building bridges with families: the power of reciprocity
DESCRIPTION
Building Bridges with Families: The Power of Reciprocity. Equity Forum Equity Alliance at ASU Beth Harry Professor, Special Education University of Miami March 1, 2011 (Adapted from Kalyanpur & Harry, Culture in Special Education: Building Reciprocal Relationships with Familie s). - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Equity ForumEquity Alliance at ASU
Beth HarryProfessor, Special Education
University of Miami
March 1, 2011
(Adapted from Kalyanpur & Harry, Culture in Special Education: Building Reciprocal Relationships with Families)
Cultural beliefs underlie◦ legal requirements (e.g., IDEA built on principles
of individualism and equity)◦ knowledge base (e.g., science, not spirituality,
explains and treats disability)◦ practice (e.g., goal setting, interaction style,
beliefs about “good parenting”
IDEA AS A CULTURAL STATEMENT◦ Individualism: choice, equity◦ Scientific explanations of disability◦ Professional vs. everyday knowledge
CONTRASTING CULTURAL TRADITIONS◦ Collective concepts of self: group needs◦ Spiritual interpretations of disability◦ Conflict: professional/everyday knowledge
cultural reciprocity: respecting and learning about other cultures while sharing information with families regarding American culture
key is cultural self-awareness
Step 1: Reflect on personal biases and assumptions driving your ownrecommendations
Step 2: Invite, question, listen to parents’ perspective
Step 3: Explain service provider’s perspective
Step 4: Identify common ground and develop collaborative goals
parents in denial: won’t face facts!
no parent participation: they don’t care about children’s education!
problem comes from home: it’s cultural!
FOUR reasons: more intimate and more nuanced
knowledge of the child cultural definitions of what’s “normal” spiritual vs. physical interpretations individual vs. group identity within families “in disagreement” rather than “denial”
parents have more intimate and nuanced knowledge of child’s skills than school personnel
traits and abilities may not be displayed at school: importance of context
professionals often quick to discount parent reports
remember parents know child better than you do!
disagreement between parents and professionals related to different cultural definitions of disability
different parameters of “normalcy” based on cultural/SES expectations
cultural change over time
parents may interpret the cause of child’s condition as spiritual rather than physical
physical condition reflects spiritual meaning
western belief in science emphasizes physical/medical causes and treatments
American individualism leads to interpretation that disability belongs entirely to individual, not family
many other groups: a collective sense of identity results in parents seeking explanations of differences within recent or past family history
Four reasons: built-in conflict between call for
collaboration and belief in professional “expertise”
histories of alienation alienating professional language alienating interaction processes
professional training reflects belief in expertise in diagnosis and treatment
difficult for professionals to recognize parents as experts with their children
belief in scientific knowledge vs. everyday knowledge
democratic vs. hierarchical expecations
history of exclusion of African Americans from mainstream education, and of integration into unwelcoming school systems, resulted in deep mistrust of school authorities
school authorities have responsibility of building trust, not assuming that it has been earned
objectified”: ”service delivery system” medicalized: “auditory, visual, perceptual”
(listening, looking, interpreting) abstracted: “manipulatives” (toys,
materials) incomprehensible jargon translation issues
reinforces value of professional pronouncements about children
written findings in reports reinforce impressions of validity
process of reification: profile of deficiency parents with low literacy/limited English
proficiency find school letters intimidating
manner of conducting conferences often contradicts ideal of participation
studies of parent participation at conferences show clear hierarchy:◦ parent vs. professional introductions ◦ order, style, and timing of reports◦ parent input limited or not invited till end◦ disrespectful, inattentive interactions◦ no translators or poor translation
Three discrepant views:◦ family structure, roles and authority patterns◦ family interactions: enmeshment vs.
disengagement (individuality vs. collectivism)◦ independence, work, and individuality
mainstream model of family structure in America not a reality for many
nuclear family (“intact” family) increasingly rare in America
focus on “risk” little recognition of “resilience”
assumption: family interaction style should reflect American ideal of independence and individuality
theories of ideal family interaction: balance “enmeshment” and “disengagement”
assumptions about authority patterns and discipline practices
a key goal on IFSP/IEP e.g., breast or bottle feeding
transition goals from adolescence to adulthood
independence vs. interdependence friends who are not family members training for supported employment
does not matter whether we agree with unfamiliar parental views
what matters is that we recognize our views are reflections of our culture
so are the views of the parents! remembering this, we can listen with
respect, without negative judgment that shows on our faces and in our voices
Subtle, implicit, unacknowledged◦ Tone of voice◦ Facial expression◦ Disagreement interpreted as denial◦ Belief that parents don’t care◦ Detrimental home environments◦ No first-hand knowledge of the home
◦refusal to respond to invitations ◦say “yes” ◦silence
Next time you hear yourself or a colleague utter one of these exclamations, STOP and say to yourself or your friend: ◦ Denial? Or disagreement? ◦ They don’t come because they don’t care? Or
because they don’t feel needed or respected? ◦ Say, “so their behavior is “cultural?” So is mine!