article review 2

Culturally Responsive Teaching in the 21st Century Inclusive Classroom

Bridgie A. Ford The University of Akron

[email protected]

Denise H. Stuart The University of Akron

[email protected]

Shernavaz Vakil The University of Akron

[email protected]

Abstract

As the U.S. population grows more varied, public schools face the challenge of meeting the needs of an increasing population of culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students with exceptionalities in inclusive classrooms. This is especially evident in the urban inclusive classrooms. There is a strong connection between culture and learning. The teacher  has  a  significant  role  in  enhancing  all  learners’  sense  of  competence and preparing them for the global life of the 21st century. Teachers can support maximum learning through use of culturally responsive pedagogy for CLD students with disabilities in inclusive classrooms. Teachers can transform their pedagogy with high expectations, contextual learning, culturally mediated instruction and productive family/community engagement. This article will discuss the incorporation of a culturally responsive paradigm and educational delivery practices to increase engagement and positive outcomes for diverse students with disabilities in inclusive settings.

Within the United States, the legislative emphasis on academic preparedness and rigor for all students including those receiving special education services has undergone a paradigm shift. While the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (2004) does not specifically  use   the   term   ‘inclusion’,   it   indicates   that   to   the maximum extent appropriate, the least restrictive environment for most students with disabilities is the general education setting unless the severity of the disability makes this impossible. Educational services delivered in this general education setting, not only optimize access to the general education curriculum for students with disabilities but also provide the opportunity for them to interact with their peers.

Despite legal mandates under The Individuals with Disabilities Act (2004) to enhance the academic curriculum for all learners, the law in practice is often fraught with challenges. These challenges create additional stress for individuals with disabilities from culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) backgrounds (Ford, 2012; Waitoller, Artiles & Cheney, 2010). While the number of students from CLD backgrounds is increasing, their educational performance remains below their potential, which places them at risk of being excluded from the classroom (Hoover, 2012). Multi- faceted racial, cultural, socioeconomic, and political

factors exacerbate the problems of CLD students, especially since there is little resemblance between teachers who are primarily European American and an increasingly diverse student population (Gay, 2000). While the shortage of multicultural educators is a problem to all students, it will be more intensely felt by multicultural students. Historically, multicultural school personnel served in various critical capacities (e.g., as leaders, role models, mediators, and mentors). Additionally, the majority of teachers and administrators do not reside in the communities of the multicultural students they serve. Disconnectedness between schools and multicultural students and their communities is further heightened. This dissonance often results in the disproportionate representation of minorities in special education resulting in academic failure and lower expectations (Sorrells, Rieth, & Sindelar, 2004). Disproportionate representation is either the higher or lower presence of students from a specific group in an educational program when compared to what would be expected from their representation in the general student body. This disproportionate representation especially affects CLD students in educational programs. Ethnic minority and English Language Learner (ELL) students are over-represented in stigmatized exceptionality categories (Hoover, 2012, Orfield & Lee, 2004;

7KH�-RXUQDO�RI�WKH�,QWHUQDWLRQDO�$VVRFLDWLRQ�RI�6SHFLDO�(GXFDWLRQ��9RO������1R��� ��

Waitoller et al., 2010). African-American and Hispanic students are more likely to be overrepresented in special education programs such as mental retardation (MR) and emotionally disturbed (ED), while underrepresented in gifted programs (Salend, Duhaney, & Montgomery, 2002). ELLs (e.g., limited English proficient) and American Indian (e.g., Native American) students are overrepresented in Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD) programs. Clearly, there is need for teachers and schools to understand who our students are in the 21st century and to employ evidence-based practice to meet diverse needs in an inclusive classroom, including establishing authentic networks with family and significant community organizations.

Educational outcome issues are critical indicating the need for more culturally referenced educational services, evident in the continued lag in graduation rate of specific ethnic minority youth and the persistent dropout rate. While high school graduation rates in the United States generally increased during the 1970s and beyond, Black and Hispanic students continue to graduate at a rate below other students. During the 2009–2010 academic year, the high school graduation rate was 83% for White students, 71.4 % for Hispanic students, 69.1 % for American Indian/Alaska Native students, and 66.1 % for Black students (Aud et al., 2013). The 2011 dropout rate for Whites was 5%, for Blacks 7% and Hispanics 14% (Aud et al., 2013). These persistent graduation and dropout rates must be addressed.

The Need for Culturally Responsive Pedagogy

Culturally responsive teaching offers ways to best support diverse learners in an inclusive classroom as it approaches education by looking at the whole child where students are empowered intellectually, socially, emotionally and politically by using cultural referents to impart knowledge, skills, and attitudes (Ladson- Billings, 2009). Culturally responsive pedagogy (CRP) enhances the learning experiences of CLD students by focusing on their cultural knowledge, prior experiences, frames of reference and performance styles. Teachers must move beyond holidays celebrating cultures to infusing culturally relevant practices in the classroom. They must learn the cultures represented in their classrooms and translate this knowledge into deliberate, planned instructional practice (Gay, 2010). Unfortunately, many teachers do not recognize the impact of diversity and the need for culturally responsive practices in their interactions with CLD students. While diversity itself is not a problem, the potential cultural mismatch between teachers and CLD students is an issue (Dray & Wisneski, 2011).

Culturally responsive pedagogy for children with special needs is perhaps more critical due to the dissonance between their CLD background and the culture of the school they attend. These incompatibilities can impact the assessment results of students from CLD backgrounds. In the United States, there continues to be an emphasis on norm-referenced standardized tests which may be culturally and socially biased and often do not accurately assess the abilities of CLD students. Narrow definitions of socially constructed disability categories that fail to take into account the cultural differences, often result in CLD students being placed in special education for behaviors misunderstood by teachers from the dominant cultures (Salend et al., 2000; Cartledge, Gardner, & Ford, 2009). Teachers should be cognizant of the differences between disabilities and cultural/linguistic differences to make informed instructional decisions (Hoover, 2012). Many behaviors displayed by the student from a CLD background who is struggling in the classroom are misinterpreted as behavior problems rather than cultural differences in responses, especially among African American males. Irrespective of whether they are in special education or general education, CLD students consistently face academic failures, suspensions, high rates of dropout and disproportionate representation in special education (Sorrells et al., 2004). Understanding and implementing culturally responsive pedagogy in classrooms, and establishing productive networks with families and significant community resources offers teachers tools to support learning for all students in the inclusive classroom. Teacher Efficacy for Culturally Responsive Pedagogy

Teacher efficacy is the perception   of   the   teacher’s   capability to bring about desired outcomes of student achievement through engagement, learning and motivation. Those teachers with a higher sense of efficacy have a greater belief in their ability to influence student learning, even the learning of those students who may be more challenging (Tschannen-Morana & Hoy, 2001). This simple concept has a powerful impact on teachers in relation to their behavior in the classroom, the effort they invest in teaching and expectations set for students (Tschannen-Morana & Hoy, 2001). As teaching and learning are cultural processes occurring in social contexts, it is imperative that discussions on teacher efficacy be framed within a paradigm that includes CLD students. In the United States, there is a strong resistance to cultural and linguistic diversity and, rather than acknowledge a pluralistic student population, teachers often prefer to assume the color-blind concept where everyone is taught in the same way. This failure

7KH�-RXUQDO�RI�WKH�,QWHUQDWLRQDO�$VVRFLDWLRQ�RI�6SHFLDO�(GXFDWLRQ��9RO������1R��� ��

to acknowledge students from diverse backgrounds has often resulted in a deficit model of thinking where students from CLD backgrounds are held to lower expectations and negative perceptions not related to their cognitive abilities but rather to their differences in the learning process (Chu, 2011).

The disproportionate increase in referrals of CLD students to special education often reflects a misunderstanding between cultural differences/diversity and disability. Many teachers, who are largely middle- class European American, often enter the teaching profession with racial, ethnic and class prejudices of which they are unaware (Chu, 2011; Diaz-Rico & Weed, 2002). Prevalent among them are the stereotypical beliefs of CLD students, cultural dissonance and negative perceptions of home environments, which influence their decision-making (Diaz-Rico & Weed, 2002). The differences in the cultural attitudes, values and behaviors of CLD students typically result in them being misidentified as having learning disabilities or emotionally disabilities (Gay, 2002; Hoover, 2012). Chu (2011) indicates that teachers are more likely to refer CLD students to special education because they attribute underachieving performance to lack of home support and student characteristics rather than their own performance.

Teacher efficacy is enhanced when they are critically conscious of their own cultural socialization and its impact on their attitudes and behaviors in shaping the classroom. As teachers study and reflect on their own attitudes and biases, they recognize the impact of their assumptions in the inequitable treatment of CLD students in inclusive classrooms (Weinstein, Tomlinson- Clarke, & Curran, 2004). When teachers critically analyze and evaluate how their own cultural values and beliefs, which shape their performance in the classroom, they are more likely to seek ways to minimize negative perceptions and be more inclusive in their practices. Teacher efficacy begins with a willingness to understand and accept CLD students in the classroom. While the first step requires teachers to be aware of their own culture and expectations and how they differ from those of CLD students in their inclusive classrooms, it is imperative that they also have knowledge of the background of their students and integrate it into their instruction.

Creating Inclusive Learning Environments

Critical to effective inclusion of CLD students is an understanding   of   CLD   students’   unique   needs,   taking   into account both their disability and cultural and linguistic differences (Gay, 2002, 2010). Effective teachers need to recognize the influence of culture on

learning in students and enhance their opportunities for success by understanding their differences and incorporating practices that consider student preferences toward learning. Recognizing the importance of culture in learning, culturally responsive teachers relate with learners not only by connecting with their students as individuals, but also understanding the cultural contexts influencing their interactions. Integrating academic content using student experiences to scaffold instruction, allows for discussion to promote understanding of key concepts regarding positive inclusive learning environments for CLD students (Klinger & Gonzalez, 2009; Worrell, 2007). The challenge for teachers is not the content itself, which is often factual, rather, it is the ability of teachers to teach content through the cultural lens (vignettes, scenarios, examples) which enhances understanding of principles, concepts, values, ideals and generalizations (Gay, 2002).

Culturally responsive learning environments begin with teachers infusing a rich multicultural education that reflects the diversity in the classroom. The challenge for both regular and special education teachers is to affirm the diversity in their classrooms by using books, designing bulletin boards, and implementing activities that support inclusive practices. This includes purposefully reading fiction and nonfiction books by authors representing the CLD students in the classroom, creating visual displays and multimedia materials that reflect diversity and promoting conversations with individual students about their culture, as well as obstacles they face when interacting with the mainstream culture. Teachers must carefully design, culturally responsive learning environments and recognize the uniqueness of all students in the classroom (Cartledge, Gardner, & Ford, 2009; Gay 2002).

Inclusive education requires that teachers provide instruction to students that optimize academic achievement. This implies that the learning environment created by teachers meet the students at their point of need rather than grade level (Worrell, 2007). Teaching approaches need to include scaffolding and differentiating instruction, giving students opportunities to succeed depending on their unique needs. Scaffolding, based   on   Vygotsky’s   theory   of   Zone   of   Proximal   Development, provides the appropriate mediational or cultural tools to students who are unable to accomplish a task independently (Cartledge et al., 2009). Scaffolds include (1) verbal such as paraphrasing, thinking-aloud, contextualizing definitions, slowing speech and pausing, (2) procedural such as demonstrating/modeling, giving multiple opportunities for guided and independent practice, and (3) instructional such as graphic organizers and models of completed assignments. A gradual release of responsibility from teacher to student as

7KH�-RXUQDO�RI�WKH�,QWHUQDWLRQDO�$VVRFLDWLRQ�RI�6SHFLDO�(GXFDWLRQ��9RO������1R��� ��

mastery increases (Pearson & Gallagher, 1993) is particularly important to CLD students in inclusive settings (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2013) with techniques such as I do, you watch and respond; we do together, I help and respond; you do together, I watch and respond; you do independently, I watch and respond.

Successful inclusion necessitates that all learners including CLD students be given opportunities to enhance learning by being engaged in activities that respond to their learning needs, strengths, and preferences. Differentiated instruction responds to student progress by providing on a learning continuum where pace, level, or kind of instruction is adjusted to capitalize on learner strengths and interests. The core instructional concepts that optimize learning for all including CLD students is through (1) content—the knowledge and skills students need to master (2) process—the activities used to engage students in the content and (3) product—the method used to demonstrate student learning (Heacox, 2002). Teachers who differentiate instruction recognize student diversity in its many forms, including prior knowledge and experiences, readiness, language, culture, learning preferences, and interests which CLD students bring to the classroom. They are cognizant of the ways in which they need to change their instruction to reach all students (Worrell, 2007).

Inclusive environments require CLD students with disabilities and all students to participate meaningfully in the curriculum. Teachers are now required to teach content to students with a range of abilities, and teaching one way to the dominant culture often creates a mismatch between CLD students and the curriculum. Differentiated instruction allows students to get to the same place, but with different paths depending on their unique needs (Thousand, Villa, & Nevin, 2007). Changes in how teachers perceive different communication as well as home background have direct implications to learning in inclusive environments. Equally important is how CLD students in inclusive classrooms are engaged in the learning process and can share their knowledge. Implementing Culturally Responsive Strategies in the

Inclusive Classroom

While culturally responsive environments that include a multicultural curriculum and instruction are important to the success of all CLD students in inclusive settings and the unique needs of CLD students with disabilities must not be ignored. It is imperative that goals and objectives on their individual education programs are met through culturally appropriate materials and culturally relevant instruction. Culturally

responsive pedagogy necessitates using multiple and varied culturally informed techniques compatible to their unique needs. This often includes a storytelling approach, cooperative learning, visual supports and movement (Gay, 2002).

Culturally responsive pedagogy is best practice that engages students in multiple ways that benefit all learners, while meeting individual needs, modifying and accommodating for cultural, linguistic, learning, and behavioral differences. Careful construction of knowledge built on past experiences, as well as a meaningful curriculum taught explicitly reminds us that learning emerges from the student and not the teacher. The way teachers plan and deliver instruction, as well as their interactions with students communicates to students the value they bring to the learning relationship. Teachers who recognize the impact of culture on children’s   learning   bring   respect   and   dignity   to   their   teaching (Torres-Velasquez & Lobo, 2005).

It is important that teachers use varied teaching styles to address the unique needs CLD students bring to the classroom. Assessment through instruction and progress monitoring inform curricular decision-making about primary and supplementary materials used that are not only culturally relevant but multi-leveled in a variety of forms: print, visual, auditory, and hands-on. Decisions about instruction are fluid, with multiple grouping arrangements and student choice (Tomlinson, 2001). Importantly,   instruction   builds   on   students’   prior   knowledge to motivate and generate purposes for learning as well as affirm what students know to connect new concepts for understanding. Anticipation guides, preview of vocabulary, questioning, and predicting support activates and develops prior knowledge (Vacca, Vacca, & Mraz, 2011).

Throughout instruction, effective teaching and learning strategies are employed that can make a difference in academic and language development of students. New instruction is supported through various delivery modes including modeling, demonstration, and visual representation rather than lecture. Students are engaged in frequent interaction with academic language through listening, speaking, reading, writing, and visualizing concepts individually, in pairs (think-pair- share), in small groups (collaborative learning) and as a whole class (grand conversations). These joint productive   activities   allow   students’   use   of   functional   and home language and experiences across the curriculum, to comprehend at multiple levels (literal, interpretive and applied) as they progress in academic competence and cognitive complexity though dialogue and discussion, particularly instructional conversation (Tharp, Estrada, Dalton, &Yamauchi, 2000).

7KH�-RXUQDO�RI�WKH�,QWHUQDWLRQDO�$VVRFLDWLRQ�RI�6SHFLDO�(GXFDWLRQ��9RO������1R��� ��

Engaging activities adapted to all levels of student proficiency, purposefully tie content objectives to language objectives and assessment. Graphic organizers, leveled study guides and outlines, taped text and jigsaw readings purposefully support diverse learners and integrate language practice opportunities. A variety of multisensory approaches can be used to support access to academic vocabulary including explicitly highlighting word patterns and meanings, creating word walls that include words and images, making personal dictionaries and concept definition maps, and rehearsal through word games. Clearly, a powerful tool for planning and implement culturally responsive pedagogy is for schools and teachers to maximize the use of funds of knowledge (Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, 2005) of their students, along with the rich resources of home and community.

Building Productive Home-School-Community Relations

The need for effective communication between

schools and families for CLD children with and without disabilities cannot be overstated and is particularly crucial for students in inclusive settings. Together, they should plan a consistent process to share information. When parents and teachers engage and collaborate they learn from each other and enhance student performance (Cartledge et al, 2009).

Essential to engagement between teachers, families, and significant community resources is effective communication founded on respect, clarity, integrity, and most important, a value for cultural and linguistic differences. Teachers are challenged to establish authentic bonds with culturally and/or linguistically (CLD) students and obtain in-depth knowledge about them by networking within their communities and incorporating relevant experiences and resources into classroom practices. Using this paradigm, a culturally responsive home-school-community structure would (a) provide meaningful services that improve educational outcomes for CLD students, (b) utilize significant cultural resources that possess knowledge about multicultural  students’  experiential  backgrounds,  and  (c)   support the resiliency and empowerment of CLD learners and their families. Unfortunately, public schools (like society in general) have traditionally viewed CLD communities or economically disadvantaged/disenfranchised communities from a deficit perspective (Ford, 2004).

Racially and ethnically diverse youth are still not afforded quality schooling (Orfield & Lee, 2004). Many multicultural youth experience not only low graduation

rates and disproportionate representation in special education classes but are also faced with catastrophic conditions in schools. Presently, 23 of the 25 largest school systems in the country are heavily composed of students from multicultural groups (Orfield & Lee, 2004). 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 resources, 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. Most schools with black majority enrollments do not have libraries, an adequate supply of textbooks and computers, art and music programs or science labs (Aud et al, 2013).

Schools and communities can work together to build an environment of supportive education. Many multicultural parents have a history of negative experiences with and mistrust of the school. Differences in income, language, dialects, value and belief systems or insensitivity to religious beliefs, impact involvement of multicultural parents and communities with the school. Consequentially, parents are reluctant and/or intimidated to take advantage of their legal rights (Banks, 1997; Cummins, 1986; Harry, 1995). For those parents,   a   “neutral”   mechanism   is   needed   to   empower   them with information and skills to advocate for their children. Significant Multicultural Community Resources (SMCR) may be used as a strategy to promote increase parental involvement (Ford, 2004).

Productive school-community linkages with multicultural communities require (a) the support and commitment of all major stakeholders (e.g., school administrators, certified/licensed school personnel, non- licensed staff, and the SMCR) and (b) the adequate preparation of school personnel. The need to establish on-going productive school-community partnerships encompasses two interrelated premises. First, schools alone cannot adequately address the multifaceted problems   confronted   by   today’s   youth.     This   reality is more pronounced 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, non-educational predicaments serve as  barriers  to  students’  academic  achievement.    Second,   the educational benefits of involving 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, this linkage is especially

7KH�-RXUQDO�RI�WKH�,QWHUQDWLRQDO�$VVRFLDWLRQ�RI�6SHFLDO�(GXFDWLRQ��9RO������1R��� ��

critical in maximizing educational opportunities for students from multicultural and/or bilingual backgrounds (Banks, 1997; Epperson, 1991; Ford, 2004, 2012). Epperson (1991) drew attention to the need for collaboration among public schools, multicultural communities, and parents for the enhancement and development of youth. Given the persistent negative assumptions afforded multicultural populations and their communities by public organizations (including the school system), precautions should be taken to help ensure that the delivery of needed services is done within a positive and culturally responsive framework (Ford, 2004). SMCR includes not-for-profit service or social organizations, sororities, fraternities, clubs or agencies, religious group/churches, and individuals that local community residents perceive as providing valuable significant services (Ford, 2004). These services may include: educational, advocacy, financial, legal and/or empowerment assistance. SMCR generally offer numerous types of services/programs that may potentially impact the overall well-being of the school as well as the various developmental needs of youth. 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 initiatives (e.g., early childhood and literacy programs).

Specifically, SMCR have the potential of affording numerous benefits to multicultural learners (Banks, 1997; Billinsley & Caldwell, 1991; Epperson, 1991; Ford, 2004; Rueda, 1997). These include:

x Resilience-enhancing resources through accessible adult role models, mentors, and advocates.

x Reinforcement of school-related skills through academic motivation, tutoring, and test-taking skills.

x Exposure to self-enhancing/affirming activities (e.g., development of values and cultural group identity; decision-making skills; goal setting; rites of passage)

x Avenues for sensitivity toward culturally responsive programming through face-to-face encounters between administrators, teachers, and multicultural families and community resource persons.

x Forum for dissemination and collection of information. The need for information is a consistent theme regarding multicultural parents. This need has become increasing urgent today. Communication remains the key!

Conclusion

In 21st century schools, it is crucial that teachers are prepared to meet the needs of an increasingly diverse population of students in their inclusive classrooms. Given the disproportionate representation of culturally and linguistically diverse students in special education and the dissonance of teacher and student background, more culturally responsive pedagogy must be implemented to support success for all students. Additionally, teachers need to understand the role of their own cultural background and how it intersects with that of their students. They can create a student-centered inclusive environment with culturally relevant materials, strategies, and curriculum that support learning as they meet students where they are, monitor and build scaffolds to mastery while differentiating instruction. And importantly, they can build cultural bridges as they strengthen the home-school-community connection.

References

Aud, S., Wilkenson-Flicker, S., Kristapopvich, P., Rathbun,

A., Wang, X., & Zhang, J. (2013). The Condition of Education 2013 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES 2013-037).

Banks, C. A. M. (1997). Parents and teachers: Partners in school reform. In J. A. Banks & C. A. M. Banks (Eds.), Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Billinsley, A., & Caldwell, C. H. (1991). The church, the family and school in the African- American community. Journal of Negro Education, 60, 427-440.

Cartledge, G., Gardner, R., & Ford, D. (2009). Diverse learners with exceptionalities:

Culturally responsive teaching in the inclusive classroom. New Jersey: Upper Saddle River.

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.), Quality personnel preparation in emotional/behavioral disorders: Current perspectives and future directions (pp. 64-69). Denton, TX: University of North Texas, Institute for Behavioral and Learning Differences.

Dray, B.J., & Wisneski, D.B. (2011). Mindful reflection as a process for developing culturally responsive practices, Teaching Exceptional Children, 44(1), 28-36.

Echevarria, J., Vogt, M.E., & Short, D.J. (2013) Making content comprehensible for English learners: The SIOP model. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Ford, B.A. (2004). Preparing special educators for culturally responsive school-community partnerships. Teacher Education and Special Education, 27, 224-230.

Ford, D.Y. (2012). Culturally different students in special education: Looking forward to move

backward. Exceptional Children, 78, 391-405.

7KH�-RXUQDO�RI�WKH�,QWHUQDWLRQDO�$VVRFLDWLRQ�RI�6SHFLDO�(GXFDWLRQ��9RO������1R��� ��

Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, & practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Gay, G. (2002). Culturally responsive teaching in special education for ethnically diverse students: Setting the stage. Qualitative Studies in Education, 15, 613-629

Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching. (2nd ed). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Guild, P. (1994). The cultural learning connection. Educating for Diversity 51(8), 16-21.

Heacox, D. (2002). Differentiating instruction in the regular construction. Minneapolis, MN: Free Publishing Spirit Inc.

Hoover, J.J. (2012). Reducing unnecessary referrals: Guidelines for teachers of diverse learners. Teaching Exceptional Children, 44(4), 39-47.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-446. (2004). Retrieved from http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/%2Croot%2Cstatute%2 C

Klinger, J., & Gonzalez, L.S. (2009). Culturally and linguistically responsive instruction for

english language leraners with learning disabilities. Multiple Voices 12, 5-20.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2009). The Dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children. (2nd ed.) San Francisco, CA: Josssey-Bass Publishers.

Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (2005). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a Qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. In N. Gonzalez, L. Moll, & C. Amanti (Eds.), Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in Households, Communities, and Classrooms (pp. 71-88). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Orfield, G., & Lee, C. (2004). Brown  at  50:    King’s  dream  or   Plessy’s   nightmare?    Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project, Harvard University.

Pearson, P.D., & Gallagher, M. (1983) The Instruction of reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 317-344

Sorrells, A. M., Rieth, H. J., & Sindelar, P. T. (2004). Critical issues in special education access, diversity, and accountability. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Tharp, R. G., Estrada, P., Dalton, S. S., & Yamauchi, L. (2000). Teaching transformed: Achieving excellence, fairness, inclusion, and harmony. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Thousand, J. S., Villa, R. A., & Nevin, A. I. (2007). Differentiating instruction: Collaborative planning and teaching for universally designed learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Tomlinson, C. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms. (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Tschannen-Morana, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783–805.

Vacca R. T., Vacca, J. L., & Mraz, M. (2011). Content area reading: Literacy and learning across the curriculum. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

Waitoller,  F.,  Artiles,  A.,  &  Cheney,  D.   (2010).  The  miner’s canary: A review of overrepresentation research and explanations. The Journal of Special Education, 44, 29-49.

Weinstein, C., Tomlinson-Clarke S., & Curran, M. (2004). Toward conception of culturally responsive classroom management. Journal of Teacher Education, 55(1), 25-38.

Worrell, J.L. (2007). Five strategies to address cultural and linguistic diversity in the inclusive classroom, The Journal of Multiculturalism in Education, 4. Available at www.wtamu.edu/webres/File/Journals/MCJ/

7KH�-RXUQDO�RI�WKH�,QWHUQDWLRQDO�$VVRFLDWLRQ�RI�6SHFLDO�(GXFDWLRQ��9RO������1R��� ��

Copyright of Journal of the International Association of Special Education is the property of Journal of the International Association of Special Education and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.