Abstract
A person’s microcultures—including various traits, values, experiences, and beliefs—influence identities and help individuals make sense of the world. The intersection of an individual’s microcultures (how microcultures interact and influence each other), such as disability, race, language, gender identity, sexuality, and religion, plays a key role in educating students with disabilities.
Members of individualized education program (IEP) teams—including teachers, administrators, parents, related service providers and students—all have dynamic microcultures that influence the way they perceive education and their role in the IEP. As a result, when teams fail to consider the intersection of student microcultures at the center of educational decisions, teams risk not providing students with what they need to be successful (e.g., access to the general curriculum; appropriate services and supports; Blanchett et al., 2009; National Council on Disability, 2018).
This is especially true among students who have been historically marginalized in school systems based on their microcultures or when parts of a student’s identity are ignored entirely. Although special education services are intended to enhance educational services and student outcomes, evidence suggests that some students in special education are negatively affected by factors such as lowered expectations, fewer opportunities to learn, and isolation from the general education environment; outcomes that may be impacted by implicit biases or perceptions that IEP team members maintain about students that can result in unintentional discrimination (Harry & Klinger, 2006; National Council on Disability, 2018).
Recognizing student microcultures has major implications for student educational outcomes. If IEP teams are going to ensure students receive appropriate services and supports and “enable the [student] to make progress appropriate in light of [the student’s] circumstances” (Endrew F., 2017, p. 1002), teams must seek to understand student microcultures; the implications of these microcultures, including student interests; and how microcultures influence interactions between students, teachers, related service professionals, adult service providers, and other support staff.
Research indicates that educator expectations significantly impact the outcomes of students with disabilities (de Boer et al., 2018). Low expectations for students may be a result of cultural hegemony, implicit bias, or even explicit bias in the form of overt prejudice, racism, or classism. For example, some educators may have limited knowledge of the perspectives and life circumstances of some students, and others may hold stereotyped attitudes about the capability based on certain characteristics (e.g., disability, socioeconomic status, incarcerated parents, performance of siblings). Limited knowledge and misinformation or misunderstandings by IEP teams can result in diminished expectations for student achievement, which can influence an IEP team’s decision to place students with disabilities in more restrictive environments and offer fewer opportunities to learn (e.g., Hyland & Heuschkel, 2010; National Council on Disability, 2018).
The term “cultural competence” has evolved to include differences beyond non-White racial groups to be more inclusive of differences in ability, sexuality, religion, and other microcultures. Developing cultural competence is a “process that evolves over time, starting with an understanding of one’s own culture (cultural awareness), continuing through interactions with individuals from various cultures (cultural knowledge), and extending through one’s own expansion of knowledge (cultural skill)” (Dixon, 2014, p. 26). Developing cultural competence should acknowledge the intersections of the different nested ecologies in which an individual interacts (e.g., home, neighborhood, religious community, online community, school). Given the bidirectional influence of ecological structures and individual microcultures, it is crucial for IEP teams to consider and seek to understand student development through an ecological lens to more holistically discuss the influence of dynamic student environments and experiences on their goals, needs, and systems of support (Bronfenbrenner, 2005).
When considering the development and implementation of the IEP, diversity cannot be viewed through a single lens, as this could potentially contribute to bias and stereotypes that cause placements in more restrictive environments and fewer opportunities to learn. Each student should be viewed as unique and capable. Before developing the IEP, the team should take time to learn about the student’s abilities as well their microcultures (e.g., history, values, family system, tribal status, religion and spirituality, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, social class, age, trauma) and other information that will help to inform the IEP. Understanding the student through an intersectional lens could promote understanding of their culture in a more inclusive way that avoids bias and cultural stereotypes.
Ask Reflective Self-Questions
What can we learn from this analysis? What should IEP teams be doing differently? What can I do to address stereotypes? How do I address my own biases? We, the authors, are not proclaiming to be experts in cultural competence or culturally responsive practices. We, like everyone else, have biases. We, like all dedicated educators, have made and learned from mistakes. In our years working as K–12 teachers of students with disabilities and faculty in higher education, we have sought to examine and refine our skills in reflective practice.
Reflectivity in teaching refers to a process in which educators enhance their professional practice and learn how to promote effective teaching through ongoing reflection on their actions in educational contexts (Nagro & deBetterncourt, 2018). Bandura (2009) identified the ability to self-reflect as the most significant characteristic for individuals to think carefully about their experiences and perceptions and to expand knowledge about all aspects of their life. Self-reflective capabilities allows one to make judgments and changes in their beliefs (Kumaravadivelu, 2006). IEP development and implementation requires self-questioning among all team members. Examples of self-questions to encourage reflectivity in practice in IEP development and implementation include the following:
What assumptions do we have about our students?
How can we challenge our assumptions?
Will we respond to challenges in our assumptions?
How are my microcultures similar to or different from those of my students?
What are the influences of the similarity of differences in microcultures on student outcomes?
Am I effectively leveraging my decision-making authority to improve outcomes for my students?
As IEP team members, we need to be conscious of the influence we have in the lives of students with disabilities and ask reflective questions about ourselves and our educational decisions to ensure they are in the best interest of the student. This process also helps us recognize implicit biases of which we were unaware as well as microaggressions in which we engage or mistreatment of others in schools and IEP meetings (e.g., complimenting students on compliance, emailing only one parent, not talking to the student in the IEP meeting, mispronouncing names). IEP teams (including students and their families) should recognize that some student characteristics are more visible than others and are more easily measured than others. These considerations will ultimately impact educational decisions, including a student’s placement (i.e., least restrictive environment), annual IEP goals, evidence-based practices selected to teach skills to reach goals, and service provided.
An IEP team whose members commit to ongoing dialogue about the influence of microcultures, biases, and reflection on their role as an IEP team member and the decisions made to support student outcomes will help the team to address assumptions and understand members’ positionality. Reflective thinking on IEP team practices can help reduce negative biases, microaggressions, and low expectations to ensure students with disabilities are placed in the least restrictive environment and optimize available supports and services to support positive student outcomes.
