Collaboration for Diverse Learners

Viewpoints and Practices

Victoria J. Risko, Karen Bromley

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9781135853938
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Educators often feel frustrated by their school's lack of comprehensive programs to address the needs of diverse learners. Many noted literacy experts believe that school programs for diverse learners will remain ineffectual until instruction involves teachers, specialists, administrators, and families in collaborative decision making, mediation, negotiation, and respect for differences. Collaboration for Diverse Learners brings together several expert perspectives on achieving effective collaboration to accelerate the literacy development of diverse learners. You will find in this important volume many resources to guide your own decision making and development of successful collaboration programs: in-depth analyses of collaborative efforts, multiple ways to think about collaboration and its implementation, and examples of collaborative projects that are successfully in place in schools throughout the United States. You'll be especially inspired by the first-hand stories of educators, children, and families who present the possibilities for partnerships that advance the learning of all students.
Published by International Reading Association

SECTION 1
WAYS TO THINK ABOUT COLLABORATION

CHAPTER 1
NEW VISIONS OF COLLABORATION

Victoria J. Risko and Karen Bromley

To love, to cherish, to set an example, to respect.

—from "To be a Teacher," a poem by Angel Nieto Romero (Nieto, 2000)

Few schools have developed comprehensive plans for accommodating the multiple problems associated with instruction for diverse learners (Allington & Walmsley, 1995). Many programs currently in place are underfunded, fragmented, and less than desirable (Allington, 1995; Fafard, 1995; Fuchs & Fuchs, 1995; Zigmond et al., 1995). Fafard (1995) and others suggest that programs will remain ineffectual until there is a substantial redesign of instructional programs and a reinvestment not only in educational funding but in professional resources and development—and serious networking across professionals, children, and families. Unfortunately, most school structures (e.g., curriculum plans, class schedules, testing programs, role expectations) separate teachers, teachers and families, even administrators and teachers in ways that prevent them from building communities in which communication and professional exchanges are valued (Barth, 1990; Bolman & Deal, 1994; Brubaker, Case, & Reagan, 1994; Goodlad, 1984; Lieberman, 1988; Lieberman & Miller, 1991; Nowicki & Meehan, 1997).

Calls for Change

During the last three decades, the U.S. Congress has required public schools and educational agencies to develop and sustain programs that support diversity. Since the passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in the United States in 1965 and during the last three decades, schools have been required to hire professionals across different disciplines to collaborate on the design and implementation of instruction for students designated for special services (e.g., special education placements, Title I literacy classes, second language acquisition programs). Recent legislation aims to diminish role differences among professionals such as reading specialists and special education teachers, involve a broader base of experts and representation, provide integrative and cohesive curriculum that builds on students' strengths and history, and respond to demographic and budgetary factors that affect local schools. Additionally, this legislation is aimed directly at strengthening educational support for linguistically and culturally diverse children (Garcia, 1999) and away from the "labeling" and "sorting" of students that typically follow legislative mandates (Hoffman, 2000). This change has come about as a result of the reauthorization of Titles I and VII in 1998, the reauthorization of IDEA (1998), the authorization of America 2000 (1991) and Goals 2000 (1994), the passage of the Reading Excellence Act (1999), and changes in state regulations. For example, regulations changed in New York (1997) allowing reading specialists to take active roles in designing curriculum and providing literacy instruction to students who have been identified with learning disabilities that involve literacy problems.

Such legislation also makes prominent the importance of developing shared responsibilities among classroom teachers, specialists, school administrators, families, and communities. Similarly, international forums such as the International Special Education Congress (1995), UNESCO task force groups (1994), and the World Conference on Education for All (1990) have called for educational reforms that bring professionals, policy makers, and families together to ensure improved education for all students—especially for those who are denied education because of their learning differences. The message conveyed widely by these groups is that high quality literacy instruction for all learners will remain less than optimal until we rethink the roles of classroom teachers and instructional support professionals, and their relationships with families and the communities in which schools are located.

Yet, as Garcia (1999) and others warn, legislation, policy makers, and educational forums have not been able to afford the far-reaching curriculum changes that are needed to support linguistically and culturally diverse students. Even with national mandates in place, we as literacy professionals need to examine ways to build shared knowledge and shared responsibilities about literacy learning among professionals, families, and communities, and we need to invite communication that encourages mediation, negotiation, and respect for differences (Allington & Cunningham, 1996; Friend & Cook, 1996; Garcia, 1999; Griffin, 1995; Ladson-Billings, 2000; Nieto, 2000; Pugach, 1995). Further, we need to advance our understanding of how different and alternative models of collaboration can promote programs in which classroom teachers, specialists, families, administrators, and other educators are actively engaged in a process that ensures successful literacy learning for all students.

We need to advance our understanding of how different and alternative models of collaboration can promote programs in which classroom teachers, specialists, families, administrators, and other educators are actively engaged in a process that ensures successful literacy learning for all students.

Why Collaboration?

Among the many reasons for collaboration, we identify those that we believe are the most compelling. We believe that collaboration

• ◆ aims for the success of all literacy learners;
• ◆ acknowledges many pathways to achieve optimal literacy practices for diverse students;
• ◆ moves professionals and families from a deficit model to one that affirms and is responsive to students' strengths, backgrounds, beliefs, and values;
• &x25C6; reduces role differentiation among teachers and specialists, resulting in shared expertise for problem solving that yields multiple solutions to dilemmas about literacy and learning;
• ◆ provides a way to respond to complex problems that holds power for its members by allowing all to contribute and take leadership roles so that all are committed to the same goals;
• ◆ allows for social and intellectual interactions among families, communities, and schools that can promote the establishment of cultural understandings and connections;
• ◆ provides avenues for curricular change and nontraditional approaches that make visible students' capabilities and out-of-school experiences and literacy practices;
• ◆ creates the potential for family literacy development and invites parents to become partners in the education of their children; and
• ◆ holds promise for developing an informed citizenry that can build strong local communities and a stronger nation.

Persistent Problems That Deter Successful Collaborations

Collaborative efforts are difficult to achieve for several reasons. First, too often collaborative agendas are motivated by outside forces (e.g., legislators, state education agencies, educational policy makers, researchers, and/or curriculum experts) that are too far removed from the children, teachers, families, and communities they intend to support. Decision making is not situated in the broad context of students' school lives and home lives. Often the culture of the local school and out-of-school community is not represented.

Also, literacy educators and researchers have made little progress in developing a notion of collaboration that is inspired by theory and research, has practical implications for constructing curriculum that is based on students' life experiences, and engages participants in meaningful collaborative exchanges.

Teachers, administrators, and families are typically unprepared for the multiple and complex roles they are asked to assume. Even when these individuals want to work together and are given opportunities to do so, such desires and opportunities can be insufficient for building and sustaining meaningful working relationships. Efforts to bring groups together around common goals are often stymied because of limited knowledge of what contributes to effective collaborations, limited time allocation, and a lack of mediation strategies. Difficult issues such as inability to communicate effectively, a teacher's preference for autonomy, or scheduling and curriculum demands imposed on instruction are not easily resolved, and even subtle differences in beliefs, background, and preferences are not always recognized.

Often changes that are accomplished are superficial, temporary, or "peripheral" (Marks & Gersten, 1998, p. 53) and directed toward adjustments in routine rather than deep curriculum changes. Trying to resolve complex problems with simple solutions leads to teacher disillusionment and disengagement, and ineffectual practices.

Efforts to bring groups together around common goals are often ineffectual because of limited knowledge of what contributes to effective collaborations, limited time allocation, and a lack, of mediation strategies.

Finally, insufficient planning and involvement of only a few participants can produce a lack of congruence in goals and expectations (Marks & Gersten, 1998). Without a mechanism for empowering the participants and sustaining participation, the benefits that can be derived from collective or "shared expertise" (Graden & Bauer, 1992, p. 95) and shared expectations for outcomes are lost. Curriculum restructuring efforts, teacher practices, and parent and community involvement become fragmented, resulting in a lack of congruence between goals and outcomes.

Given these concerns, the following questions may be helpful for analyzing the design and implementation efforts of collaborative programs. We will return to these questions in the final chapter of this volume, which discusses the collaboration projects described in the book.

• ◆ Is there meaningful improvement in the literacy development and learning opportunities for all students?
• ◆ Does collaboration serve as a catalyst for restructuring curriculum and instruction, and as an invitation for participant involvement?
• ◆ Do participants assume new roles and take ownership for their contributions, the implementation of programs, and students' literacy development and learning?
• ◆ Does collaboration allow for continuous and dynamic interactions both inside and outside classrooms and schools?

A New Framework for Collaboration

For too long, collaboration has been a puzzle with pieces that simply failed to fit. Our vision of a new framework for collaboration pulls these pieces together.

The organizational culture of the school and the procedures and policies involved in decision-making processes can either facilitate or inhibit successful collaboration (see Bolman & Deal, 1994; Brubaker, Case, & Reagan, 1994; Rossman, Corbett, & Firestone, 1988). For too long, collaboration has been a puzzle with pieces that simply failed to fit. Our vision of a new framework for collaboration pulls these pieces together. Within this framework, we acknowledge that collaboration takes place in various settings (within the classroom, across the school setting, and within the larger community) and involves many different people (students, teachers, specialists, administrators, families, university faculty and researchers, and other community members) who come together in pairs, teams, and large groups. The expected outcomes are many.

One set of outcomes relates to shared problem solving and decision making, enhanced communication, and restructured curriculum and instruction. Another set points to the importance of distinguishing expectations for collaborators' roles. Rather than expecting all participants to contribute equally or with the same expertise, we would agree with Erickson (1989), who describes collaborative work as the "exchange [of] mutual help" (p. 431), and we would add, the exchange of different forms of expertise. As Clark et al. (1996) and others indicate, joint ownership is the desired outcome. A third set of outcomes relates to developing inter- and intracultural competence—the ability to communicate effectively with people across communities who have different beliefs, histories, communicative styles, and literacy practices and to understand individual variation within communities (Garcia, 1999). A fourth set relates to building understandings of fluid roles members can assume and different models of collaboration that can develop (John-Steiner, Weber, & Minnis, 1998).

Underlying Assumptions

FIGURE 1
Collaborating to Enhance Literacy Development and Learning

Our vision of collaboration is guided by four assumptions, represented in Figure 1. First, collaboration is a problem-solving process. It should be guided not by tradition but by visions of restructuring curriculum to meet the needs of all students and notions of instruction that are guided by ongoing assessment. This process should establish meaningful ways for individuals to participate so that they are all committed to its goals and outcomes. Second, collaboration is a developmental process. It occurs over time as individuals generate questions, identify goals, make plans, implement these plans, and revise them when necessary. The collaboration process is often recursive as individuals recognize the need to revisit goal setting or planning, or as they find a need to revisit and improve the ways they communicate or share decision making. Members are transformed and common understandings that develop represent more than a sum of individual perspectives (Buber, 1970). Third, collaboration is a dynamic process. Collaborative arrangements, if effective, are not static. They serve as a catalyst for restructuring schools, confirming identities of individuals and cultures, and responding to diversity in order to improve learning opportunities and achievement for all students. And fourth, collaboration is a dialogic process. It affords discussions that encourage deep thinking about differences and the development of shared values and expectations.

We agree with many educators (e.g., Bolman & Deal, 1994; Putnam, Spiegel, & Bruininks, 1995) who believe that an emphasis on collaboration will increase in the 21st century. Initiating opportunities to ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication Page
• Contents
• FOREWORD
• ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
• CONTRIBUTORS
• INTRODUCTION Collaboration for Diverse Learners: A Beginning
• SECTION 1 WAYS TO THINK ABOUT COLLABORATION
• SECTION 2 MULTIPLE PATHWAYS TO COLLABORATION
• SECTION 3 CONCLUSIONS
• AUTHOR INDEX
• SUBJECT INDEX