Many of us involved in providing services to people with visual impairments and blindness look for opportunities to share with the public our knowledge about their accomplishments and their needs. Indeed, informing the public about issues affecting the quality of life for those we serve is an important professional obligation. The media can be an important tool in educating the public and thereby positively influence public policy and attitudes about blindness and visual impairment.

Good intentions, however, do not always bring about good results.

I can illustrate that with an event that took place at my school, The New York Institute for Special Education. At our graduation last year, our keynote speaker was a former student who had just graduated from college. He gave a moving and emotional speech that touched everyone, especially our students. With skillful and elegant images, he talked about his emotional problems when he entered our program and how the care he received from our staff gave him the opportunity to deal with his problems and to change his life. He told the students that he once sat where they were sitting and that they could stand where he was if they applied to their lives the lessons learned at our school.

Before graduation, we had sent out a press release inviting the press to the ceremony. We were pleased to see local and major newspapers and a local cable television news show covering the graduation. We thought that the powerful message delivered by our graduation speaker was an important message for the public to hear.

The stories on the cable news show and in the local newspapers were terrific, but the story that appeared the next day in a major New York newspaper dismayed us. Although much of the story was accurate and well done, the reporter chose to focus on the speaker's early emotional problems rather than on his accomplishments. Making matters worse, the headline writer sensationalized the story with "Wild Boy Returns to Special Education School." Needless to say, we spent the next few weeks apologizing to our speaker and talking to our understandably upset parents and staff. Our public relations people told us that they have little control over what a reporter writes and less control over the headline writer, who is a separate entity in major newspapers.

Although this was an extreme incident, having the press distort or inappropriately sensationalize events and portray our students as dependent or incapable occurs far too often and creates a special problem when we seek media coverage for our events. I remain committed to my professional responsibility to inform the public, but I must address this media problem. We have identified two strategies: to attach to every press release that is sent out a fact sheet about how to refer to people with disabilities and to train our staff and public relations people in using that language. Our first action was to ask other specialized schools and agencies if they would share with us what they use for this purpose. To my surprise no one had written such material. All, however, thought it was a great idea.

One respondent was Dr. Robert J. Beadles, Jr. from the Alabama Institute for Deaf and Blind, who agreed, on behalf of the Council of Schools for the Blind, to draft such a primer. With his permission, I have included here his draft of a paper that addresses appropriate "disability" terminology. I hope that every school and agency commit to addressing this problem and that Dr. Beadles's draft can serve as a starting point for developing individual guidelines.

~~~~~~~~

By Eugene McMahon, Executive Editor

Sherri McCarthy-Tucker is an associate professor of Educational Psychology, Counseling, and Human Relations at Northern Arizona University. Her published research includes studies of critical thinking, adolescent development, and effective teaching strategies for psychology courses. She has also written two books: Coping With Special Needs Classmates addresses special education strategies and A Death in the Family summarizes techniques of grief and bereavement counseling. Her teaching interests are in general psychology, educational psychology, and adolescent development. McCarthy. Tucker's dissertation work in logical processes of adolescents allowed her to collaborate with Hutz.

Claudio S. Hutz is dean of Instituto de Psicologia at Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul in Porto Alegre, Brazil, where he has been teaching psychology courses since 1977. A scholar in critical thinking, he has collaborated with American scholars, including Robert Grinder, on this topic. His research has been published internationally. Currently, he is working on a long-term, government-funded project to identify and understand processes that reduce vulnerability and increase resilience irt Brazilian slum communities. He is also involved in research to develop similar projects irt China, India, Nepal, Thailand, and elsewhere. Hutz is a graduate of the University of Iowa, art international affiliate of the American Psychological Association, a member of the Interamerican Society of Psychology, International Society for the Scientific Study of Behavior (ISSBD), and president of the Brazilian National Association of Research and Post. Graduate Studies in Psychology. His teaching interests include research methods, personality, and psychological assessment.

McCarthy-Tucker: In the United States, educators have been emphasizing the development of student critical thinking skills for the past several years. Corporate CEOs and liberal educators alike seem to agree that this is an important but somewhat rarely obtained goal of education. Does this trend also seem to be true in Brazil?

Hutz: We currently have severe educational problems in Brazil. More than 50% of the children will not finish elementary school. In many small towns in the North, many teachers have barely completed elementary school themselves. We are still struggling to eliminate illiteracy. Public schools present low quality in general. As a consequence, middle class families are registering their children in private schools. There are exceptions, of course. For example, in Porto Alegre, a coastal city in southeastern Brazil, schools have improved greatly in the last decade.

McCarthy-Tucker: What accounts for this overall improvement in Porto Alegre?

Hutz: Here, teachers have been trained to use constructivism, a learning approach based on Piaget's theory. Teachers allow children to solve problems through guided interaction.

McCarthy-Tucker: Can you explain how this is done?

Hutz: Teachers provide children with manipulative objects of interest that are geared to their developmental level. For example, young students will practice classification by using blocks of various shapes, such as squares, circles, and stars. The students construct their own understanding of logical principles by interacting with their immediate environment, ussing concrete objects and familiar situations. This has certainly led to an improvement in learning and in developing critical thinking skills.

McCarthy-Tucker: Are there other changes influencing Brazilian classrooms?

Hutz: We have also been investing in developing methods for teaching using the Internet. Our approach, however, is not a programmed learning approach where computers merely take the place of teachers. We are trying to develop methods that are more interactive and that allow students to build their knowledge more freely. We want students to communicate with each other online, to develop projects long distance, and to learn appropriate information access and information evaluation skills. We want them to work with their own areas of greatest interest with skilled teachers to mentor them in the process of gathering and using the vast amount of information available to them. This whole process of finding and using information is rapidly changing the curriculum and the day-to-day practices in Brazilian classrooms. Students need to not only learn to find information on their own but also to evaluate it critically. Critical thinking skills become even more paramount in their importance.

McCarthy-Tucker: Critical thinking has been defined in a variety of ways throughout history. Today in psychological literature there are still many conceptualizations and definitions. How do you define critical thinking?

Hutz: The majority of philosophers and psychologists who have studied the human mind seem to have believed that thinking takes place by laws governing logic. As Hunt (1982) pointed out, this belief seems to run unbroken from Aristotle to Piaget. Of course there are other perspectives as well. People write about emotional intelligence, intuition, and so forth as other dimensions. Critical thinking is a complex task and so it seems to require a fairly complex definition.

I prefer the framework posed by Grinder (1989) who suggested that critical thinking is comprised of six abilities, attitudes, and affects. These are knowledge transfer, logical analysis, orientation, persistence, open-mindedness, and objectivity. Knowledge transfer is the ability to relate new information to what is already known. Analysis is the ability to make use of logic to compare, contrast, inspect, or establish propositions that then promote speculation about probable relationships and new possibilities. Orientation is basically minimizing cognitive effort by distinguishing between trivial and critical data. Persistence is a willingness to maintain effort over time in searching for solutions; it requires self-regulation and the ability to delay gratification. Open-mindedness is being able to tolerate ambiguity and consider unconventional possibilities. In this sense, it also has a dimension of willingness to take risks. Objectivity is defined in a long-range context, as the ability to decide dispassionately and deliberately which alternatives are most likely to effect a desirable cultural change over time--a very long range view.

McCarthy-Tucker: That is a thorough definition. But do you think all of those dimensions are teachable? Or are some, such as willingness to take risks or ability to delay gratification, more akin to personality traits that are established long before a student ever enters a classroom--especially a college classroom?

Hutz: Brazilian educators are becoming more interested in learning than in teaching. I am convinced you can help students develop all those skills, but you cannot teach them, at least in a traditional way. You must plan activities-not necessarily classroom activities--to provide opportunities for students to develop critical thinking skills. It is not difficult to create an environment appropriate for knowledge transfer and logical analysis. In fact, many teachers do that with some degree of success. The other dimensions present huge challenges. Some of them are indeed akin to personality traits and are therefore difficult to modify. You need a change in the whole educational system. A lone college psychology teacher will not go very far in developing such dimensions in students. He or she may be successful at improving thinking inside the classroom, but there will likely be little or no generalization to other school situations or to real life situation.

McCarthy-Tucker: In the United States, introductory psychology is a class offered at nearly every institution of higher learning. It is required in many programs, and students from many areas other than psychology take the class along with psychology majors. Is this also the case in Brazil? If so, what is included in an introductory psychology class in Brazil? Is the class taught similarly to such courses in the United States?

Hutz: This is not so much the case in Brazil. In Brazil, the undergraduate psychology degree is a 5-year degree that leads to practice in social agencies. The program is highly selective. We have very good students, who are very focused on learning all they can about psychology. It is probably not the same type of student as you describe.

McCarthy-Tucker: As you probably know, critical thinking is often an area covered in introductory psychology classes in this country. It is presented either through the scientific method or through specific lessons and vignettes on critical thinking included in several commonly used textbooks or in other ways--at least in this country. Is that the case in Brazil?

Hutz: Teaching of psychology in Brazilis very different than in the United States. Here we have a 5-year undergraduate program that leads to a degree of Psychologist. This allows for the equivalent of licensure. Thus, the whole program, from the beginning, is aimed to prepare students (often very young students) to become psychologists at the end of 5 years. Critical thinking skills are, therefore, a major concern of our program as a whole. Every course should contribute to this end. Even when you have good students who have already developed critical thinking skills through high school, you still have a long way to go. They must learn to read scientific articles, to doubt their teachers, to understand fully that all the models we have are only the best descriptions available today of given processes and are by no means the best possible description, and so on. You cannot develop clinical skills unless you can reason with logic. If you cannot reason logically, you will not be a good psychologist. You cannot, however, start the task of developing critical thinking skills at the university level. Probably it is too late to do something meaningful at this point.

McCarthy-Tucker: When do you believe training in critical thinking should begin?

Hutz: Critical thinking skills have to be developed from the early years and the school has a major role in it. I do not mean that there is an age after which you cannot learn to reason critically. In fact, we all learn and develop critical thinking skills throughout life. However, the university is not the place to start. There is just not enough time to do it and the curricula assume students already have these skills to some degree. In our case, we accept 40 undergraduates every year from over 1,500 applicants. The chance of someone who has not developed critical thinking skills being admitted is very low. This seems to be true for the Federal University as a whole.

McCarthy-Tucker: How does the university establish that the students who are admitted are capable of critical thinking? Please describe any specific assessments or particular evidence the university looks for when ads mitting students.

Hutz: We require many standardized admissions exams, and we also examine the scores of high school exit exams. In addition, our students submit portfolios for review, and we interview our candidates for admission.

McCarthy-Tucker: You said earlier that critical thinking skills needed to be developed throughout the early years. What do you thank would be the ideal way to prepare effective critical thinkers before college?

Hutz: I think that the schools in Porto Alegre that are using constructivism with young children are doing the right thing. Young children need to learn seriation, classification, reversibility, and so forth through early, guided interactions with the environment. Once these basic, concrete reasoning skills are established, I believe that secondary schools should try to establish a contextualized logic curriculum, aimed at adolescents who would profit very much from such an experience and who would have a distinct advantage when they go to college.

McCarthy-Tucker: Can you explain what this contextualized logic curriculum might be like?

Hutz: It would be a curriculum that included instruction in formal logic, but then applied this information to everyday problem solving that was of high interest to the students. For example, students would apply the principles to decisions they were making in their daffy lives. These would vary according to the specific situations of students, of course. Decisions might relate to something as simple as whom to ask to a dance or as complex as how to survive on the streets. But there needs to be direct connections to students' daily lives. For it to be effective, you must have secondary teachers who understand their students very well. You must also have secondary teachers who, themselves, are skilled in applying principles of formal logic to decision-making and problem solving.

Psychology as a discipline is actually a very good source for providing this training. I know that my department has worked extensively with teachers in this city to improve their skills. The Korean Journal of Critical Thinking (McCarthy-Tucker, 1998a, 1998b) published research related to the success of this approach last year. Teachers must develop logic lessons that are in line with the daffy concerns of their students. Then they must integrate these lessons into their curriculums, whether the focus is Language, art, science, mathematics, social studies, vocational training--whatever else it is they teach.

McCatthy-Tucker: The work in which we were involved together included developing a logic curriculum in cooperation with several math and English secondary teachers at a low-income, high.risk inner city school. Teachers then integrated the lessons into some of their courses over a semester. Students in these courses were compared to matched control groups in courses where the teachers had not integrated the lessons. We saw significant gains in both self-efficacy and performance on standardized ability and achievement measures for students who had received instruction in contextualized logic. Do you thank the lessons we developed would work for all students?

Hutz: No. I think they will work for students in the United States in similar environments to our subjects at similar times in history. Youth culture changes. Daily lives, interests, and needs of adolescents change. The lessons might serve as good models, but would need to be tailored to each group of adolescents they were used with by teachers who understand their students' lives and are proficient in logical reasoning and critical thinking. It is very important to train the teachers so that they can then show their students what critical thinking looks like. College level psychology classes for teachers could be a very important means of doing this.

McCatthy-Tucker: It sounds as if you are proposing a psychology course for teachers that focuses on critical thinking skills. Do you think this would be a good idea?

Hutz: Absolutely. And even better for practicing teachers than for students who are preparing to be teachers. It would be best to provide this at both levels. It is imperative that teachers become critical thinkers and understand how to contextualize logic for their students. Then they can prepare their students to be good thinkers at whatever level they are.

McCatthy-Tucker: I agree. Many of the skills, abilities, and effects we've discussed need to be developed throughout childhood and adolescence, and teachers need to be skilled at reasoning to demonstrate it. Logical skills seem to be especially appropriate to teach during adolescence from a developmental perspective. But that doesn't always happen as completely as it should. What do you do in your university classes to help students thank critically about issues and content?

Hutz: I utilize dialogue, case studies, and discussion to a great degree. I also constantly ask students to support their answers to controversial questions. I try to demonstrate to them that this support is more like a proof in geometry than a lot of opinion. I encourage real interaction. My students work with teachers. They work with street kids and their families. We establish centers to offer services. Providing actual experiences--what I have heard referred to as "service learning" in your country--and then analyzing these experiences through guided discussion as well as personal reflection--is a good start. Any applied practice of psychology, one hopes, will on some level increase the likelihood of critical thinking. Putting this practice in a helping context for psychology students--in fact, putting it in any context that is personally meaningful to the individual, as Paolo Friere (1973) has suggested--may be the most efficient way to do this. As Friere noted, critical thinking develops not just in a classroom. The "street smarts" of some of these kids provide better examples of critical thinking than a classroom can and my students notice this.

McCarthy-Tucker: I've often thought that developing critical thinking skills in future generations was perhaps the most valuable contribution those of us who teach could make, not only for quality of life on an individual basis, but even on a broader scale such as diminishing social problems and improving international relations. Do you agree?

Hutz: That is very idealistic but I suppose, especially if you focus on the dimension of objectivity in Grinder's definition that I referred to previously, that is true. If critical thinking includes the ability to decide dispassionately and deliberately which alternatives are most likely to effect a desirable cultural change over trine and then to take risks, if necessary, to act on these decisions, it would certainly lead to better international relations and to diminishing social problems. However, for this to be the case, the majority of beings on this planet would need to practice this altruistic dimension of thought. I fear that we are far away from that ideal. Only a very small percentage of the Brazilian students who apply for a degree in psychology at my institution are admitted, and those who are come to me with fairly adequate thinking skills already in place. Except as a trickle-down effect, through their later actions that are impacted by my limited contact with them, I have very little impact on their critical thinking, and even less on the critical thinking of the clients they will work with in the future. I agree, in theory, with you on that point. But I do not see teaching as the only, or even the best, way for psychologists to further the goal of enhancing the thinking abilities of the populace on a global scale. That is what your Utopian dream would require.

McCarthy-Tucker: How else could it be defined to allow for furthering the goal of enhancing the thinking abilities of the populace on a global scale?

Hutz: That is a good question. Part of it would have to do with psychologists becoming more vitally active in the community--in the educational community, in the international community.

One of the things I have done is to work very hard with the local public schools to help train the teachers who will be working with the young children. They need the knowledge of psychology. Those of us who teach psychology at the university level need to see ourselves as partners in this process. We need to work with the teachers at all levels, not just dispense our wisdom to the limited few who arrive at our classrooms at the graduate level.

Another is my effort to have a positive effect on the thinking skills of the many street kids by involving my students and my university in working with this population. This is not limited just to Brazil. I also work with colleagues in Malaysia, in Thailand--it is a worldwide problem. I know you have projects with homeless youth in the United States as well. Academic psychology needs to become more contextualized as a discipline, by extending our skills and knowledge to the community at large rather than keeping it separate. We need to become partners with the community, if you will. Partners with the world.

McCarthy-Tucker: It seems that APA has recently focused on the role of psychologists as partners more. I'm currently involved with P3: Psychology Partnerships Project, a project the organization is funding to do just that help those of us who teach psychology at the university level become partners with secondary teachers, with community agencies, with international colleagues--basically partners with the world! Are you familiar with that project?

Hutz: Not yet, but I can tell you will inform me, and probably find a way to persuade me to become involved at some future trine not too far away! The international dimension is an important one to develop, I believe, if the goal is to extend critical thinking to an overall, long-range benefit for the community at large. More and more, our world is "shrinking." That may be a cliche, but we are more connected--there is, now, at least in an ethereal sense, what could be defined as a global community. Communications technology makes that increasingly possible. So it becomes important for those of us who teach psychology to reach out to our colleagues in other countries, to look at how what they do may inform what we do, and to discuss and share local practices and solutions that, although some of us take for granted, may be novel to others. I suspect it is true that many university psychology professors of my generation were trained in the United States or Europe. I was. So there is a common base. But it develops differently in different settings. Different societies have varying needs, so research and practice acquires very different slants, different flavors. Exchanging this base of information is important. Sharing various perspectives informs the critical thinking process because it is desirable to have as much relevant data as possible before analysis, before decision making. Working together is essential. I am pleased that APA has a growing interest in international practices, and the Committee on International Relations in Psychology (CIRP) is also very useful to this end.

McCarthy-Tucker: Speaking of working together, Psi Chi, a psychology honor society, is focusing on providing international service. How could interested members and chapters assist you in your work with the homeless? I'm sure if you would take a few minutes to describe some of your needs and provide contact information, you would find some wonderful volunteers, whether you are seeking donations of material goods such as clothing or trine or knowledge. How could interested Psi Chi members be of service to your work with street kids?

Hutz: I will think about this and make the information available through the global psychology Web site you have developed (http://www.members.tripod.com/globalpsychology/;it can also be accessed through the APA homepage). I suspect there is always a need locally, too, for students to donate time at shelters, in special schools for the homeless and at food banks, so I would suggest looking for local opportunities. Problems seem to be best solved in local contexts, I believe.

McCarthy-Tucker: I hope several chapters will decide to get involved with these very worthwhile projects, and I will be giving you more information shortly about the P3 International Partnerships group! Thank you very much for the time and energy you have devoted to sharing your perspective with the readers of ToP. Considering how busy you are with your many roles, this was a special gift. Do you have any parting "words of wisdom?"

Hutz: It has been a pleasure. This is very related to what I am doing in the various organizations I have key roles in. My work to increase resiliency certainly depends on increasing critical thinking skills, and it is gratifying to know U.S. psychology teachers and students at all levels are interested in this task. Besides--sometimes I am not that busy (unless dealing with broken faucets, and the various other mundane tasks that fall to deans, are included). In parting, I would encourage my teaching colleagues around the world to work together on "contextualizing" our discipline in a way that has long-reaching, positive effects. There are many children and adolescents at risk. We have valuable tools to offer that help decrease their vulnerability and improve their resilience. Critical thinking skills are among the most important of these tools. However we can provide it, whether it is through our students, through direct contact, through developing shelters and offering training, through research, through increasing public awareness or in other ways, it is important that we do so. And if we can do so as partners, to help the many societies beyond our own backyards, that is so much the better.

PHOTO (BLACK & WHITE): Sherri McCarthy-Tucker

PHOTO (BLACK & WHITE): Claudio S. Hutz

Damon, W. (1999). New directions for child and adolescent development London: JAI.

Friere, P. (1973). Educating for critical conciousness. New York: Seabury.

Friere, P., & Macedo D. (1987). Literacy: Reading the word and the world. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey.

Grinder, R. E. (1989,June). Acquisition of critical thinking skills in children and adolescents. Address presented at the biennial meeting of the Sociedad Interamericana de Psicologia, Buenes Aires, Argentina.

Hunt, M. (1982). The story of psychology. New York: Doubleday.

McCarthy-Tucker, S. (1998a). Need for logic instruction in schools. Korean Journal of Thinking and Problem Solving, 8, 77-104.

McCarthy-Tucker, S. (1998b). Teaching logic to adolescents to improve thinking skills. Korean Journal of Thinking and Problem Solving, 8, 45-66.

Raffaelli, M., & I.arson, R. W. (Eds.). (1999). Homeless and working youth around the world: Exploring developmental issues. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

~~~~~~~~

By Sherri McCarthy-Tucker, Northern Arizona University

It is "Back to School Night" at a large elementary school serving an ethnically, linguistically, and economically diverse suburban community. There is a large turnout, and parents seem to have enjoyed themselves. There is a loud hum as they exchange information among themselves and talk excitedly to teachers. After all of the parents have left, the teachers linger to discuss the success of the evening. In the course of the conversation, a special education teacher of a mixed-age K-3 classroom seems to become less excited. Finally she confides her disappointment to a fellow teacher, "Not one of the parents of my second-language kids came tonight. I just don't understand how to get them to come in. I hope it's not like last year--I never even met some of my parents."

This vignette describes a not-uncommon occurrence in many school settings today. It is the interpretation of this event and the differing perspectives about it that are central to changing the outcome. We might be able to imagine some of the interpretations the teachers come up with. We have far less information to help us imagine the home conversations that led to decisions not to attend. Yet, it is becoming increasingly critical that we have a better understanding, from the perspective of families, of the course of events that led up to the disappointing turnout at "Back to School Night."

The U.S. school population is becoming increasingly diverse |Harry, 1992). In many urban centers, the majority of the school population is nonwhite. In others, immigration patterns have resulted in school populations representing many language groups. These changing demographics provide a rich opportunity for cross-cultural learning: for teachers, students, families, and communities to learn from each other. All too often, however, this increasing diversity is seen as a problem to be addressed--as presenting still another challenge to schools whose resources are already stretched to the limit. Special educators are confronted with the need to meet the letter and spirit of regulations that require informed consent and family involvement in planning, while also requiring that services and information be provided in the language of the family to the maximum extent possible.

How can we benefit from the richness that diverse communities of learners have to offer?

How can we begin to address the barriers to collaboration that come with increasing diversity?

How can we ensure that families from diverse cultures become active participants in the schools where their children receive services?

This article describes a variety of promising strategies and how each can assist special educators in partnering with families of diverse learners in order to create a climate in which diversity enhances rather than challenges the process of intervention with children with disabilities.

The school population has become increasingly diverse, but the same cannot be said of teachers (Thorp, Flynn, Takemoto, & Evans, 1996). The teaching profession continues to be composed primarily of White women of Anglo-European origins. This lack of diversity in the profession means that few teachers have had the opportunity to learn about diverse cultural and linguistic groups through peer or professional relationships, either as they themselves were going through school or in the schools in which they are employed. Yet, the best cultural learning occurs as a result of informal relationships and interaction. Thus, teachers tend to have limited vocabulary and behaviors for interacting with individuals from diverse cultures. Further, too many of us avoid asking questions about the cultural experience of others in order to broaden our knowledge base. This avoidance stance has often unwittingly been supported by the "melting pot" view of the United States. This view may deny the role of culture and language in people's lives by suggesting, "We're all people. We're color blind here, " and so forth. Unfortunately, taking this position may cause us to avoid the difficult task of acknowledging that there are cultural differences, to set about discovering them, and to learn from the varied cultural perspectives that may be found in the communities where we teach. Culture is central to our experience and to how we interpret new experiences. To create a culturally responsive classroom requires acknowledging this (Clark, DeWolf, & Clark, 1992).

Given the lack of diversity among teachers, we need to have formal opportunities for learning about cultural and linguistic diversity (Harry, Torguson, Katkavich, & Guerrero, 1993). Until recently, such training has not occurred, and it has only just begun to occur in any systematic fashion (Byrd, 1995; Clark et al., 1992; LaMountain & Abramms, 1993; Leung, 1990; Stimac & Woody, 1995). For example, current licensure recommendations and teacher training programs are just beginning to incorporate recommendations with regard to training on diversity into their standards. Some school systems also have begun to institute formal diversity training (Fairfax County Public Schools, 1994). Most frequently, such training still focuses on describing specific cultures and cultural practices. Although this information can be useful as a baseline, it should be used cautiously (Harry, 1992; Lynch, 1992). Such information can lead to expectations for family participation that are based on stereotypes that may or may not hold true for any particular family. All families, in fact, vary greatly in the degree to which their beliefs and practices are representative of a particular culture, language group, religious group, or country of origin. Further, few cultures lend themselves to simple descriptors. Consider, for example, that a significant percentage of the entire world's population lives in China. It would clearly be futile to simply describe the "Chinese culture" in a short workshop. Current training approaches favor focusing on strategies for learning about each family's unique cultural experience and for using a cultural perspective to analyze interactions with families.

Families' negative experiences may be the single most important factor challenging family participation, and it is imperative that teachers be aware of it. Interviews with families repeatedly indicate that families want to be involved in their children's education. However, families also report that they have not felt particularly welcome. Despite any one teacher's good intentions and ability to welcome divers parents into his or her classroom, many families come with a prior experience with professionals that has not been so welcoming. That prior experience is carried into new interactions with professionals and can contribute to a climate of mistrust that may have little to do with the current teacher (Espinosa, 1995; Finders & Lewis, 1994; Harry, Allen, & McLaughlin, 1995; Porter, 1994).

Consider, for example, the parent whose first experience with intervention was when her child was placed in a special education preschool, where she was informed that it would be best for her child if she not come to school at all for the first month--despite the fact that her child cried every day and despite the fact that this was contrary to anything she would ever have considered doing with her other two normally developing children when they were in preschool. How might that experience influence her willingness to come to school at later dates and in future years, when the school staff decide they want her to be involved? What about the parent who has limited English who has been told it would be better for his child with a disability if he spoke only in English, despite the fact that he greatly enjoys telling his child stories and playing fantasy games with him using his first language? What message has this father received about the degree to which he and his language are welcome in the school?

Overrepresentation of Minorities in Special Education. The overrepresentation of minorities in special education programs has been well documented (Harry, 1992). It is still not unheard of that, in the absence of English as a second language (ESL) services, teachers believe that a child would benefit more from special education than from being served in the mainstream. To establish a climate for family involvement will require professionals to carefully guard against a tendency to equate difference with disability. There is a need for appropriate assessment strategies that reduce the probability of bias associated with selected assessment instruments and that incorporate an understanding of the process of second language acquisition, as well as of the nature of dialect (M. Anderson & Goldberg, 1991; Fradd, 1992). Further, families report needing information in understandable language about the referral and assessment process. Some families may be mistrustful of the actual definitions of disability, which they may see as relevant only for "Americans" (Harry, 1992). Further, they may be appropriately mistrustful of the suggestion that culturally and linguistically diverse children are "at risk" by definition. They may wonder how their culture, rich in history and with a shared wealth of knowledge and experience in the community, is somehow deficient by school standards.

Stereotypes About Family Participation. Despite the 20 years of mandated participation for parents in the special education system, there is a mutually acknowledged lack of active participation of culturally and linguistically diverse families in these systems. This is a circumstance that can easily tend to perpetuate itself; parents see themselves as having no real power in their interactions with professionals, and they therefore cease to try. Professionals, in turn, may begin to inadvertently discourage parental involvement on the basis of stereotypes such as those about poor or immigrant families. The professionals may assume that these parents are so overwhelmed with addressing daily needs that it would be asking too much to invite them to school. Other stereotypes may also enter this scene, such as those that suggest that families of certain cultures are more passive or accepting of what professionals say. In-depth discussions with families, however, do not validate these stereotypes; rather, they suggest that families lack adequate information about when and how to participate, as well as an adequate range of opportunities. Further, language barriers may create problems for families.

Although each of these challenges is very real, recent activities focusing on more effective collaboration between intervention programs and diverse families have resulted in promising practices. These emerging strategies suggest a four-part approach for professionals in order to increase partnership opportunities, as well as to improve the quality of those partnerships:

1. Professionals need to explore their own cultural experiences, values, and attitudes.
2. Professionals need to learn as much as possible from families about their cultural experiences, values, and attitudes.
3. Teachers need to carefully evaluate their own classroom settings and curriculum strategies through a cultural and linguistic lens.
4. Professionals need to examine all components of the service system for opportunities for family involvement.

It is often suggested that the first, and perhaps most important, step in developing more productive relationships with families from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds must be exploring one's own culture, values, and beliefs (Chattergy, 1995; Garcia, 1995; Stimac & Woody, 1995). This step is not as simple as it may appear, however. In my experience, it is not uncommon for professionals and preservice teachers to see culture as something someone else has. One teacher, in all seriousness, once commented, "I'm only from Pittsburgh. I don't really have a culture." She noted that she saw culture as belonging to immigrants or individuals with backgrounds different from her own, particularly if that background was exotic.

There is a proverb: "The fish will be the last to discover water." The parallel to culture is clear. Our own experience is so familiar that we do not name it "culture." Yet, that is what culture is. It is "learned patterns of behavior, values, assumptions, and meaning, which are shared to varying degrees of interest, importance, and awareness with members of a group; culture is the story of reality that individuals and groups value and accept as a guide for organizing their lives" (Seelye, 1996). With this definition, it is hard to imagine a part of our daily living that is not influenced by our culture. The same is true of any child or family member with whom we work.

Know Your Own Story. To build bridges to individuals from other cultures requires getting to know our own "story of reality" so that we can better understand the different stories of reality of the children and families with whom we work. What do we recall about childrearing practices in our family? What values were transmitted in the way children were treated, in the way development was managed and supported? What was our family's message about independence, about learning, about family and community? What were important celebrations? Who was involved? How were these occasions celebrated? How was disability or difference discussed and treated? How have each of these beliefs and practices influenced our current ways of believing and behaving?

Recognize the Potential for Cultural Conflicts. Having done this initial exploration, we begin to recognize the central role of culture in our own lives and therefore its importance in the lives of the families, as well as other colleagues, with whom we work. It then becomes important to recognize the potential for cultural conflicts coming from our story of reality. For example, attitudes about appropriate behavior at different ages, as well as about appropriate behavior management strategies, vary widely among professionals, families, and cultures. An obvious area of conflict is physical punishment; however, more subtle conflicts may be present around such issues as attitudes toward independence, noise, and respectfulness, as well as attitudes about specific strategies such as timeout or the use of concrete rewards. A teacher's beliefs and values on any of these dimensions may vary widely with families, as well as with other professionals and staff in a school. Because it is likely that nearly all of our teaching practices have a cultural dimension, it is important that a professional explore his or her expectations from the perspective of absolutes versus personal cultural interpretation. For example, a recent discussion of childrearing practices with a group of special education teachers yielded widely divergent behavioral expectations for children during mealtime. Each offered spirited and well-supported explanations for why their particular perspective was absolutely essential for the long-term developmental success of the children with whom they worked. Clearly these were culturally influenced expectations that had come to be accepted as absolutes by each of these teachers.

When teachers begin to explore their expectations--to unmask the absolutes--they are able to anticipate potential cultural dilemmas and to consider alternative perspectives. This does not require that professionals abandon their own beliefs, but that they recognize alternate routes as also being possible. From this perspective, true conversation and negotiation can occur with families. Examining the central role that these beliefs and values have had in one's own life enables professionals to acknowledge and explore these beliefs and values with the families with whom they work.

Recognize the Powerful Role of the Teacher. Because teachers and other professionals occupy a position of power in their interaction with families, it is unlikely that they will learn about conflicts between families' beliefs and their own without the kind of self-exploration described above. However, the teacher's unexamined cultural assumptions may be one of the underlying issues when parents do not appear to participate in their child's educational program. Moreover, because of the typically unequal balance of power between teachers and families, teachers' cultural beliefs are likely to dominate parent-teacher interactions. For example, if a family feels that their beliefs about appropriate strategies are not valued in an Individualized Education Program (IEP) meeting, and instead hear that another way is most appropriate, their motivation to attend future meetings may be greatly reduced. They clearly see the need for their child's schooling, so the child continues in a program, but family members may understandably be unwilling to let go of culturally based beliefs and values, and they may feel powerless to challenge those expressed as absolutes by professionals.

Explore Attitudes About Diversity and Diverse Populations. Another aspect of this personal journey is exploring one's attitudes about diversity. Is increasing diversity seen as a problem or a source of richness in the school community? What assumptions are made about culturally and linguistically diverse families? When teachers talk about the cultural groups represented in their schools, do they make sweeping statements that begin with "These families . . ." or "Those families...." What unstated biases are being expressed when one says, "These families don't . . ."? Too often, professionals' beliefs about families from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds come from a deficit model. Families are invited to be involved in programs, but the implicit message communicated is that families need to be educated about how to help their children--implying that only the dominant culture possesses knowledge about appropriate parenting. In contrast, beliefs that support family participation are those that acknowledge that each family brings knowledge and experience that can contribute to the school environment and that can enrich professionals' understanding of their children.

Practice Reframing. The practice of reframing--taking a different perspective--can help teachers avoid stereotypical bias in interpreting nonparticipation of families. Reframing requires interpreting a problem from a more positive, proactive perspective (Thorp et al., 1996). When a family member doesn't come to a scheduled meeting or fails to participate in an important school event, don't jump to a negative conclusion. Generate all the possible reasons for the absence. Think about what positive interpretations could be made. Guard against those interpretations that are based on stereotypical cultural assumptions about a family. Think about what the school might have done to lead to the "no-show." Exhausting all these possible interpretations helps us move from a blaming stance to a problem-solving stance.

The richest source of information about the families with whom we work is the families themselves. There are many ways in which we can learn about them and the cultural perspectives they bring to their interactions with schools.

Become a Cultural Researcher. It is virtually impossible to learn in a book or training session all one needs to know about different cultural and linguistic groups. Individuals vary widely in the degree to which their beliefs or practices are representative of the cultural group with which they identify. Further, individuals may identify their culture entirely differently from the demographic descriptor they are given for program purposes. It has been suggested that culture is like the wind; you can't touch it or see it, but you know it when you feel it or see its effects. Thus, the best way to learn about the culture of the families with whom we work is to do some legwork. Talk to families. Find out what their experiences have been. How did they come to be here? What about school is important to them? What sources of strength emerge from their stories? What knowledge, skills, and experiences do they bring that can enrich the school, that contribute to their children, What can they tell you about their experience with disability or about attitudes about disability? What are their firmly held childrearing beliefs? What are their expectations for their normally developing children? What are their expectations for their child with disabilities? What is their experience with community service providers? What are their beliefs about asking for outside assistance? How do they ask for assistance? How do they like to receive information? What are their beliefs about formal schooling? What is their own experience with formal schooling? What are their expectations from the formal schooling of their children? What do they do at home that they see as related to schooling? (M. Anderson & Goldberg, 1991; P. P. Anderson & Fenichel, 1989; Hanson, Lynch, & Wayman, 1990; Lynch, 1992; Wayman, Lynch, & Hanson, 1991).

The answers to each of these will help you develop a picture of a family. Remember that the best information is obtained over time in the context of a relationship. These are not questions that any of us are familiar with being able to answer directly in the course of a one-shot interview. Rather, this information is best obtained by listening, by sharing, by observing, by asking if what we've observed is accurate. When family members come to believe that we really want to hear their stories, rather than judge them, they are excited about telling those stories and find many ways to be available to teachers.

Find Out About the Community. What is the focus of community life? Where do families go? Where do they play? Where do they get together? Every community has formal and informal resource exchange networks. How do families access resources in their own communities? Who are the helpers? How and where is information obtained and exchanged? Where are the religious institutions, the community centers--even the shopping centers--where families maintain cultural links and exchange information and resources? Families are more likely to be involved when they think professionals are interested in their knowledge and experiences, especially when this interest is for the purpose of learning from families, rather than learning about them (McCaleb, 1994; Moll, 1992, cited in Turnbull & Turnbull, 1997).

Use a Cultural Guide. In this process it is important to make the effort to learn directly from families themselves; however, sometimes language and other factors present real or perceived barriers. In those instances, a cultural guide can be useful (Lynch, 1992). Identifying someone from the culture who can act as a mediator and translator can help you better understand families from a particular culture. However, it must be recognized that no individual can completely interpret the cultural experience of another. Two individuals may speak the same language or have the same demographic signifier; however, they may come from different countries or occupy different positions of social and economic power in the community. Thus, the cultural guide is a guide only, and information obtained from him or her cannot be substituted for direct contact with families.

Establish on Ongoing Relationship. Ideally, all of this occurs in the context of an ongoing relationship, not as part of a one-shot interview that may feel unfamiliar and formal to families. In particular, such contact should not occur in response to a problem that has occurred in school--a circumstance reported by many families as the way in which they typically have contact with schools. The cultural learning process needs to be ongoing and reciprocal--one in which families feel that they have many opportunities to tell their stories and to teach us about their experiences and one in which they feel that they have opportunities to learn from professionals.

How a school looks, how an individual classroom looks, what happens in that classroom--all of these factors contribute to whether families feel like welcomed collaborators in their children's formal schooling. Walk through your classroom. Look at your plans. Look at your school. Look around as if you were a new parent coming to this school for the first time, perhaps coming to any school for the first time. Consider what is communicated to families entirely wordlessly.

Create a Welcoming Environment. It is important to create a classroom/ school environment where families who might like to become more active participants feel welcome. When schools and classrooms reflect the communities from which children come, families are likely to feel more welcome. Critically evaluate all aspects of the environment for stereotypic representations. Make an effort to have materials that reflect the diversity of the community while avoiding stereotyping. Pictures, books, resources: All should reflect that diversity. Further, images should reflect the children and families of the school--as they appear in the United States today, not only in "native" dress or pictured as they appeared at some time in history. This needs to occur on a regular, ongoing, natural basis--not solely as a function of "spotlights" on particular children or their cultural communities (Clark et al., 1992).

Avoid a tourist perspective that restricts celebration of community diversity to a designated cultural awareness week or heritage month. Such celebrations are a great deal of fun for schools and communities, but are more meaningful when cultural awareness is an ongoing process in the school. Be careful to avoid restricting opportunities for family involvement to those days when they are invited to come in and talk about their home country or cultural practices within this country. Although some parents do enjoy bringing in cultural artifacts or sharing a special dish, others may wish to share their experiences and participate in other ways (Derman-Sparks & the ABC Task Force, 1989).

Analyze the Curriculum for Cultural/Linguistic/Family Relevance. Families occupy the central role in teaching their children, and language is the central means by which cultural knowledge is transmitted. Children's cognitive and language development are inextricable (National Association for the Education of Young Children, 1996). Consider how families can be validated and supported in their roles transmitting cultural learning and supporting cognitive development. Each family possesses a fund of knowledge that can help us better understand their child and that can enrich our curriculum (Moll, 1992, cited in Turnbull & Turnbull, 1997). What knowledge and experiences do family members bring that can contribute to the curriculum? What interests do parents have that can be shared? Given that literacy is a central activity of schooling, consider how families can support literacy through using their own stories. Whether parents themselves are nonliterate or literate, they have stories of their own experiences and family histories to share (Dyson & Genishi, 1994; Harry, 1995; Miller & Mehler, 1994). A parent or grandparent who has experienced limited school success with reading or who has limited English may appear to be uninterested in participation when the call goes out for parents to come in and read. However, that same parent or grandparent may be a great storyteller or singer quite willing to tell stories from a rich oral tradition. The process of learning from parents, interviewing parents, and sharing stories can assist students in the literacy process. Students can write about the stories they have heard. They can create classroom books containing the stories from many of their families. They can collect family stories that reflect their own cultural experiences. Then the literacy process becomes more functional and meaningful than literacy activities that are not linked to the real experiences of children. Such an outcome is important for all children, but it has been seen as especially relevant for students in special education classrooms. Additionally, these practices can ensure that parents will be excited by, see the relevance of, and want to participate in the school curriculum. This process transforms the classroom into a true community of learners in which children are learning from each other, from teachers, from parents, and from the community and ensures that the curriculum is functional and relevant (McCaleb, 1994).

Provide Information and Resources. Parents of children with disabilities often report that their greatest need is information. Further, they want information to be provided frequently, over time, and in a language they understand. Although the law is clear about specific timelines for providing information and ways in which it must be provided, families are too often given information on a one-shot basis. It may or may not be in their home language, and it may or may not be provided in a way that is understandable. Be careful not to interpret a lack of family response to written information as lack of interest. Make sure that such information is understandable. Find out the family's preferred mode of communication. Who needs to receive the information? What form is best? How would they like to receive it? What are their specific information needs? Families may discard papers if they feel that the information provided never addresses the questions they have (Lynch, 1992; Porter, 1994; Turnbull & Turnbull, 1997).

Provide Linking Opportunities for Families. Often other families are an effective source of information. Create opportunities for families to talk with each other (Wald, 1991). Families from culturally and linguistically diverse communities are more likely to feel welcome in the school setting when they see other members of their community present and see them being treated as valuable resources. Become familiar with other resources in the community, such as parent resource centers or parent training and information centers. Find out the natural channels for information flow in the community and determine when and how to use them. The demand on a teacher's time can be reduced when the resources of other families are used (Poyadue, 19951

Provide Varied Opportunities for Family Involvement. One of the barriers to family involvement in programs for children with disabilities has been the menu-driven approach to family involvement programs (Turnbull & Turnbull, 1997). Teachers may begin the year with a "family involvement plan" and become discouraged after the first event in their plan--for example, a parent support meeting--has limited to no response. Families have varied preferences for the degree to which they wish to be involved and the way in which they wish to be involved. A family involvement plan is enriched when family members play a key role in developing it, rather than being seen only as participants and recipients. Families from diverse cultural and linguistic communities may have historically different relationships with schools and attitudes about family involvement in schools. If the relationship is formal and on the school's terms, families likely do not feel welcome, as they would if they felt they could determine when and how to relate to schools.

There are many implications. Different families have different preferences for how to be involved. Explore these preferences with families. Varied opportunities make families feel welcome by opening up the ongoing program of the school, rather than having selected involvement opportunities at predetermined times. Provide opportunities that require varied time commitment and skills, and opportunities that can be accomplished at home, before school, during school, in the evening, and on selected days. Simply stated, avoid the assumption that "we have to get these parents in"; rather, operate on the assumption that parents are already involved in the lives of their children, not just formally involved in the life of the school (Edwards, Fear, & Gallego, 1995). Focus on ways to draw them in by showing how much you value the knowledge, skills, language, and culture of all the families with whom you work.

Effective family involvement does not begin with the placement of a child in a particular classroom. The most effective collaborations occur when there are varied opportunities for partnership for parents throughout the special education process.

Evaluate All Components of Service Delivery. The opportunity for family-professional collaboration begins with the first referral and continues throughout all phases of evaluation, IEP development, and program implementation. The more families feel invited and involved, the more likely they are to participate in the classroom component of service delivery (Child Care Law Center, 1995). Examine each step in the process. What are the opportunities for collaborative partnership? What are family information needs? What translation services and other supports will be needed? What roles can family members take at each step in the process? How can these be negotiated up front so that families feel that their unique needs and preferences are being considered? A useful strategy for a program is to develop a grid that, for each step in the special education process, identifies roles and responsibilities for professionals and also identifies responsibilities and a range of optional roles for parents (Thorp et al., 1996). For example, parents can provide key input to the assessment process when given the opportunity to describe their children's behavior and activities at home. They can be more than nominal participants in the IEP process when they are asked to describe their hopes and dreams for their child. They can assist in strategy identification when they are asked to link those hopes and dreams to what the child is currently doing and to describe things that seem to help him or her learn at home. They can provide home carryover when they see an activity's relevance to their expectations for their child and when the expectation for carryover is congruent with what they typically do with their child.

Provide Leadership Options for Parents. Although many parents have neither the time nor the desire to take on roles beyond direct participation in their own children's schooling, others move from advocating on their own child's behalf to seeing themselves as able to provide support to other families (Poyadue, 1995; Weinburg, 1995). Too often schools have found these natural parent leaders to be threatening; however, they can become key actors in the school community, reaching out to other families, interpreting for families, or assisting staff in better understanding the needs of the diverse families in their schools. When parents are acknowledged for their expertise, other parents come to see the school as a nonthreatening place to be. Projects that take this leadership perspective find several principles to be important: that parents and professionals need to have opportunities to learn together from each other, that varied opportunities for parent leadership need to be available, and that diversity of educational level and family experience enriches what parents can bring to leadership. It is critical that teachers be careful of assuming that only parents with a certain level of education or a great deal of time can take on leadership roles. In fact, natural leaders occur in all communities and parents are more likely to take on a leadership role when they feel that their leadership is welcomed and supported (Brame, 1995). When that occurs, families and schools benefit mutually.

Families and school professionals agree that there is often lack of participation of diverse families in school programs. Their interpretations of this circumstance may vary, however. When teachers adopt a strategy that involves engaging in self-reflection, learning from communities, and adapting program and curricular approaches, it is more likely that families will take advantage of opportunities for partnership.

~~~~~~~~

By Eva K. Thorp

Eva K. Thorp, EdD, is an associate professor of early childhood education and special education in the Graduate School of Education at George Mason University. She coordinates the Unified Teacher Education Model in Early Childhood, which uses on integrated perspective to prepare teachers to work with culturally, linguistically, and ability diverse children and their families. Address: Eva K. Thorp, Graduate School of Education, MSN 4B3, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030

Technical Assistance for Parent Programs Project (TAPP)
Federation for Children with Special Needs
95 Berkeley St., Suite 104
Boston, MA 02116
617/482-2915 or their web site at http://www.fcsn.org

For more information, contact
Kyppee White Evans
Center for Human disabilities
MSN 1F2
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030
703/993-3670