httpcdn-media.waldenu.edu2dett4dWaldenEDUC6357CHmmaudio_

http://cdn-
media.waldenu.edu/2dett4d/Walden/EDUC/6357/CH/mm/audio_
player/index_week6.html
Click on “Go To Menu.”
Click on Anti-Bias ECE Settings
Select each narrator at the left bottom portion of the screen.
Visit link below:
https://content.waldenu.edu/f31ba8b46f5e6d6ec2ca13a3c07cd07
1.pdf
Visit the links below for Contemporary Books:
https://litkidz.com/books/contemporary
Visit the link below for Classic Books:
https://www.listchallenges.com/85-classic-childrens-books
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.
The Importance of Including Culturally Authentic Literature
Hall, Katrina Willard

YC Young Children; Jan 2008; 63, 1; ProQuest One Academic
pg. 80

EDUC6357: Diversity, Development, and Learning
“Start Seeing Diversity: Race/Ethnicity”
Program Transcript
NARRATOR: Bias based on race, or racism, and ethnic bias, or
ethnocentrism,
are any attitude, action, or institutional practice that
subordinates people based
on the color of their skin or on their ethnic background. Racism
and
ethnocentrism and are deeply interwoven. We are all affected by

the racial bias
in our society, whether our classrooms or communities are
mostly white, racially
mixed, or mostly people of color.
One teacher did not believe preschoolers in her all white group
were affected by
environmental bias, such as constant TV news stories linking
crime to men of
color. Then she showed each child a series of photographs of
diverse people and
asked the children to tell her about the people in the pictures. In
response to this
photograph, one child said, he's a robber, he has a brown face
like a robber. The
teacher asked, why do you think people with brown faces are
robbers? He said
he had seen them on TV.
This story shows the bias the children are developing whether
or not they come
in contact with people who are different from them. A color
blind approach that
does not acknowledge skin color ignores this, and also teaches
children that
something is wrong with the differences they do see. Children
do notice skin
color-- we all do. And young children are specifically being
taught to notice and
named the colors they see. Pretending that we don't see skin
color keeps us from
building pride and mutual respect, and challenging prejudicial
thinking that can
grow into racism.
The teacher in the story was convinced of the need to deal with

the impact of
racism on the white children she taught. Using positive images
of men of color,
the teacher asked questions like these to specifically
acknowledge skin color
along with other similarities and differences: can you describe
the people in these
pictures? How are they similar or different from you? What are
the people doing
in this picture? Is it like anything that happens in your family?
She also asked questions like these to help children make
comparisons to the
stereotypes they had encountered: how are these men with
brown skin like the
ones you've seen on television? How are they different?
In photo games, children collect pictures with common themes,
like grown ups
carrying children. As they play the games, children and teachers
talk more about
the pictures, asking questions like, what kind of work do you
think this man does?
Page 1

We often discover new ground for anti-bias work by observing
and listening to
children. For example, from observation, teachers noticed that
one child
consistently refused to play with dolls of color. Rather than
making assumptions
about the reasons for this, they asked the child why she didn't
want to play with
the brown dolls. The child said she didn't want to play with the
dolls that were
dirty. The teachers created an experience to respond to this
thinking. They set up
a bath time for the dolls and asked what happened to the
different skin colors
after each doll was cleaned. After this experience, this child
included brown and
black dolls in her play.
We continually increase our consciousness of bias in the
environment by keeping
informed about things like major movie releases and analyzing
their impact on

children. It is next to impossible for children to escape the
impact of children's
media. Popular movies and videos make great baby sitters for
busy parents.
Even if children don't see a particular movie, they are
bombarded with biased
messages from related toys, books, advertisements, and friends
who do see the
movie. Although we can't avoid the media, we are able to assist
children in
recognizing the biased messages.
In popular children's films and stories, the villain is too often
black or dressed in
black. For example, in the Disney version of Aladdin, as this
article points out, the
evil Arab, Jafar, is strongly connected to dark skin tone, the
color black, and
Semitic features. The good Arab, Aladdin, is connected to
lighter skin tone, the
color white, and European features. To address these
stereotypes, this teacher
began by asking children to make comparisons between
themselves and several
pictures of Arabs. Her goal was to help children move beyond
simplistically
seeing people as good or evil based on characteristics like skin
color and facial
features.
We constantly reevaluate the messages we give to children.
During an art
activity, a teacher said, don't mix all those beautiful colors
together-- it'll come out
all brown. Later, another child said, she won't let me play with

her because I'm
brown. The teacher responded by talking with the other child:
saying Sade can't
play because her skin is brown hurt Sade's feelings. It would
hurt your feelings if
she said you couldn't play because your skin is white. I can see
you do have a
problem: you both want to play with this game. Let's think
together of a different
way to solve the problem.
Discussion following that incident led teachers to rethink the
remark about mixing
paint. They realized they needed to describe black and brown as
beautiful colors,
and to make sure that black and brown materials were readily
available in the
classroom. Teachers also realized that not only is it important to
intervene when
Page 2

hurtful incidents happen, but it's important to be proactive. We
need to challenge
bias we know children are likely to be exposed to rather than
waiting until
someone gets hurt.
This process begins with our choices about what diversity to
include as we create
our environment and develop curriculum. We begin by choosing
materials and
themes that reflect children in the class. Then we expand our
focus to include
people with whom the children will come in contact, and others
about whom they
will develop ideas and attitudes, even though they may never
actually meet.
One way to develop respect for ethnic differences is by
affirming the linguistic
diversity represented in school and in the broader community.
Here children are
playing with Hebrew alphabet puzzles and dancing to songs and
Haitian Creole.
MALE SPEAKER: I'm really pleased they use Creole in the
classroom.

Respecting my language is part of respecting me as a Haitian.
NARRATOR: After we learned Head, Shoulders, Knees, and
Toes in English and
Creole, Su Khyun, a teacher intern, taught us the song in
Korean. She also
developed this Korean English name and photo matching game.
These children
made box drums after a visit from a Dominican drummer and
created simple
verses in Spanish to go with the drumming. We used stories,
music and poetry,
and Black English, and forms of English that reflect diverse
geographical and
ethnic backgrounds.
During a theme and communication, children learned sign
language and
developed respect for the many ways people can communicate.
This helps to
create an environment that is welcoming of all children. It also
develops respect
for linguistic diversity.
Where possible, field trips into diverse neighborhoods where
children will hear
unfamiliar languages provide teachers with more information
about children's
thinking. Children's reactions to what they hear and see-- for
example, they talk
funny-- can form the basis for new problem stories and follow
up curriculum.
Experiences with ethnic diversity can also be increased in the
classroom through
visual images. The best pictures are those that encourage
children to make

comparisons in which they find differences, and make
connections between
themselves and the people in the images through something that
is familiar, like
playing on swings.
Helen remembers how the images first affected her.
Page 3
FEMALE SPEAKER: In going through the whole process
myself, I wouldn't have

bought into it if it didn't validate who I was. Seeing pictures of
black people in
games was like seeing myself. It really made a difference. And
the images of so
many other people doing familiar things, it made me think, I do
have something in
common with people I thought were so different.
NARRATOR: In order to choose books and pictures for the
classroom, we need
to change some of our own perceptions by making comparisons
between reality
and the stereotypes. We use the same strategy in the classroom,
comparing
stereotypical images like this one, which depicts native people
living in tee-pees,
wearing feathers, and sitting cross-legged, with pictures like
this one of
contemporary native people.
As children played games using these images, the teacher gives
information and
ask questions such as:
MALE SPEAKER: These are Indians, or native people. How are
they the same or
different from what you thought Indians and native people were
like?
NARRATOR: A child makes a connection to her own
experience as she notices
that these children are drawing with crayons. A child looking at
one of the picture
said,
FEMALE SPEAKER: Those are not real Indians. Real Indians

wear feathers.
NARRATOR: The teachers responded by providing new
information and helping
children understand by making a comparison to their own lives.
MALE SPEAKER: Sometimes Indians wear feathers at
important ceremonies
known as pow-wows. Do you have any clothes you wear for
special occasions?
NARRATOR: As the children compared the images, they
learned to detect
stereotypes themselves.
FEMALE SPEAKER: I'm really proud of my daughter Sade. At
age five she's
going through books we have at home looking for stereotypes.
She wants to
throw everything away. And I bought all those books with those
stereotypes. I
wouldn't buy the same books now. But it took me time to
unlearn the biases and
stereotypes I grew up with. At least Sade can learn to recognize
them now
instead of having to unlearn it all later.
NARRATOR: In an anti-bias approach, we are not limited to the
diversity within
Page 4

our school or our country. We make choices about what we
include based on
what is relevant to the people in our program, and on our goal
to address bias.
Children in this class saw TV stories about starvation in Africa.
They thought
Sade would starve, too, if she went to visit her grandparents in
Nigeria. So we
addressed that bias by inviting her father to come to school. He
brought
photographs in answered lots of questions from the adults as
well as children.
How will the airplane land in the jungle? Where will you get
food? What's your
house like? We saw pictures of the airport, supermarkets, and

homes.
In doing this work, we are constantly learning new things. For
example, choosing
non stereotypical materials takes practice. We bought this book,
which is clearly
intended to develop respect for diversity. It wasn't until later
that we recognized
the stereotypes it contains. This drawing shows the most
dramatic styles from
each culture or country. What of white people from the US
without tattoos, fancy
jewelry, and hairdos? What of people of color from the US?
They're not
represented at all. What of people in other parts of the world
who live in urban
settings and wear jeans or suits? The differences are so
overemphasized that
similarities are hard to find.
We had another learning experience with this puzzle chain. We
made it with
pictures from Caribbean countries in an effort to make the
classroom a more
familiar place for Caribbean children. We realized we were
perpetuating a
stereotype that people's lives on the islands were all rural, when
a parent said,
this is a great idea-- the pictures of the small villages are nice--
but did you know
there are also big cities in the islands?
New pictures, some given to us by children's families, were
added to the puzzle
chain.

Recognizing the existence of diverse cultural practices and
diverse perspectives,
and really becoming open to those perspectives, is critical to an
anti-bias
approach. But it is a process that takes time. Even after
unlearning many
stereotypes about native people, we still had much to learn, and
strategies to
develop for bringing new perspectives to the classroom.
Because of school
closings related to Columbus Day, we decided to use an idea of
Bill Bigelow's
from this book.
FEMALE SPEAKER: We tried a role play in which one teacher
supposedly
discovers another teacher's pocketbook and claims it for herself.
In discussion,
we made comparisons to Columbus's so-called discovery of
America, and asked
how the story might be told from an Indian or native
perspective.
Page 5

NARRATOR: The next year, one of the children who had been
involved in this
experience entered first grade. When his teacher said, Columbus
discovered
America, Kamal raised his hand and said, I don't think you can
discover a place
where people are already living. The teacher angrily put him out
in the hall.
Kamal's mother, having participated in activities about di verse
perspectives
through the anti-bias approach, supported her son's thinking.
She provided his
teacher with new information and shared her expectations that
her son would be
encouraged to question information and explore ideas.
Encouraging children to experiment with diverse ways of doing
the same thing
also helps to build a foundation for respecting diverse
perspectives. A child saw a
picture of a baby being carried in a basket and said,
MALE SPEAKER: Babies don't go in baskets.
NARRATOR: Choosing from different props, and getting ideas
from photographs,
this child tried wrapping her doll on her back. She's learning an
important lesson
of anti-bias curriculum: there usually isn't just one right way.
Page 6

EDUC6357: Diversity, Development, and Learning
“Start Seeing Diversity: Physical Ability and Characteristics”
Program Transcript
FEMALE SPEAKER: Bias based on physical disabilities or
characteristics, or
ableism, is any attitude, action, or institutional practice that
subordinates people
because of a disability or other physical characteristic. In our
program, one day, a

group of children were playing with picture cards. And one
child said--
FEMALE SPEAKER: "People in wheelchairs can't be
mommies."
FEMALE SPEAKER: The teacher asked, "Why do you think
someone in a
wheelchair can't be a mommy? What is this woman doing to
take care of the
baby? How is it like something a mommy might do?" The
teacher then suggested
simple research to provide further information. Let's look in our
books and see if
we can find other people in wheelchairs taking care of children.
Children can also
broaden their knowledge by sorting pictures into different
categories. This set of
pictures shows people with disabilities in active roles in their
homes.
We also challenge bias about physical characteristics by
providing images of lots
of different body types. While grouping pictures into family and
friendship groups,
a child said, "Ooh, he's fat. I wouldn't be friends with a fat
person." The teacher
responded, "People come in many shapes and sizes. I have
friends who are fat
and friends who are thin." This simple comment made a direct
positive statement
about diversity and used a teacher herself as a model of other
possible ways to
think about difference.
Children's books are another important tool in an anti-bias

approach. Some
stories model anti-bias behavior or provide opportunities for
children to think
about how they can act against bias. In fact, Fat Rose Mari e, a
child is teased
about her size. She is supported by her friend who takes action
against the
teasing. Teachers ask questions to help children think about
what happened in
the story.
FEMALE SPEAKER: What do you think about what Rose
Marie's friend did?
What else could she have done? What could you do if someone
teased your
friend?
FEMALE SPEAKER: This process empowers children to take
action themselves
by giving the message that responding to bias is important. It
models cooperative
problem solving and creates concrete suggestions for what to
do. The same kind
of work can be done with stories that teachers create or adapt
from classroom
events using puppets or dolls to act out the story. Children can
brainstorm ways
Page 1

to help the puppets address the bias they face. The Streets are
Free, which tells
the story of a community taking action to create a safe place for
the children to
play, inspired the children in our center to take action on their
own behalf.
They felt that the lunch service was unfair because there was no
extra food if
someone spilled something. They wrote letters and drew
pictures expressing
their concern. Then they called the lunch service and requested
a meeting at
which they presented their letters. Their concerns were heard
and the meals
improved. As often happens, however, one anti-bias issue led to
another. When
this child, the biggest in the class presented his letter, the man
said, "I can see
why you want more food." A lot of the children laughed. The
adults were so
stunned we didn't do anything. This story makes a great
discussion starter for
children or adults. What could we have done in the moment or
later to support
this child and counter the bias?
Page 2
Urban Education

Volume 44 Number 4
July 2009 389-409
© 2009 The Author(s)
10.1177/0042085909338686
http://uex.sagepub.com
389
The Intersection of Race,
Culture, Language,
and Disability
Implications for Urban Education
Wanda J. Blanchett
University of Colorado Denver
Janette K. Klingner
University of Colorado at Boulder
Beth Harry
University of Miami
To date, few researchers have sought to examine the effect of
issues of race,
culture, language, and disability, let alone to look specifically
at the intersec-
tion of these issues, as it relates to special education
identification, special
education service delivery, and students of color’s access to an
equitable
education. Thus, this article will attempt to help urban
education researchers
and educators understand (a) why the intersection of race,
culture, language,
and disability is an urban education issue; (b) how issues of
race, culture,

language, and disability affect students’ and their families’
quest for an equi-
table education; (c) how to advocate for and provide culturally
responsive
services to racially, culturally, linguistically, and economically
diverse stu-
dents and their families; and (d) the implications of the
intersection of race,
culture, and disability for urban education practice, research,
and policy.
Keywords: race; culture;language; special education; disability;
urban
education
An overwhelming majority of children of color throughout the
United States attend schools that are largely made up of
students of color, and
the quality of their schooling experience seems to be affected
by the inter-
section of issues of race, culture, language, and disability.
According to
Orfield, Frankenberg, and Lee (2003), almost three fourths of
African
American and more than three fourths of Latino children attend
majority
student of color schools. This reality suggests that despite
decades of
desegregation mandates and careful attention to attempting to
integrate
390 Urban Education
American schools, segregated schooling is not a thing of the

past as some
would like for us to believe, but rather, it is still quite prevalent
in the
American public school system and in fact has been steadily
increasing for
the past decade.
The resegregation of students of color is a significant societal
issue that
warrants immediate attention and action because schools
attended by stu-
dents of color tend to be schools in which the vast majority of
the student
population qualify for free or reduced lunch. As Kozol (1991,
2005) so
vividly documented, the resources and overall quality of
education afforded
students who attend high-poverty schools are vastly different
from what is
available in schools that serve students who are White and
middle class and
often result in students of color facing a life of challenges and
continued
poverty. Not only do students of color attend high-poverty
schools, they are
also more likely than their White peers to actually live in
poverty them-
selves. According to the Department of Education’s National
Center for
Education Statistics (NCES, 2005), 70% of African American
students,
71% of Hispanic students, and only 23% of White students live
in poverty,
and these numbers are even more disparaging when it comes to
students
concentrated in urban environments.

Race and ethnicity also seem to play a significant role in
determining the
extent to which students are likely to attend high-poverty
concentrated
schools with students of color being more likely than their
White peers to
attend schools at which more than 75% of the students live in
poverty
(NCES, 2005). For example, 47% of African American students
and 51% of
Hispanic students attend high-poverty schools compared with
only 5% of
White students (NCES, 2005). On the surface one might ask, as
the U.S.
Supreme Court recently concluded, what is the problem or why
is it that we
as a society should be concerned about the fact that students of
color, a dis-
proportionate percentage of whom also live in poverty, are
concentrated in
schools together? The answer to this question is simple but very
alarming.
A considerable body of research (e.g., Ayers & Ford, 1996;
Blanchett, 2006;
Kozol, 1991; Losen & Orfield, 2002) clearly shows that schools
that serve a
majority student of color population are quantitatively and
qualitatively dif-
ferent in terms of their resources and the quality of schooling
afforded their
children from those attended by predominately White middle-
class students.
In addition to robbing students of color of an equitable
education, having
students of color concentrated in schools with other students of

color (many
who also live in poverty) also robs them as well as their White
peers of an
opportunity to attend and benefit from racially, culturally, and
linguistically
diverse schools. As the U.S. Supreme Court concluded in its
decision in
the University of Michigan’s cases (American Council on
Education), “The
Blanchett et al. / Race, Culture, and Disability 391
benefits of diversity are substantial,” the Court said, citing
evidence that
diversity helps to break down stereotypes, improves classroom
discussion,
prepares students for the workforce and citizenship, and permits
universities
to “cultivate a set of leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the
citizenry”
(p. 1). Thus, segregated schools both create and perpetuate
educational ineq-
uities for African American and other students of color while at
the same time
perpetuating White privilege and dominance.
To date, few researchers (e.g., Ferri & Connor, 2005; Harry,
1992;
Klingner, Blanchett, & Harry, 2007; Sleeter, 1987) have sought
to examine
the effect of issues of race, culture, language, and disability, let
alone to look
specifically at the intersection of these issues, as it relates to
special educa-

tion identification, special education service delivery, and
students of color’s
access to an equitable education. Thus, this article will attempt
to help urban
education researchers and educators understand (a) why the
intersection of
race, culture, language, and disability is an urban education
issue; (b) how
issues of race, culture, language, and disability affect students’
and their
families’ quest for an equitable education; (c) how to advocate
for and
provide culturally responsive services to racially, culturally,
linguistically,
and economically diverse students and their families; and (d)
the implications
of the intersection of race, culture, and disability for urban
education practice,
research, and policy.
As Klingner, Blanchett, and Harry (2007) noted, failure to place
issues
of race, class, culture, and language at the center of educational
considera-
tions and decision making assumes that the American education
system,
special education, and human and community services systems
that provide
service to families are race, class, culture, and language neutral.
In this
article, we would like to extend our previous work to more
carefully look
at the experiences of individuals with disabilities of color and
their families
as they have tried to navigate an American education, special
education,

and human and community services systems that are not
responsive to the
intersection of race, culture, language, and disability.
Why Is the Intersection of Race, Culture, Language,
and Disability an Urban Education Issue?
African Americans and other students of color who are
identified and
labeled as having disabilities often experience what Blanchett,
Mumford,
and Beachum (2005) and Fierros and Conroy (2002) call
“double jeopardy.”
Blanchett et al. (2005) used the term to refer to the fact that not
only do
392 Urban Education
many African Americans and other students of color experience
all the edu-
cational inequities associated with living in poverty and
attending urban
schools that are often insufficiently funded and resourced, but,
in addition,
these students are labeled as having a disability and many of
them also expe-
rience inequities that are inherent in the special education
system, including
segregated classrooms, limited access to the general education
curriculum,
and poor post-school outcomes (Blanchett et al., 2005). In
addition, when it
comes to development disabilities, African American and other
students of

color have to contend with yet another set of issues and
challenges in their
quest for an equitable education. These issues and challenges
include, but
are not limited to, institutionalized racism, White privilege, and
an increased
risk for being identified as having developmental disabilities
not because
being African American or of color results in a disability but
instead due to
being more likely to live in poverty, receive inadequate prenatal
care, and
have limited access to early intervention services (Ford,
Blanchett, &
Brown, 2006; Harry & Klingner, 2006). When there is indeed
the presence
of a developmental disability and families of color seek
services, they are
likely to encounter systems and structures that are not prepared
to help them
navigate services while living life at the intersection of race,
culture, lan-
guage, and disability, which results in them ultimately receiving
culturally
unresponsive and inappropriate services and interventions.
Even though the civil rights movement provided the foundation
for spe-
cial education, special education like the larger educational
system has
been associated with the inequitable treatment of African
American stu-
dents and other students of color since shortly after its
inception. African
American students and other students of color have a long
history of being

disproportionately represented in special education, which has
been a
debate in special education for more than 35 years. It is
astonishing that
only in recent years have claims that disproportionality is
indeed connected
to issues of race, culture, poverty, and language been taken
seriously. This
is in part because researchers have been able to document that
the experi-
ences of students of color in special education are very similar
to the expe-
riences of students in urban settings, and they have been able to
use the
urban education research to effectively make this case by
applying an
equity lens to contextualizing the treatment of students of color
with disa-
bilities. Similarly, in recent years, researchers have also drawn
on critical
pedagogy, critical race theory, and disability studies to question
the social
constructions of disability, disability categories, able-ism, and
deficit con-
ceptualizations of disability. Despite this significant progress,
the intersec-
tion of race, culture, language, and disability still remains
largely unexplored
and largely a missing component in the urban education
research literature
because urban education rarely addresses disability as a

component of the
larger urban education agenda, even though, like race, disability
has been
and is still being used as a method of sorting, stratifying, and
excluding.
Public Schooling and Race, Culture,
Language, and Disability in the United States:
Sorting, Stratifying, and Excluding
Race has figured prominently in the evolution of public
schooling in
the United States since its inception. The latter half of the 20th
century
was marked by a struggle for equity within general and special
education
(Bullivant, 1993). The arguments concerning the role of
schooling as a means
of social reproduction (Bowles & Gintis, 1976; Oakes, 1985)
rather than as a
vehicle for social mobility (Blau & Duncan, 1967; Sewell,
Haller, & Portes,
1969) are well known and we do not detail them here. Suffice it
to say that
although schooling has achieved a certain degree of social
mobility for some,
its structure, content, and methods of inculcating knowledge are
readily rec-
ognized as being developed to suit the goals of the majority
White American
society, and until the civil rights movement of the 1960s, the
social mobility
of students of color was not a goal of American education.
Special Education: Equity and Efficiency in Conflict

Progress toward universal schooling for children regardless of
handicap-
ping condition was fueled by the civil rights movement and
deeply influ-
enced by its rhetoric of equality and solidarity. Although
envisioned as
parallel movements, it is not far-fetched to say that the special
education and
civil rights movements were actually on a collision course
(Harry &
Klingner, 2006). Special education became a way to provide
separate serv-
ices for some students, a disproportionate percentage of whom
were students
of color. The advocates for the right of all children with
disabilities to a
public education framed special education as one of the answers
to the ineq-
uities of eras past. For the parent groups and other advocates
who lobbied
for the passage of a federal mandate for these programs, this
was the pur-
pose and vision of special education. Indeed, the establishment
of the
Bureau of Education for the Handicapped in the 1960s and the
passage of
the Education for all Handicapped Children Act (EHA) in 1975
followed
in the wake of the civil rights movement. There is no doubt that,
for the
394 Urban Education

thousands of children for whom there was no available
schooling prior to
1975, the EHA represented the achievement of the society’s
goal of equity.
The issue of placement of non-White children in classes for
students
perceived as “slow” or mildly retarded came to public attention
after the
Brown desegregation decision. The reluctance of many states to
comply
with the Brown ruling led to the first official allegations of the
use of special
classes to continue covert forms of racial segregation. Prasse
and Reschly
(1986) noted that such allegations were reported in San
Francisco as early
as 1965 and that the first legal suit on the subject was Johnson
v. San
Francisco Unified School District (1971), which charged that
the district
was “dumping” African American children in classes for the
“mildly
retarded.” The landmark Larry P. v. Riles case was filed just
months after
Johnson (1972), charging that biased IQ tests resulted in gross
overrepresen-
tation of African American students in mental retardation (MR)
programs.
The argument was based on the fact that, although African
American stu-
dents made up 28.5% of the total student body in the school
district, they
made up 66% of all students in classes for MR. The courts
supported the
plaintiffs’ charge that the IQ tests being used to place children

in the MR
category were biased against African American children and
declared that
the disproportionate representation of African American
students in pro-
grams for students with mild MR was discriminatory. They
banned the use
of IQ tests with African American students and ordered the
elimination of
overrepresentation of African American students in MR
programs. Around
the same time, similar charges were brought by Mercer (1973)
concerning
the high rates of placement of Hispanic children in MR
programs in
California. The most influential cases on this topic centered on
language of
testing, with Diana (1970), in California, arguing that Hispanic
children
were being inappropriately tested in English even when they
only spoke
Spanish, and Guadalupe (1972), in Arizona, making similar
charges con-
cerning both Hispanic and Native American children. In both of
these
cases, the plaintiffs were supported by the courts. These
landmark court
cases of the 1970s provided impetus for the mandate for
nondiscriminatory
assessment procedures in the civil rights legislation of Section
504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 that laid the groundwork for the
requirements
for nondiscriminatory testing and the due process safeguards
against mis-
classification in the passage of the EHA (Jacob-Timm &

Hartshorne,
1998).
Prior to 1969, the American Association on Mental Deficiency
(AAMD)
used a cutoff score of 1 standard deviation from the mean (i.e.,
an IQ of 85).
This definition was changed by the AAMD in 1969 to 2
standard deviations
from the mean (i.e., an IQ of 70). Mercer (1973) pointed out the
irony in
this change, noting that it brought about a “swift cure” for many
who had
previously been determined to be retarded. Since then, many
states have
used a variable guideline of a score between 70 and 75 on an IQ
test. This,
however, has only compounded charges of subjectivity and
ambiguity,
because a leeway of just 5 points actually results in large
differences in the
percentages of students who qualify (MacMillan & Reschly,
1998). Such
debates highlight the arbitrariness of placement decisions and
the social
construction of disability (i.e., decisions about who has a
disability and who
doesn’t have a disability).1
With the passage of the EHA in 1975, the special education and
deseg-

regation movements officially collided (Harry & Klingner,
2006). The
concept of deficit had become a well-established part of the
educational
belief system and would become the driving force behind
decisions about
how to educate those who appeared different from the
mainstream. Students
of color who had once been excluded from schools with Whites
would now
be placed in special education at rates greater than their
percentages in the
overall school-aged population.
The Overrepresentation of Students
of Color in Special Education Programs
When the disproportionate representation of ethnically and
linguistically
diverse students in high incidence special education programs
(mental retar-
dation, learning disabilities, and emotional disturbance) was
first brought to
the nation’s attention by Dunn in 1968 and studied by a
National Academy
of Sciences panel (Heller, Holtzman, & Messick, 1982), the
focus was on
the overrepresentation of African American and Hispanic and
high-poverty
students in MR programs.2 Between 1948 and 1966, there had
been a 400%
increase in the number of students identified as MR, and in
1975 when the
Education for All Handicapped Children was passed, MR had
the highest
count of any exceptional child diagnosis. Although the MR

category has,
historically, been the source of most controversy with regard to
ethnic dis-
proportionality, it is now used much less frequently than in the
past. Whereas
the numbers in the learning disabilities (LD) category have
increased almost
sixfold over the past two decades, the rates of placement for all
ethnicities
in MR have been reduced by almost half. Nonetheless, among
those students
who are designated MR, African Americans are more than twice
as likely
as students of other ethnicities to be identified (Donovan &
Cross, 2002).
396 Urban Education
Thus, although MR rates have declined overall, we still see
significant over-
representation of students of color in this category.
Disproportionate representation by ethnic group. Although
dispropor-
tionate representation is most apparent among African American
students
when nationally aggregated data are the focus, there are marked
differences
across states and notable instances of overrepresentation among
other eth-
nic and linguistic groups when data are disaggregated and
population sub-
groups are examined (Artiles, Rueda, Salazar, & Higareda,
2005; Oswald,

Coutinho, Best, & Singh, 1999). Compared with all other groups
combined,
African American students are 2.99 times more likely to be
classified as
having MR, 1.17 times more likely to be classified as having
autism, and
1.65 times more likely to be identified as having developmental
delay. In
contrast, Hispanic students are about half as likely to be
classified as having
MR and/or developmental delay (U.S. Department of Education,
2003).
As the disability rights movement has taken hold, overall more
students
with disabilities are being included in general education
classrooms. But, this
is not the case for students of color. Unlike their White peers,
students of
color are often excluded from inclusive education programs and
the general
education curriculum (Fierros & Conroy, 2002; LeRoy & Kulik,
2003).
Instead, they tend to spend 60% or more of their school day in
segregated
special education placements (i.e., in separate classrooms or
separate schools
from those attended by their nondisabled peers; 24th Annual
Report to
Congress, 2004). They are also more likely to have uncertified
or provision-
ally licensed teachers and to graduate with a certificate of
attendance/comple-
tion versus a high school diploma (Chamberlain, 2005). Once
students of
color exit special education, most common by dropping out or

receiving a
certificate of attendance, they experience high unemployment
rates, a lack of
preparation for the workforce, and difficulty gaining access to
postsecondary
education (Ferri & Connor, 2005; Losen & Orfield, 2002).
Assumptions About the Causes of
Disproportionate Representation
Disproportionate representation is a complex phenomenon that
cannot
be explained by simplistic views that focus narrowly on the role
of poverty
or students’ presumed lack of intelligence or other deficits and
that pay too
little attention to the role of context and other factors external
to the child
(Klingner et al., 2005), including but not limited to
institutionalized White
privilege and racism (Blanchett, 2006). By context, we mean the
various
nested systems that influence a child’s experiences as well as
how the
child is perceived, from the classroom, to the school, to the
local commu-
nity, to the larger society, much as with Bronfenbrenner’s
(1977) ecologi-
cal systems model.
Assumptions about the role of poverty. We question the notion

that stu-
dents of color are overrepresented in the MR category because
they are more
likely to have a disability because of an impoverished
environment. In other
words, although poverty and associated risk factors, such as low
birth weight,
exposure to alcohol during pregnancy, tobacco and drug use,
malnourish-
ment, and exposure to lead, are often described as causal factors
in the devel-
opment of language or cognitive deficits or maladaptive
behaviors (Donovan
& Cross, 2002), poverty itself does not automatically result in
low learning
potential, as evidenced by the significant number of children
and schools who
“beat the odds” (Donovan & Cross, 2002; O’Connor, 2002).
O’Connor
argued that there is nothing about poverty in and of itself that
places poor
children at academic risk but, rather, it is how structures of
opportunity and
constraint come to bear on their likelihood for achieving
competitive educa-
tional outcomes. O’Connor and DeLuca Fernandez (2006) noted
that a focus
on poverty as the explanation for the overrepresentation of
African Americans
in MR programs oversimplifies the concept of development and
conse-
quently underanalyzes how the normative culture of society and
thus schools
(i.e., of the White middle and upper classes) situate minority
youths as aca-
demically and behaviorally deficient in comparison. They assert

that it is the
culture and organization of schools (and not poverty) that places
minority
students at heightened risk for special education placement.
Skiba, Poloni-
Staudinger, Simmons, Feggins, and Chung (2005) made a
similar argument
based on their research in school districts in Indiana.
Assumptions about intelligence. One of the most lasting
legacies of
Western racism is a deep-seated belief in the inferior
intelligence of indi-
viduals of color. Consider, for example, the effect of the best-
selling book,
The Bell Curve (Herrnstein, 1994), which, despite its numerous
flaws (e.g.,
Fraser, 1995), was taken seriously by a large segment of the
mainstream
population. Although many scholars have pointed out the
arbitrariness of
race and the fallacies inherent in attributing presumed
variations in intelli-
gence to racial differences (e.g., Gould, 1981), beliefs about
inferior intel-
ligence have been institutionalized in the policies and practices
of our public
schools (Steele, Perry, & Hilliard, 2004). Much has been written
about
398 Urban Education
drawbacks when using intelligence tests with nonmajority
populations, yet

most school districts continue to classify students as MR based
on IQ test
scores. IQ tests reflect the cultural, social, and linguistic
knowledge of the
mainstream (e.g., Hilliard, 1994; Samuda, 1998) and thus, in
comparison,
students of color are more likely to appear deficient when in
fact they are
not. Because of concerns about the biased nature of IQ tests,
numerous
scholars have recommended the elimination or reduction of IQ
testing.
Hilliard (1995) contended that we need “either a paradigm shift
or no mental
measurement” (p. 6). The National Research Council (Donovan
& Cross,
2002) emphasized that cutoff points for “disability” or
“giftedness” are
“artificial and variable” (p. 26) and called for an end to the
requirement for
IQ tests as a “primary criterion” (p. 313) for eligibility. The y
stated,
IQ tests are measures of what individuals have learned—that is,
it is useful
to think of them as tests of general achievement, reflecting
broad culturally
rooted ways of thinking and problem solving. These tests are
only indirect
measures of success with the school curriculum and imperfect
predictors of
school achievement. (pp. 284-285)
Although eligibility criteria for intellectual disabilities still
include IQ,
despite the limitations of IQ tests, the field of LD is moving

away from
using the IQ-achievement discrepancy formula for identification
purposes.
At the U.S. Department of Education LD Summit (Bradley,
Danielson, &
Hallahan, 2002), experts in the field agreed to recommend
discontinuing
the use of the IQ-achievement discrepancy identification model
and instead
move to an approach that considers the extent to which students
respond to
valid interventions (Stuebing et al., 2002; Vellutino, Scanlon, &
Lyon,
2000). The reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education
Improvement Act (IDEA 2004) includes Response to
Intervention (RTI) as
way to identify specific LD without reference to IQ.
Assumptions about the importance of contextual issues.
Students of color
are at greater risk of being identified for special education when
too much
emphasis is placed on finding within-child deficits through a
decontextual-
ized assessment process that does not account for their
opportunity to learn.
Donovan and Cross (2002) emphasized that context matters.
They discussed
the significance of classroom context in terms of teacher
effectiveness:
The same child can perform very differently depending on the
level of
teacher support. . . . In practice, it can be quite difficult to
distinguish internal

child traits that require the ongoing support of special education
from inad-
equate opportunity or contextual support for learning and
behavior. (p. 3)
Students of color are disproportionately educated in inner -city
schools
that lack the resources of schools in wealthier neighborhoods.
Teachers’
degrees, qualifications, and licensing or certification status in
affluent com-
munities are impressive and increasingly improving, whereas
teachers in
high-poverty schools are underprepared and know too little
about teaching
culturally and linguistically diverse learners (Villegas & Lucas,
2002). In
their investigation of the disproportionate representation of
students of
color in special education in a large, diverse school di strict,
Harry and
Klingner (2006) found that teachers in inner-city schools with
predomi-
nantly African American populations had fewer advanced
degrees, were
less qualified, and were more likely to demonstrate weak
instructional and
classroom management skills than teachers in other schools in
their sample.
Kozol (e.g., 1991, 2005) focused the nation’s attention on the
failure of

U.S. schools to improve the status of education for children of
color from
low socioeconomic backgrounds. This substantial inequality in
practice
actually serves to perpetuate the status quo (Gutierrez, Asato,
Santos, &
Gotanda, 2002).
Educational and Service Access Issues and
Barriers for Diverse Individuals and Families
Like students and families of color in urban settings who are not
affected
by the presence of a disability, diverse individuals with
disabilities and their
families experience a number of challenges in trying to navigate
the urban
education, special education, and human and community
services systems.
Consequently, in the next section, we portray service delivery
access issues
and barriers for diverse individuals with developmental
disabilities and
their families. These include, but are not limited to, differing
cultural per-
spectives of disability, limited access and unfamiliarity with
available
service delivery options, service providers’ lack of
understanding of the
effect of families’ race, social class, cultural values/beliefs,
experiences,
and perspective of disabilities on service delivery, and families’
lack of
access to culturally and linguistically responsive curriculum and
services
(e.g., Harry, Kalyanpur, & Day, 1999; Rueda, Monzo, Blacher,

Shapiro, &
Gonzalez, 2005).
400 Urban Education
Families’ Cultural Beliefs and the Institutional
Culture of Special Education Disconnect
Because families’ cultural beliefs and cultural frames of
reference affect
their understanding, acceptance, and perspectives of disability,
it is impor-
tant that educators and service providers understa nd how issues
of culture
influence families’ perceptions of disability and ultimately their
experiences
in securing services for their loved ones with developmental
disabilities.
Research has clearly documented that parents’ culture, values,
and beliefs
influence how they perceive and respond to their child with a
disability (e.g.,
Harris, 1996; Harry, 1992). Most families go through a process
of grieving
the birth of a child with significant disabilities and eventually
move through
various stages toward acceptance of the reality that their child
has a disabil-
ity that may alter their child’s life as well as their dreams for
their child. Yet,
parents’ adaptation to and acceptance of their child’s condition
vary. For
example, in research comparing the attitudes of mothers toward
the birth of

a child with a developmental disability, Mary (1990) found that
Hispanic
mothers were more likely than White or African American
mothers to adopt
an attitude of “self-sacrifice toward their young child with a
disability.”
Similarly, in her research with African American parents and
Hispanic par-
ents, Harry (1992) found that these mothers were more likely to
see the birth
of their child with a developmental disability as a “gift from
God” and, as
such, believed that it was their responsibility to care for their
children and
not the responsibility of external caregivers.
Parents’ cultural perspectives of disability also affect the extent
to which
they seek out relevant services. Parents’ cultural perspectives
also play a
role in how they experience the American special education
system. For
example, according to Kalyanpur and Harry (1999), special
education is
grounded in three core American macrocultural values that are
major tenets
of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990:
individualism,
equity, and choice. In providing an explanation of how these
core macroc-
ultural values affect special education, they indicated that
the value of individualism underlies the principles of due
process and indi-
vidualized, appropriate education, whereas the principles of
parent participa-

tion and the LRE are grounded in the right to freedom of choice.
Similarly,
the value of equity is embedded in the principles of zero reject,
nondiscrimi-
natory assessment, and parental participation. (p. 20)
To work effectively with ethnically, culturally, and
linguistically diverse
individuals with developmental disabilities and their families,
educators
and service providers must be aware that special education is a
cultural
institution that may or may not reflect the values, beliefs, and
cultural per-
spectives of all parents. This is true, in particular, for parents of
color as
well as parents who are not native English speakers. Hence, it is
critically
important that educators and service providers engage in
dialogue that will
allow parents to share their perspectives on developmental
disabilities in a
nonthreatening manner and to have those perspectives respected
and
included in the provision of service delivery options afforded
them.
Limited Access and Unfamiliarity
With Available Services
The professional literature is replete with documentation of

individuals
of color with developmental disabilities and their families’
limited access
to or unfamiliarity with available special education and human
and com-
munity services. Although people of color with developmental
disabilities
across all socioeconomic levels experience access issues, ac cess
to appro-
priate services and unfamiliarity with available services seem to
be further
compounded by lower socioeconomic status and living in either
rural or
urban areas (Gammon, 2000; Reichard, Sacco, & Turnbull,
2004). This is
especially true for families who are caring for adults with MR
or develop-
mental disabilities because they tend to be more isolated, less
supported,
and more in need of comprehensive services than parents of
younger indi-
viduals with MR or developmental disabilities (Black, Cohn,
Smull, &
Crites, 1985; Hayden & DePaepe, 1994). In addition, once
individuals of
color with developmental disabilities exit the public school
system, their
families and caregivers encounter even greater hardships and
more access
difficulties because available services are severely limited,
especially in
rural areas (Gammon, 2000).
Families of color experience greater difficulties in access and
utiliza-
tion of social services and, as such, they are less likely than

majority
families to receive innovative or best practices services such as
“family-
support system” and “supported employment” (e.g.,
Traustadottir, Lutfiyya,
& Shoultz, 1994). The barriers to access for individuals of color
with
developmental disabilities and their families often are issues
related to
poverty, racism, and a lack of culturally relevant services. As a
result of
not receiving access to innovative services, individuals of color
and their
families with developmental disabilities must continue to rely
on the tra-
ditional supports of supplemental security income (SSI) checks
and health
insurance in the form of Medicaid (Children’s Defense Fund,
1974).
402 Urban Education
African Americans with developmental disabilities and their
families may
tend to rely heavily on the traditional supports of SSI and
Medicaid
because they are often so consumed with the struggle for
survival as they
deal with the realities of living in poverty while serving as a
caregiver that
they just do not have the energy or time to pursue special
programs and
services (Harry, 1992).

Another issue that affects families of color in their pursuit of
appropriate
services for their children with developmental disabilities is the
availability
of health care providers who both take Medicaid and are
adequately trained
to treat individuals with developmental disabilities (Donovan &
Cross,
2002; Reichard et al., 2004). Although this is a problem for
many families,
regardless of their race, families of color are disproportionately
poor, and
when they also live in rural areas, it is difficult for them to
identify physi-
cians and dentists who are both trained and willing to treat
patients with
developmental disabilities because of the additional time
involved in treat-
ing these patients and the often limited means of
communication. Even
when individuals of color with developmental disabilities and
their families
have access to needed special education and relevant social,
community,
and adult services, these services are often not culturally and
linguistically
sensitive and even more rarely are culturally and linguistically
responsive
(Gammon, 2000; Harry, 1992).
Traditional Versus Culturally and
Linguistically Responsive Service Delivery
Traditional service delivery models have tended to approach
develop-
mental disabilities from the perspective that race, class, cultural

beliefs and
values, and language do not influence service delivery options
and the qual-
ity of the services ultimately provided to individuals with
developmental
disabilities and their families (Ford et al., 2006). In recent
years, research-
ers (e.g., Ford et al., 2006; Harry, Kalyanpur, & Day, 1999;
Reichard et al.,
2004) have emphasized the need to reexamine assessments,
educational
and social service practices, and interventions to ensure that
they are cultur-
ally sensitive and better targeted toward diverse individuals and
their fami-
lies. However, despite numerous calls (e.g., Gammon, 2000) for
the
curriculum, assessments, and services used with students with
developmen-
tal disabilities to be culturally responsive and tailored to
students’ learning
styles, family values, and cultural and linguistic frames of
reference, they
continue to be largely monocultural.
To ensure that the values, beliefs, and perspectives of diverse
individuals
with developmental disabilities and their families are
considered when
conducting assessments and developing and implementing
services, it is
important for service providers to be knowledgeable of what it

means to
provide culturally and linguistically responsive services. As
stated earlier,
culturally and linguistically responsive services are those
services that rec-
ognize, value, and infuse individuals of color with
developmental disabili-
ties’ ethnic, cultural, and linguistic knowledge to inform
pedagogical and
service delivery practices and to employ that knowledge to
design instruc-
tional strategies, communication strategies, assessment tools,
and service
delivery models. Service providers who provide culturally and
linguisti-
cally relevant services acknowledge that the American special
education
system is grounded in American macrocultural values
concerning commu-
nication and language, and as such, it disproportionately favors
parents for
whom English is their first language and those who speak and
comprehend
the “official” language. The term official language is used here
to refer to
the professional jargon that is most commonly used by teachers
and profes-
sionals in the special education system that draws heavily on
White middle-
class communication and language patterns and styles.
Implications for Working Effectively
With Diverse Students and Families
In response to the many issues and challenges we have
described, we

offer several suggestions for working with students of color
with disabili-
ties and their families:
1. Recognize the effect of issues of race, class, culture,
language, and social class
on families’ access to relevant special education and social and
community
services. For example, educators and service providers who
work with diverse
students and families need to be educated about how race, class,
culture, lan-
guage, and social class may serve as barriers and thereby result
in diverse
families having limited access to relevant special education and
human and
community services.
2. Acknowledge that special education and related service
provisions are based
on White middle-class English-speaking cultural norms and
values and may
not reflect the cultural beliefs and values of diverse families,
especially
those who live in poverty and for whom English is not their first
language.
3. Communicate with students and families in their native
language using a
professional interpreter versus a family member.
404 Urban Education
4. Communicate using lay and cultural terminology and avoid

overreliance on
professional jargon.
5. When meeting with families, ask about their hopes and
dreams for their
child and recognize that these may be different from those
typical of main-
stream culture (but are just as valid).
6. Make sure that printed materials are prepared in the native
language.
7. Learn about and respect cultural, communication, and
language norms and
mores.
8. Be familiar with and acknowledge within-group ethnic,
cultural, linguistic,
and social class differences. For example, educators and service
providers
must recognize that even though diverse families might be
members of a
larger ethnic, cultural, racial, or linguistic group, they are
individuals and
should be treated as such.
9. Whenever possible, provide services to ethnically,
culturally, and linguistically
diverse families within the context of relevant community or
cultural centers.
10. Involve individuals of color in the development of
appropriate Individualized
Education Programs and Individualized Family Service Plans
that reflect
their values and priorities.

Implications of the Intersection of Race,
Culture, Language, and Disability for Future
Urban Education Research and Policy
If we as educators and researchers take seriously the complexity
and
importance of understanding the intersection of race, culture,
language,
poverty, and disability and the need for children and families of
color to
receive educational and human and community services that are
both equi-
table and responsive to their ethnic, cultural, and linguistic
needs, those
committed to urban education must do the following:
1. Broaden our conceptualization of urban education to include
all oppressed
and marginalized groups including but not limited to those
affected by the
intersection of race, culture, language, poverty, and disability.
2. Broaden our conceptualization of urban teacher education to
include the
preparation of both general and special education teachers for
urban envi-
ronments. Currently, despite the fact that the most significant
special educa-
tion teacher shortages are in urban settings, few teacher
preparation
programs prepare special education teachers with a focus on
teaching in
urban settings.

3. Broaden our conceptualization of urban education policy to
include special
education policy as a component of urban education policy.
4. Conduct research that illuminates the complexity of the
intersection of race,
culture, language, poverty, and disability using a strengths-
based versus a
deficit conceptual framework.
5. Continue to conduct research on what is working in urban
education and
urban special education versus what is not so that we build an
extensive lit-
erature base that documents the effectiveness of culturally
responsive peda-
gogy across a wide range of students and settings including
students affected
by the intersection of race, culture, language, poverty, and
disability.
6. Advocate for educational policies that require general and
special education
teachers as well as other essential school personnel to be
educated together
in merged urban teacher preparation, counseling, and
administrative leader-
ship programs with a strong foundation in the essentials of
urban education
and urban teaching.
Conclusion

The only way we’ll get freedom for ourselves is to identify
ourselves with
every oppressed people in the world.
—Malcolm X
Malcolm X made the above statement in reference to African
Americans’
struggle for civil rights and freedom in the 1960s, but this
statement rings true
today as we continue the fight to ensure that all children, most
notably chil-
dren of color, many of whom live in poverty, receive an
equitable education
in the American educational system. We dare say that the only
way we will
get an equitable education for all marginalized children and
families affected
by the intersection of race, culture, language, poverty, and
disability is to
identify them with oppressed children and families in urban
settings and
everywhere in the world. In conclusion, urban education
emerged as a field
of study or discipline to make known the gross injustices and
oppression
experienced by children and families in urban settings and,
more important,
to illustrate to the world the many assets that reside in these
communities that
are so often unfairly portrayed as “broken” and “in need of
repair.” Although
a few scholars in urban education, such as Banks, Cross, Gay,
Hilliard, and
Sleeter, have addressed special education issues as a component

of their
urban education research agendas, they are the exceptions rather
than the
norm. Thus, it is our hope that this article has enlightened those
urban educa-
tors who ask, “What does special education and disability have
to do with
urban education?” More important, we hope that we have
communicated the
urgent need for urban educators and urban special educators and
all others
406 Urban Education
concerned about urban education to work together in our fight
for equity in
the interests of all of our children who experience life at the
intersection of
race, culture, language, poverty, and/or disability.
Notes
1. For further discussion of the social construction of
disabilities, see Gergen (1994) and
Reid and Knight (2006).
2. Mental retardation, learning disabilities, and emotional
disturbance are the labels used
by Donovan and Cross (2002).
References
Artiles, A. J., Rueda, R., Salazar, J., & Higareda, I. (2005).
Within-group diversity in minority

disproportionate representation: English language learners in
urban school districts.
Exceptional Children, 71, 283-300.
Ayers, W., & Ford, P. (1996). Chaos and opportunity. In W.
Ayers & P. Ford (Eds.), City kids,
city teachers: Reports from the front row (pp. 81-90). New
York: New Press.
Black, M. M., Cohn, J. F., Smull, M. W., & Crites, L. S. (1985).
Individual and family factors
associated with risk of institutionalization of mentally retarded
adults. American Journal
of Mental Deficiency, 90(3), 271-276.
Blanchett, W. J. (2006). Disproportionate representation of
African Americans in special edu-
cation: Acknowledging the role of White privilege and racism.
Educational Researcher,
35(6), 24-28.
Blanchett, W. J., Mumford, V., & Beachum, F. (2005). Urban
school failure and disproportion-
ality in a post-Brown era: Benign neglect of the constitutional
rights of students of color.
Remedial and Special Education, 26(2), 70-81.
Blau, P., & Duncan, O. D. (1967). The American occupational
structure. New York: John Wiley.
Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist
America. New York: Basic Books.
Bradley, R., Danielson, L., & Hallahan, D. (2002).
Identification of learning disabilities:
Research to practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of

human development. American
Psychologist, 32, 513-531.
Bullivant, B. M. (1993). Culture: Its nature and meaning for
educators. In J. A. Banks &
A. M. Banks (Eds.), Multi-cultural education: Issues and
perspectives (pp. 27-46).
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Chamberlain, S. P. (2005). Issues of overrepresentation and
educational equity for culturally
and linguistically diverse students. Intervention in School and
Clinic, 41(2), 110-113.
Children’s Defense Fund. (1974). Children out of school in
America. Washington, DC: Author.
Donovan, S., & Cross, C. (2002). Minority students in special
and gifted education.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Dreier, A. E. & Meers, E. B. (2003). A Closer look at the
Decisions. American Council on
Education. Retrieved from
http://www.acenet.edu/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&
CONTENTID=13874&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm
Dunn, L. (1968). Special education for the mildly retarded: Is
much of it justifiable?

Ferri, B. A., & Connor, D. (2005). Tools of exclusion: Race,
disability and (re)segregated
education. Teachers College Record, 107, 453-474.
Fierros, E. G., & Conroy, J. W. (2002). Double jeopardy: An
exploration of restrictiveness and
race in special education. In D. Losen & G. Orfield (Eds.),
Racial inequity in special
education (pp. 39-70). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education
Press.
Ford, A., Blanchett, W., & Brown, L. (2006). Teacher education
and students with significant
disabilities: Revisiting essential elements (COPSSE Document
No. 1B–11). Gainesville:
University of Florida, Center on Personnel Studies in Special
Education.
Fraser, S. (Ed.). (1995). The bell curve wars: Race, intelligence,
and the future of America.
New York: Basic Books.
Gammon, E. (2000). Examining the needs of culturally diverse
rural caregivers who have adults
with severe developmental disabilities living with them.
Families in Society, 81, 174-185.
Gergen, K. J. (1994). Realities and relationships: Soundings in
social construction. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Gould, S. J. (1981). The mismeasure of man. New York: W. W.
Norton.
Gutierrez, K. D., Asato, J., Santos, M., & Gotanda, N. (2002).
Backlash pedagogy: Language

and culture and the politics of reform. Review of Education,
Pedagogy, & Cultural Studies,
24, 335-351.
Harris, S. L. (1996). Serving families of children with
developmental disabilities: Reaching
diverse populations. Special Services, 12, 79-86.
Harry, B. (1992). Restructuring the participation of African
American parents in special educa-
tion. Exceptional Children, 59, 123-131.
Harry, B., Kalyanpur, M., & Day, M. (1999). Building cultural
reciprocity with families: Case
studies in special education. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Harry, B., & Klingner, J. K. (2006). Why are so many minority
students in special education?
Understanding race and disability in schools. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Hayden, M., & DePaepe, P. (1994). Waiting for community
services: The impact on persons
with mental retardation and other developmental disabilities. In
M. Hayden & B. Abery
(Eds.), Challenges for a service system in transition: Ensuring
quality, community experi-
ences for persons with developmental disabilities (pp. 173-206).
Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Heller, K. A., Holtzman, W. H., & Messick, S. (Eds.). (1982).
Placing children in special
education: A strategy for equity. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
Herrnstein, R. (1994). The bell curve: Intelligence and class

structure in American life.
New York: Free Press.
Hilliard, A. G., III. (1994). What good is this thing called
intelligence and why bother to
measure it? Journal of Black Psychology, 20, 430-444.
Hilliard, A. G., III. (1995). Either a paradigm shift or no mental
measurement: The non-
science and nonsense of the Bell Curve. Psych Discourse,
76(10), 6-20.
Jacob-Timm, S., & Hartshorne, T. S. (1998). Ethics and law for
school psychologists. New York:
John Wiley.
Kalyanpur, M., & Harry, B. (1999). Culture in special
education: Building reciprocal family-
professional relationships. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Klingner, J. K., Artiles, A. J., Kozleski, E., Harry, B., Zion, S.,
Tate, W., et al. (2005).
Addressing the disproportionate representation of culturally and
linguistically diverse
students in special education through culturally responsive
educational systems. Education
Policy Analysis Archives, 13(38), 1-39.
408 Urban Education
Klingner, J. & Blanchett, W. J, & Harry, B. (2007). Race,
Culture,and Developmental
Disabilities. In S. L. Odom, R. H.Horner, M. Snell, & J. Blacher
(Ed.), In the Handbook

on Developmental Disabilities. Guilford Press.
Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in America’s
schools. New York: Crown.
Kozol, J. (2005). The shame of the nation: The restoration of
apartheid schooling in America.
New York: Crown.
LeRoy, B., & Kulik, N. (2003). The demography of inclusive
education. Detroit, MI:
Developmental Disabilities Institute.
Losen, D. J., & Orfield, G. (Eds.). (2002). Racial inequity in
special education. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
MacMillan, D. L., & Reschly, D. J. (1998). Overrepresentation
of minority students: The case
for greater specificity or reconsideration of the variables
examined. The Journal of Special
Education, 32, 15-24.
Mary, N. L. (1990). Reactions of Black, Hispanic, and White
mothers to having a child with
handicaps. Mental Retardation, 28(1), 1-5.
Mercer, J. (1973). Labeling the mentally retarded. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2005). The condition
of education 2005. Retrieved
November 30, 2005, from
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/press/COE_2005_highlights.pd
f
O’Connor, C. (2002). Black women beating the odds from one

generation to the next: How
the changing dynamics of constraint and opportunity affect the
process of educational
resilience. American Educational Research Journal, 39, 855-
903.
O’Connor, C., & DeLuca Fernandez, S. (2006). Race, class, and
disproportionality: Reevaluating
the relationship between poverty and special education
placement. Educational Researcher,
35(6), 6-11.
Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure
inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Orfield, G., Frankenberg, E. D., & Lee, C. (2003). The
resurgence of school segregation.
Educational Leadership, 60(4), 16-20.
Oswald, D. P., Coutinho, M. J., Best, A. M., & Singh, N.
(1999). Ethnic representation in
special education: The influence of school-related economic and
demographic variables.
The Journal of Special Education, 32, 194-206.
Prasse, D., & Reschly, D. (1986). Larry P.: A case of
segregation, testing, or program efficacy?
Reichard, A., Sacco, T. M., & Turnbull, R. (2004). Access to
health care for individuals with
developmental disabilities from minority backgrounds. Mental
Retardation, 42, 459-470.

Reid, D. K., & Knight, M. G. (2006). Disability justifies
exclusion of minority students: A
critical history grounded in disability studies. Educational
Researcher, 35(6), 18-23.
Rueda, R., Monzo, L., Blacher, J., Shapiro, J., & Gonzalez, J.
(2005). Cultural models and
practices regarding transition: A view from Latina mothers of
young adults with develop-
mental disabilities. Exceptional Children, 71, 401-414.
Samuda, R. J. (1998). Psychological testing of American
minorities: Issues and
consequences(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sewell, W. H., Haller, A. O., & Portes, A. (1969). The
educational and early occupational
attainment process. American Sociological Review, 34, 82-92.
Skiba, R. J., Poloni-Staudinger, L., Simmons, A. B., Feggins, L.
R., & Chung, C. G. (2005).
Unproven links: Can poverty explain ethnic disproportionality
in special education? The
Journal of Special Education, 39(3), 130-144.
Sleeter, C.E. (1986). Learning disabilities: The social
construction of a special education cat-
egory. Exceptional Children, 53, 46-54. Reprinted in S.B.
Sigmon (Ed.) Critical voices in
special education. Albany: SUNY Press, 1990, 21-34.
Steele, C., Perry, T., & Hilliard, A., III. (2004). Young, gifted,

and Black: Promoting high
achievement among African American students. Boston: Beacon
Press.
Stuebing, K. K., Fletcher, J. M., LeDoux, J. M., Lyon, G. R.,
Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A.
(2002). Validity of IQ-discrepancy classifications of reading
disabilities: A meta-analysis.
American Educational Research Journal, 39, 469-518.
Traustadottir, R., Lutfiyya, Z. M., & Shoultz, B. (1994).
Community living: A multicultural
perspective. In M. Hayden & B. Abery (Eds.), Challenges for a
service system in transi-
tion: Ensuring quality community experiences for persons with
developmental disabilities
(pp. 405-426). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
U.S. Department of Education. (2003). To assure the free
appropriate public education of all
children with disabilities. In Twenty-fifth annual report to
Congress on the implementation
of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington,
DC: Author.
U.S. Department of Education. (2004). To assure the free
appropriate public education of all
children with disabilities: Twenty-fourth annual report to
Congress on the Implementation
of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington,
DC: Author.
Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., & Lyon, G. R. (2000).
Differentiating between difficult-to-
remediate and readily remediated poor readers: More evidence
against the IQ–achievement

discrepancy definition of reading disability. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 33, 223–238.
Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Preparing culturally
responsive teachers: Rethinking the
curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 20-32.
Wanda J. Blanchett, PhD, is currently the associate Dean for
Academic Programs and
Curriculum at the University of Colorado Denver (UCD).
Dr.Blanchett's research focuses on
issues of inequity including urban teacher preparation, issues of
race, class, culture, and gen-
der, disproportionate representation of students of color in
special education, severe disabili-
ties, and issues of sexuality for students with disabilities.
Janette K. Klingner is a professor at the University of Colorado
at Boulder specializing in
bilingual multicultural special education. Research interests
include the disproportionate rep-
resentation of culturally and linguistically diverse students in
special education, reading
comprehension strategy instruction for culturally and
linguistically diverse students, and
enhancing the sustainability of culturally responsive and
evidence-based practices through
professional development.
Beth Harry is a professor in the Department of Teaching and
Learning at the University of
Miami's School of Education. A native of Jamaica, she received
her Ph.D. from Syracuse
University. Her teaching and research focus on issues of
diversity and special education, the
challenges of serving families of children with disabilities, and

qualitative methods in educa-
tional research.
For reprints and permissions queries, please visit SAGE’s Web
site at http://www
.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav.
EDUC 6357: CHILDREN'S BOOK BIAS ASSESSMENT
Title of Book:
Copyright Date:
Illustrations - Stereotypes: Look at the illustrations throughout
the book and in pay close attention to any stereotypes you
notice. Are there any exaggerated characteristics and styles of
dress? (Derman-Sparks & Olsen Edwards, 2010). Write your
observations in the white space below.
Illustrations - Tokenism: Look to see if there are more
representatives from one group v. another. For example, is
there "one African-American child among many White
children?" (Derman-Sparks & Olsen Edwards, 2010, p.1) Write
your observations in the white space below.
Story Line Analysis: Does the story "depict people of color,
girls, children from low-income families, and children with
disabilities as dependent or passive, while depicting White
people, boys, members of the middle-class, and 'able-bodied'
children in leadership action roles?" (Derman-Sparks & Olsen
Edwards) Analyze the overall story line for who is presented as
the "doer." Write your observations in the white space below.
Relationships Between People: "In the book, is there a balance
of power among the characters? Who are the central figure, and
who serve as the supporting characters?" (Derman-Sparks &
Olsen Edwards, 2010, p.2) Write your observations in the white
space below.

Values of HeroesHeroines: "Does this book include
[heroesheroines] of color, from low-income families, or with
disabilities...Whose interests is the [heroheroine] really
serving?" (Derman-Sparks & Olsen Edwards, 2010, p.2) Write
Couples: Does your book depict couples? If so, does their
depiction seem to indicate a heterosexist view? Are there any
reference or depictions of same-sex couples? Write your
Families: If this book includes families, what types of families
are included? If ranges of families are included in the story -
are there any obvious stereotypes, which might shape one's
views of family types? (e.g., single parent families are shown to
be poor whereas dual parent households are shown to be
healthier, happier, and more financially secure). Write your
Loaded Words: Are there words used throughout the book that
contain prejudicial overtones? For example, words containing
prejudicial overtones used to describe people of color that carry
racist overtones might include: savage, primitive, backward
(Derman-Sparks & Olsen Edwards, 2010). Write your
What Else Did You Notice: Using your own life experience and
the Learning Resources from this course, notate other examples
of bias that you noticed while review this children's book. Wri te
EDUC 6357: CHILDREN'S BOOK BIAS ASSESSMENT
Title of Book:
Copyright Date:
Illustrations - Stereotypes: Look at the illustrations throughout

the book and in pay close attention to any stereotypes you
notice. Are there any exaggerated characteristics and styles of
dress? (Derman-Sparks & Olsen Edwards, 2010). Write your
Illustrations - Tokenism: Look to see if there are more
representatives from one group v. another. For example, is
there "one African-American child among many White
children?" (Derman-Sparks & Olsen Edwards, 2010, p.1) Write
Story Line Analysis: Does the story "depict people of color,
girls, children from low-income families, and children with
disabilities as dependent or passive, while depicting White
people, boys, members of the middle-class, and 'able-bodied'
children in leadership action roles?" (Derman-Sparks & Olsen
Edwards) Analyze the overall story line for who is presented as
the "doer." Write your observations in the white space below.
Relationships Between People: "In the book, is there a balance
of power among the characters? Who are the central figure, and
who serve as the supporting characters?" (Derman-Sparks &
Olsen Edwards, 2010, p.2) Write your observations in the white
space below.
Values of HeroesHeroines: "Does this book include
[heroesheroines] of color, from low-income families, or with
disabilities...Whose interests is the [heroheroine] really
serving?" (Derman-Sparks & Olsen Edwards, 2010, p.2) Write
Couples: Does your book depict couples? If so, does their
depiction seem to indicate a heterosexist view? Are there any
reference or depictions of same-sex couples? Write your
Families: If this book includes families, what types of families
are included? If ranges of families are included in the story -
are there any obvious stereotypes, which might shape one's
views of family types? (e.g., single parent families are shown to
be poor whereas dual parent households are shown to be
healthier, happier, and more financially secure). Write your

Loaded Words: Are there words used throughout the book that
contain prejudicial overtones? For example, words containing
prejudicial overtones used to describe people of color that carry
racist overtones might include: savage, primitive, backward
(Derman-Sparks & Olsen Edwards, 2010). Write your
What Else Did You Notice: Using your own life experience and
the Learning Resources from this course, notate other examples
of bias that you noticed while review this children's book. Write

httpcdn-media.waldenu.edu2dett4dWaldenEDUC6357CHmmaudio_

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to httpcdn-media.waldenu.edu2dett4dWaldenEDUC6357CHmmaudio_

Similar to httpcdn-media.waldenu.edu2dett4dWaldenEDUC6357CHmmaudio_ (10)

More from PazSilviapm

More from PazSilviapm (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

httpcdn-media.waldenu.edu2dett4dWaldenEDUC6357CHmmaudio_