Culture and Special Education
CULTURE AND SPECIAL EDUCATION
Beverley Bailey
Brandon University and Paul Betts
University of Winnipeg
In this paper we concern ourselves with the ways in which schools in general and special education procedures in particular tend to not be successful for those of our students who are from a different culture. (While we focus on Canadian Aboriginals, we also extend our thinking to those children who come from different races, ethnicities, socio-economic backgrounds, etc.) We outline the stories that have brought us to this place. We then go on to suggest that the adoption of different understandings and approaches could lead to the academic success of children from a variety of different cultures and backgrounds. We conclude with some direction for change.
In this paper we, two white educators, concern ourselves with the education of those students of Aboriginal descent who are seen by the school system as special. Our concerns are based on the stories we use to understand ourselves and our actions - stories of mistold history, socio-political issues, racism, the misuse of science - and the ways those stories disadvantage those who are different. Our hope is that we can begin to explore different more hopeful and empowering stories.
There are many reasons to be concerned about the existing state of special education, particularly with our Aboriginal students. Currently the following are common;
1. Our special education classes are top-heavy with Aboriginal and disadvantaged students.
2. We tend to focus on the deficits in other children rather than on the possibilities. We could embrace the position of William Glasser (1986): we choose to be whom and what we, and others, believe we are.[1]
3. We do not concern ourselves with the differences brought to school by children from other than the dominant culture.[2]
4. We are asking all small school children to do the pretty much the same thing at pretty much the same time
Beverley Bailey
Brandon University and Paul Betts
University of Winnipeg
In this paper we concern ourselves with the ways in which schools in general and special education procedures in particular tend to not be successful for those of our students who are from a different culture. (While we focus on Canadian Aboriginals, we also extend our thinking to those children who come from different races, ethnicities, socio-economic backgrounds, etc.) We outline the stories that have brought us to this place. We then go on to suggest that the adoption of different understandings and approaches could lead to the academic success of children from a variety of different cultures and backgrounds. We conclude with some direction for change.
In this paper we, two white educators, concern ourselves with the education of those students of Aboriginal descent who are seen by the school system as special. Our concerns are based on the stories we use to understand ourselves and our actions - stories of mistold history, socio-political issues, racism, the misuse of science - and the ways those stories disadvantage those who are different. Our hope is that we can begin to explore different more hopeful and empowering stories.
There are many reasons to be concerned about the existing state of special education, particularly with our Aboriginal students. Currently the following are common;
1. Our special education classes are top-heavy with Aboriginal and disadvantaged students.
2. We tend to focus on the deficits in other children rather than on the possibilities. We could embrace the position of William Glasser (1986): we choose to be whom and what we, and others, believe we are.[1]
3. We do not concern ourselves with the differences brought to school by children from other than the dominant culture.[2]
4. We are asking all small school children to do the pretty much the same thing at pretty much the same time
References: Bishop, A. (2002). Becoming an ally: Breaking the cycle of oppression. Fernwood Publishing; Halifax Bloom, B Courtney, R. (1986). Island of remorse: Amerindian education in the contemporary world. Curriculum Inquiry, 16(1), pp. 43-65. Freire, P. (1971). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Herder and Herder: New York Freire, P Gitlin, A. (2005). Inquiry, imagination, and the search for a deep politic. Educational Researcher 34 (3), pp. 15-24. Glasser, W. (1986). Control theory in the classroom. Harper and Rowe: New York. Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York. Bantam Books. Graveline, F.J. (1998). Circle works: Transforming Eurocentric consciousness:Halifax: Fernwood. Iseke-Barnes. J. (2005). Misrepresentation of Indigenous history and science: Public broadcasting, the internet, and education. Discourses: studies on the cultural politics of education 26 (2), pp. 149-165. Kalat, J. (1988). Biological psychology (3rd. ed). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Malia Kana 'iaupuni, S. (2005). K 'akalai Ku Kanaka: A call for strengths-based approaches from a Native Hawaiian perspective. Educational Researcher 34(5), pp.32-37 Regnier, R Skovsmose, O. (2005), Foregrounds and politics of learning obstacles. For the learning of mathematics 25 (1), pp. 4-10. Wortman,C., Loftus, E., & Weaver, C. (1999). Psychology (5th ed.). New York: Harper Collins College. Zimbardo, P. & Gerrig, R. (1996). Psychology and life. New York: Harper Collins College. ----------------------- [1] Bloom (1981) believes that the intellectual potential of all students is pretty much the same