Kansas Federation of the Council for Exceptional Children 44 th Annual Conference

1. Family, School, and Community Collaboration: Multicultural Considerations in Sustaining Successful Partnerships Kansas Federation of the Council for Exceptional Children 44th Annual Conference Lawrence, Kansas Carol L. Pitchlyn Juniper Gardens Children Project Kansas City, Kansas October 5-6, 2006

2. Overview • The reaction of many families of a child being diagnosed with a disability is devastating and many parents do not know how to advocate for appropriate educational or community services for their child. Additionally, teachers and administrators as well as parents need strategies in order to understand the cultural and linguistic factors that impact their ability to establish and sustain successful partnerships.

3. Presentation Goals • This presentation will address the challenges culturally and linguistically diverse families with children having a disability face in obtaining appropriate educational and community services, and discuss strategies that lead to outcomes depicting successful collaboration between these families and their local schools and community service agencies.

4. Presentation Components • Presentation Components will include: • Definition of collaboration • Rationale for collaboration • Barriers to collaboration • Strategies toward collaboration • Supportive research in collaboration • Factors Impacting Families & Professionals • Recommendations

5. Why is family-school-community collaboration important? Providing sensitive and appropriate assessment, intervention, and educational services to culturally and linguistically diverse children with disabilities is of of increasing importance to schools and other service providers (Anderson, et. al; 1998, p.2). As community organizations often struggle with limited resources and recognizing that schools alone cannot meet all the needs of these exceptional youth (Mastro and Jalloh, 2005, p.1),collaboration between these two entities along with partnership from families is necessary to fully meet the students’ social, physical, emotional and academic needs.

6. Why is family-school-community collaboration important? (cont. i) • Target 3 of the National Agenda for achieving Better Results for Children and Youth with Serious Emotional Disturbance (U.S. Department of Education, 1994) addresses the need to “encourage culturally competent and linguistically appropriate exchanges and collaborations among families, professionals, students and communities”…indicating that these collaborations should foster equitable outcomes for all students and result in the identification and provision of services that are responsive to issues of race, culture, gender and social and economic class (Coutinho &Denny, 1996, p. 218; Anderson et. al., 1998, p.1).

7. Why is Family-School-Community Collaboration Important?(Cont. ii) • Target 4 of this same agenda states that collaborations that fully include family members on the team of service providers implements family focused services to improve educational outcomes and further states that services should be open, helpful, culturally competent, accessible to families, and be school as well as community based (Coutinho and Denny, 1996, p.218).

8. What is Collaboration? • Collaboration is a process pf participation through which people, groups, and organizations work together to achieve desired results. • (Bergstrom, et. al., 1995, p.4).

9. Barriers to Collaboration • Gold (1985)and Mastro & Jalloh(2005, p.2) identified several significant barriers to effective collaboration. They are in areas of: • Cultural: Many professionals lack the understanding or have an appreciation for the cultural values of the families they serve. Because of their professional status, they may feel superior to parents. Therefore, cultural influences in relation to the family system impact successful collaboration. • Organizational: There may be requirements for school personnel that community organizations do not require of their staff or issues that may prevent staff from being willing or available for after school activities which may hinder partnership growth. • Structural: Schools are usually more formal in structural organization than community agencies. Hierarchical issues such as credentialing and tenure and designated levels of responsibility are more rigid, and because of this structural design, decision making happens at a slower pace than community

10. Barriers to Collaboration (cont.) • groups and lead to a lack of understanding and/or respect for the constraints under which each of the entities must operate. • Competitive Mindsets: Social service organizations and educational institutions may seem to be in competition with one another for student funding, be charged with evaluating each other’s performance, or have a history of friction with one another, as as well as with families—all of which can be expected to interfere with collaboration. • Threat of Bureaucracy: Agency representatives may create layers of bureaucracy by forming an interagency “czar” or “superagency” , and the focus on service delivery is lost. • Threat of Domination: One single entity of the collaborative team may try to dominate proceedings, leaving other members feeling they have little influence.

11. Strategies Toward Collaboration The research of(Ascher et. al., 1990,1988) have identified what they believe to be essential strategies to effective collaboration and are achieving successful in meeting their objectives. • Service delivery is ‘family- centered’, rather than ‘child-centered’. The child with a disability is treated as a member of the family, and the family is treated as a member of the community, so that a family unit, rather than a group of individuals, is served. • Staff are given the time, training, and skills—including multicultural awareness and communication skills to establish and maintain sustained and supportive relationships. • Flexibility is essential, going beyond rigid rules and procedures to allow the focus to remain on the service and not the structure. • Actions are results orientated and accountable to families, professionals,and the general public.

12. Strategies Toward Collaboration (cont.) • The provision of a range of participants– families along with professionals, from nurses to teachers to psychologists and administrators who function as a team and build trusting, respectful relationships with one another. • The frequent use of case managers who serve as liaisons between children/families and the various service-providing agencies. • Response is toward local needs in that no one administrative arrangement or service setting fits every situation.

13. Supportive Research for Collaboration • The research of Simpson & Simpson (1994, p.21) state that the needs of parents and families of at-risk youth and those with mild disabilities can be categorized as: appropriate educational direct services, information exchange opportunities, resource use and advocacy preparation, parent/family consultation, support and counseling. The authors further state that educators need to be able to respond to all these needs by forming programs around these needs and determining who will be obliged to address such needs, including those that fall outside traditional school roles.

14. Supportive Research for Collaboration (cont.) • Researchers at Portland State University (2001, p. 14) confirm there is a growing emphasis in service delivery on transdisciplinary and transagency collaboration so that child-serving agencies can best met the need of children and their families. Their research shows that services that are designed to improve social support will connect families with concrete resources, increase parents’ copingskills, and enhance parent-child/parent-professional relationships and parenting competencies.

15. Cultural & Linguistic Factors Impacting Families and Professionals • According to the findings of the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) (1995), a challenge for educational and community professionals is to become more knowledgeable about how to relate to families whose cultural background is different from their own. Yet at the same time, they need to understand and appreciate their own cultural and linguistic backgrounds. The cultural background of the professional affects how they interact with the families they are to serve. • Mutual respect is a key factor in successful collaboration. Professionals and families must respect and reinforce each other as they work together to achieve the greatest benefit for the children being educated. • Responsiveness and communication are essential in that responding to cultural and linguistic diversity can be challenging because of the specific needs or issues of the individual families and solutions may not be evident, yet despite the complexities, it is the responsibility of professionals to assume the tasks and address the challenges.

16. Recommendations in Policy in Collaboration • Drawn from the work of (Clasby et. al., 1979) recommendations regarding policy at the federal level include: • That federal policymakers waive regulations to enable service provider s to be able to mobilize the resources needed to serve families and children with disabilities. • That the federal government should set the tone and direction for change by establishing and funding demonstration projects in early childhood education, dropout prevention, and other programs, and other programs targeted to improve the quality of education for all children and especially children with disabilities. • That federal representatives provide leadership in interagency collaborations by establishing state-level coalitions of agencies, teachers, parents, students, the private sector, and foundations to plan and evaluate policy approaches that will support local efforts.

17. Recommendations in Policy in Collaboration (cont.) • Recommendations regarding policy in collaboration in state government include: • That interagency efforts should be initiated or formally endorsed by the governor and state legislature to ensure participation of all relevant agencies and organizations. • That professionals-in-training should receive training in multicultural awareness and communications to strengthen their effectiveness in working with students and families from diverse backgrounds. • That state policy makers should mandate interdisciplinary training of classroom teachers and social workers in teacher preparation programs and schools of social work. • That cost sharing among participants of linkage programs be promoted.

18. Recommendations in Policy in Collaboration (cont. i) • Recommendations for policy in collaboration at local government levels include:That resources for incentive grants to local community organizations be made available. • Recommendations identified by Ascher et.al. (1990) regarding operations include: • To define the community—Who will be served? Who will be the service providers? What other individuals and organizations should have input into the program or project? • Involvement of all key participants creates a broad sense of ownership and commitment. • In addition to social service agencies, health organizations, and juvenile justice departments, other facilities willing to collaborate are: Community groups—civic, cultural, economic, fraternal, professional, religious, etc. and also school liaison groups such as PTA, neighborhood associations and alumni groups.

19. References Anderson, M., Beard, K., Delgado, B., Kea, C.,Raymond, E., Singh, N., Sugai, G., Townsend, B., Voltz, D., & Webb-Johnson, G. (1998). Working with culturally and linguistically diverse children, youth, and their families: Promising practices in assessment, instruction,and personnel preparation, a White Paper. Reston, VA: CCBD, a Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 1920 Association Drive, 22091, http://www.ccbd.net Ascher, C. (1990).Linking Schools with Human Service Agencies. ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education Digest 62: Entire issue. Bain, J.H., and Herman, J.L. (1989). Improving Opportunities for Underachieving Minority Students: A planning Guide for Community Action. Los Angles, CA: UCLA Center for the Study of Evaluation.

20. References (cont.) • Benard, B.,andFafoglia, B. (1887). Knowing What to do— and Not to Do—Reinvigorates Drug Education. ASCD Curriculum Update 29/2: 1-12. • Bergstrom, A., Clark, R., Hogue, T., Iyechad, T., Mullen, S.,Perkins, D., Rowe, E.Russell, J., and Simon- Brown, V. (1995). Collaboration Framework- Addressing Community Capacity. National Network for Collaboration. • Clasby, M. (1979). Community Perspectives on the Roles of the School in the Community. IRE Report no. 3. Boston, MA: Institute for Responsive Education.

21. References (cont. i) • Coutinho, M., and Denny, K. (1996). National for children and youth with serious emotional disturbance: Progress and prospects. Journal of Child and family Studies 5, 207-227. • Florin, P., and Chavis, D. (1990). Community Development and Substance Abuse Prevention. San Jose, CA: Bureau of Drug Abuse Services, County of Santa Clara. • Gold, G. (1985). Collaborate With the Community. Module CG A-3 of Category A-3 –Guidance Program Planning. Competency-Based Career Guidance Models. Washington, DC: Office of Vocational and Adult Education. (ED 257 978).

22. References (cont. ii) • Guthrie, G., and Guthrie, L. (1990). Streamlining Interagency Collaboration for Youth at Risk: Issues for Educators. San Francisco, CA: Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development. September. • Institute for Educational Leadership (1986). Metrolink: Developing Human Resources Through Metropolitan Collaboration. Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Leadership, March.

23. References (cont. iii) • Mastro, E., and Jalloh, M. (2005). Enhancing Service School/Community Collaboration. ACT for Youth Upstate Center of Excellence. Practice Matters. A collaboration of Cornell University, University of Rochester, and the New York State Center for School Safety. June • National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAYEC) (1995). Responding to Linguistic and Cultural Diversity recommendations for Effective Early Childhood Education. November.

24. References (cont.vi) • Pathfinder (1987). How to Develop A Community Network. Minneapolis, MN: Pathfinder. • Reed, S., and Sautter, R. (1990). Children of Poverty: The Status of 12 Million Young Americans. Phi Delta Kappan, 71/10: 1-12. • Robinson, E.; and Mastny, A. (1989). Linking Schools and Community Services: A Practical Guide. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, School of Social Work, Center for Community Education.

25. References (cont. v) • Southwest Educational Developmental Laboratory. School Linked Services—So that Schools Can Educate and Children Can Learn—Part 1. Insights on Educational Policy and Practice, 20. • Simpson, J.; Jiyanjee, P; Koroloff, N.; Doerfler, A.; and Garcia, M. (2001).Promising Practices in Early Childhood Mental Health. Systems of Care: Practices in Children’s Mental Health, Series Report :vol. 3. • Simpson, R., and Simpson, J. (1994). At Risk and Disabled Students: Parent and family needs. Preventing School Failure, vol. 39, p. 21-25.

26. References (cont. vi) • U.S. Department of Education. (1994). National Agenda for Achieving Better Results for Children and Youth with Serious Emotional Disturbance. Washington DC: Office of Special Education Programs.