developmental disabili- ties. Exceptional Children, 71, 401-414.

Sametoff, A. J., Seifer, R., Baldwin, A., & Baldwin, C. (1993). Stability of intelligence from preschool to ado- lescence: The influence of social and family risk factors. Child Development, 64, 80-97.

Sanchez, S. Y. (1999). Learning ftom stories of cultut- ally and linguistically divetse families and communities: A sociohistorical lens. Remedial & Special Education, 20(6), 351-359.

Scarborough, A. A., Spiker, D., Mallik, S., Hebbeler, K. M., Bailey, D. B., & Simeonsson, R. J. (2004). A na- tional look at childten and families entering early inter- vention. Exceptional Children, 70, 469-483.

Sexton, D., Lobman, M., Constans, T , Snyder, P., & Ernest, J. (1997). Early interventionists' petspectives of multicultutal practices with Aftican-Ametican families. Exceptional Children, 63, 313-328.

Shapiro, J., Monzo, L., Rueda, R., Gomez, J., & Blacher, J. (2004). Alienated advocacy: the perspective of Latina mothets of young adults with developmental disabilities on service systems. Mental Retardation, 42(\), 37-54.

Sharp, E. Y. (1983). Analysis of determinants impacting on educational services of handicapped Papago students. Tucson: University of Arizona, College of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 239 468)

Singer, G. H. S. (2002). Suggestions fot a pragmatic program of research on families and disability. The Journal of Special Education, 36(3), 148-154.

Skrtic, T. M. (1995). Disability and democracy: Recon- structing (special) education for postmodemity. New York: Teachets College Press.

Sontag, J. C , & Schact, R. (1994). An ethnic compari- son of patent participation and information needs in early intervention. Exceptional Children, 60, 422-433.

Spring, J. (2007). Deculturalization and the struggle for equality. New Yotk: McGraw-Hill.

Sullivan, O. T. (1980). Meeting the needs of low-income families with handicapped children. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Welfare, National In- stitute of Education. i(ERIC Document Reproduction ServiceNo. ED201 091)

Summers, J. A., Hoffman, L , Marquis, J., Turnbull, A., & Poston, D. (2005). Relationship between parent sat-

isfaction regarding partnerships with professionals and age of child. Topics in Early Childhood Special Educa- tion, 25(1), 48-58.

Summers, J. A., Hoffman, L., Marquis, J., Turnbull, A., Poston, D., & Nelson, L. L. (2005). Measuring the quality of family-professional partnerships in special education setvices. Exceptional Children, 72, 65-81.

Thorp, E. K. (1997). Increasing opportunities for part- nerships with cultutally and linguistically diverse fami- lies. Intervention in School and Clinic, 32, 261-269.

Tomlinson, J. R., Acker, N., Canter, A., & Lindborg, S. (1977). Minority status, sex, and school psychological services. Psychology in the Schools, 14(4), 456-460.

Tutnbull, A., & Turnbull, R. H. (2000). Families, pro- fessionals and exceptionality: Collaborating for empower- ment (4^ ed.). Upper Saddle-River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

U.S. Department of Education. (2007). 26th annual re- port to congress on the implementation ofthe Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act 2004, VoL 2. Wash- ington, DC: Author.

Zetlin, A., Padton, M., & Wilson, S. (1996). The expe- rience of five Latin Ametican families with the special education system. Education and Training in Mental Re- tardation and Developmental Disabilities, 31, 22-28.

Zhang, C , & Bennett, T. (2003). Facilitating the meaningful participation of culturally and linguistically diverse families in the IFSP and IEP process. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 18(\), 51-59.

Zionts, L. T , Zionts, P, Harrison, S., & Bellinger, O. (2003). Urban Aftican Ametican families' perceptions of cultutal sensitivity within the special education sys- tem. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabili- ties, 18(1), 41-50.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

BETH HARRY (CEC FL Federation), Professor, Department of Teacbing and Learning, University of Miami, Florida.

Correspondence concerning tbis article sbould be addressed to Beth Harry, School of Education, University of Miami, 222 Merrick Building, 5202 University Drive, Coral Gables, FL 33124 (e-niail: BeBeHarry^abl.com). ., • ;

Manuscript received July 2007; accepted October 2007.

3 8 8 Spring 2008