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!