By Christine Park and Natalie May
The phrase “culturally responsive” is increasingly used within educational settings today – but what does it mean to be culturally responsive in school contexts, particularly for students with emotional disabilities (EDs)?
Culturally responsive and sustaining education (CR-SE), as defined by New York State Education Department (NYSED), draws on decades of research in strengths- and asset-based pedagogies that recognize that cultural differences (including those related to race, ethnicity, language, gender, sexuality and ability) should be treated as assets for teaching and learning. NYSED’s CR-SE framework is grounded in four principles: welcoming and affirming environment, high expectations and rigorous instruction, inclusive curriculum and assessment, and ongoing professional learning. This framework aims to “help educators create student-centered learning environments that: affirm racial, linguistic and cultural identities; prepare students for rigor and independent learning, develop students’ abilities to connect across lines of difference; elevate historically marginalized voices; and empower students as agents of social change.”
How do we do this in the Path Program? What does this look like in an inclusive classroom for children with EDs?
This is a photo of District 9’s Parent Leadership Summit Meeting. Community School District 9 hosted principals, parent coordinators and parent leaders from all 49 schools for a day of collaborative learning that focused on the power of parent voices as shared decision makers. Participants engaged in working sessions to craft individual school commitments to expand opportunities for parent voice and partnership in schoolwide planning, and attended a resource fair that showcased over 30 community-based organizations, private vendors and citywide agencies that partner with school communities.
- Identify and stop practices that boost historically advantaged groups at the expense of marginalized students. Students with EDs are disproportionately affected by discipline practices in schools; compared to 16% of students with all disabilities, 32% of students with ED drop out or are pushed out of school early (Office of Special Education Programs, 2020), which predicts long-term negative education, economic, and social outcomes (Wagner, 1995). Students with ED are also disproportionately Black, male, and from low-income families (OSEP, 2020), a group likely to experience added stress and trauma related to structural and systemic inequities and racial discrimination (Bailey et al., 2017; Douglas et al., 2021). The Path Program disrupts these patterns of discipline and school pushout by providing multilevel supports to students, school staff, administrators, and families to keep students in their classrooms.
- Support staff to have high expectations for all students. Many teachers struggle to include students with EDs (Avramidis et al., 2000a, 2000b, Ben-Yehuda et al, 2010), have lower expectations for these students, and feel less capable or responsible for teaching students with higher emotional or behavioral needs (MacFarlane & Woolfson, 2013). Given this, promoting a strengths-based, growth mindset approach and providing ongoing training and support for teachers and other school staff is critical. The Path Program supports teachers and other school staff to utilize growth mindset feedback as part of engaging and effective instruction, and a variety of other strategic learning supports such as varied modalities, breaking down tasks, open-ended questions, and peer learning practices in order to best facilitate all students’ learning and success.
Ms. Sealey is a Kindergarten teacher at P.S. 399 who has created a visual representation of the elements of a Community Circle, a core Path practice.
- Build strong connections with students, their families, and their communities in order to understand their lives, backgrounds, and identities. Relationships, and the practices that facilitate them, are at the heart of supporting students with EDs. The Path Program draws upon a rich body of literature related to Tier 1 and 2 relational practices that enable students with and without emotional and behavioral challenges to engage in classrooms. In particular, daily SEL strategies (Jones et al., 2017; Merrit et al., 2022) and relationship-building and restorative practices (Cohen, 1994; Gregory et al., 2016; Pianta et al., 2003) are key for strengthening teacher-student and peer relationships. The Path Program also engages in partnered work with families and community organizations by collaborating with school social workers and parent coordinators to organize family-facing and community-wide events.
- Create emotional safe spaces and foster trust among students. Emotional safety and belonging is critically important for students with ED, who experience high rates of trauma. Exposure to trauma and underlying chronic stress compromises children’s ability to feel safe, causing them to live in a constant state of survival (Regional Research for Human Services, 2007). One critical way to support students with EDs is to foster learning environments that are predictable and safe in order to help students engage from a place of felt safety. Core Path practices that support emotional safety include Community Circles, in which students are invited to convene for a variety of classroom community practices. Each circle includes a greeting, grounding (regulation practice like deep breathing), activity (relationship building question, movement break, etc.), and closing. Together, these practices aim to provide students with the space to regulate their emotions and interact with one another in affirming and emotionally supportive ways.
Overall, both culturally responsive and sustaining education (CR-SE) and core structures and practices of the Path Program underscore the importance of fostering inclusive, supportive, and agentic environments for students with and without EDs. Both emphasize the value of dismantling exclusionary policies, recognizing students’ diverse identities and experiences, setting high expectations for students, fostering trusting relationships with students and their families, and creating safe and welcoming spaces. As we continue to develop frameworks and practices of cultural responsiveness, we must also think about how to make these practices inclusive and accessible for all students.
References
Avramidis, E., Bayliss, P., & Burden, R. (2000a). A survey into mainstream teachers' attitudes towards the inclusion of children with special educational needs in the ordinary school in one local education authority. Educational Psychology, 20(2), 191–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/713663717
Avramidis, E., Bayliss, P., & Burden, R. (2000b). Student teachers’ attitudes towards the inclusion of children with special educational needs in the ordinary school. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(3), 277–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0742-051x(99)00062-1
Bailey, Z. D., Krieger, N., Agénor, M., Graves, J., Linos, N., & Bassett, M. T. (2017). Structural racism and health inequities in the USA: Evidence and interventions. The Lancet, 389(10077), 1453–1463. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(17)30569-x
Ben-Yehuda, S., Leyser, Y., Last, U. (2010). Teacher educational beliefs and sociometric status of special educational needs (SEN) students in inclusive classrooms. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14(1), 17–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110802327339
Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1-35.
Douglas, R. D., Alvis, L. M., Rooney, E. E., Busby, D. R., & Kaplow, J. B. (2021). Racial, ethnic, and neighborhood income disparities in childhood posttraumatic stress and grief: Exploring indirect effects through trauma exposure and bereavement. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 34(5), 929–942. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.22732
Gregory, A., Clawson, K., Davis, A., & Gerewitz, J. (2016). The promise of restorative practices to transform teacher-student relationships and achieve equity in school discipline. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 26(4), 325-353.
Jones, S.M., Brush, K., Bailey, R., Brion-Meisels, G., McIntyre, J., Kahn, J., Nelson, B., & Stickle, L. (2017). Navigating SEL from the inside out: Looking inside & across 25 leading SEL programs: A practical resource for schools and OST providers (Elementary School Focus). New York, NY: The Wallace Foundation.
MacFarlane, K., & Woolfson, L. M. (2013). Teacher attitudes and behavior toward the inclusion of children with social, emotional and behavioral difficulties in mainstream schools: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 46-52.
Merritt, J., Kernot, J., Dizon, J., & Boshoff, K. (2022). Facilitating practices to support children's self-regulation in classrooms: a scoping review protocol. JBI Evidence Synthesis, 20(3), 882-889.
Office of Special Education Programs. (2020, May 6). OSEP Fast Facts: Children Identified with Emotional Disturbance [Fact Sheet]. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/osep-fast-factschildren-IDed-Emotional-Disturbance-20
Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B., & Stuhlman, M. (2003). Relationships between teachers and children. In W. M. Reynolds & G. E. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Educational psychology (Vol. 7, pp. 199–234). John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Regional Research Institute for Human Services. (2007). Focal Point: Trauma and children’s behavior and development. Portland State University. Retrieved from https://www.rtc.pdx.edu
Wagner, M. M. (1995). Outcomes for youths with serious emotional disturbance in secondary school and early adulthood. The Future of Children, 5(2), 90. https://doi.org/10.2307/1602359
