Abstract
Public schools located within urban environments are a critical component of a larger social network in their communities, with important reciprocal interactions occurring across settings. This is especially important for students with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD), as integration and alignment of home, community, and school intervention programming is essential for the best outcomes. However, teachers often have a deficit perspective of urban communities and lack the skills to identify assets that may support generalization of interventions for students with EBD in a variety of settings. Asset mapping is one way to help special education teachers reframe this perspective. Definitions of assets and the asset mapping process, as well as practical recommendations for special education teachers to identify assets within their school community environment, are provided.
Keywords
It is important for educators to understand that public schools are a component of a larger social network within the community (Gadsen & Dixon-Roman, 2017 ; Green, 2015; Luet, 2017). Characteristics of the home and school environment influence student experiences in the classroom (Ladson-Billings, 2006; Morgan, Hsiao et al., 2015), and conversely, students’ classroom experiences influence their home interactions (Moll et al., 1992; Morgan et al., 2019). Bronfenbrenner’s (1994) ecological model of development conceptualized how varying intersections between social systems shape student development, positing that student growth and learning is related to student characteristics and their complex interactions within and beyond their immediate environments. Within urban locales, teachers can develop an understanding of the school within this larger social network and identify resources that may aid in supporting the outcomes for students who identify as Black, indigenous, and persons of color (BIPOC; Morgan et al., 2019).
Community Engagement and Urban Environments
Urban education is defined as schools found in large urban environments educating a demographically diverse student population whose educational experiences are impacted by a complex set of variables (e.g., poverty, transportation, access to resources inside and outside of school; Milner, 2012; Welsh & Swain, 2020). Research often portrays urban education environments as under-performing and, as such, reform efforts are oriented from a deficit perspective (e.g., addressing gaps in student learning and in the home and school environment; Milner, 2012; Yosso, 2005). From this, educational professionals often develop a view of urban education that indicates schools in these environments are not working, and it is the community that raises problems relative to student outcomes (Yosso, 2005).
However, educators should take caution in adopting a deficit view of these schools for two main reasons. First, many of the presupposed deficits related to student and family resources result from systemic inequities, historically built into the fabric of urban environments (Milner, 2012). Second, although accessing critical resources in urban environments may be complex, many resources are available to teachers that can support linking the home and school environments (Borrero & Sanchez, 2017; Green, 2015). Research indicates that identifying and integrating community resources into the education of students in urban environments is related to improved academic, behavioral, and social-emotional outcomes (Capella et al., 2018; Moll et al., 1992; Morgan et al., 2019). This is critically important when considering the educational needs of students with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD).
Emotional and Behavioral Disorders in Urban Environments
Research indicates that many resources needed to support the academic, behavioral, and social-emotional needs of students with EBD who identify as BIPOC are provided within the community (Marsh et al., 2017). To maximize the impact of instruction and intervention for students with EBD, curriculum and intervention should reflect the lives and worldviews of students and their families through the integration of culturally sustaining pedagogy and practices (Cartledge et al., 2002; Siperstein et al., 2011) and to explicitly provide links between interventions and the differing environments of students with EBD (Buchanan et al., 2016; Morgan, Hsiao, et al., 2015). To accomplish this, educators must display an understanding of the social skills and methods of engagement used in the home and community by students with EBD (Cartledge & Kourea, 2008). In addition, research indicates that the complex needs of students with EBD who identify as BIPOC need to be addressed and supported in a variety of natural settings (Buchanan et al., 2016; Morgan, Dobbins, et al., 2015).
Community Integration
There is not extensive research that explores the impact of coordinating homes, community, and schools in the instruction and intervention programming of students with EBD who identify as BIPOC. The extant literature, however, shows promising, positive impacts for students when educators provide these critical supports in educational programming, including through coordinated systems of care within the community (Jain et al., 2020), after-school programming focused on mitigation of externalizing behaviors (Capella et al., 2018), opportunities for parent and family engagement in school (Bernard et al., 2015; Duchnowski et al., 2012), and provision of wraparound services (Duckworth et al., 2001). However, parents and families of students with EBD indicate that they lack access to and awareness of community-coordinated services for their children and that this lack of access has a negative impact on their abilities to best support them (Rosenzweig et al., 2002). It is therefore critical for educational professionals and schools working with students with EBD to find ways to integrate community into their educational planning (Dodge et al., 2002).
Reframing Teacher Orientation
Asset mapping is one method teachers of students with EBD could use to appraise the resources available within a community and provide critical supports (Allar et al., 2017; Borrero & Sanchez, 2017; Borrero & Yeh, 2016; Green, 2015). Asset mapping is a practice anchored in culturally responsive pedagogy (Ladson-Billings, 1995), as it encourages teachers to develop new conceptualizations of the students and families they serve from their perspective and by altering the “lens” through which they view the community they serve. It allows educators to identify strengths, collaborations, and resources within the community environment that may be integrated in the education and intervention provided to students with EBD who identify as BIPOC (Allar et al., 2017). Engaging in the process of asset mapping can help special education teachers reframe their potential deficit orientation from narrowly considering or overlooking resources within an urban school community to exploring the range of existing opportunities to support outcomes for students (Borrero & Yeh, 2016; Green, 2015; Yosso, 2005) and to coordinate connections between school-based interventions and the home (Jain et al., 2020).
Asset mapping enables teachers to maintain a broader vantage point, moving beyond focusing on a set of knowledge and skills (e.g., prescribed in school curriculum) to recognizing that there is cultural wealth and opportunity within the community (Moll et al., 1992; Yosso, 2005). In addition, asset mapping can support special education teachers working with students with EBD in identifying critical resources that might be available within the community aligned to the needs of students and their families (Curry et al., 2016; Luet, 2017; Morgan et al., 2019). Finally, asset mapping provides special education teachers the opportunity to learn about the cultural norms and values of their students and families so that they might reflect their identity and community knowledge within interventions and instruction (Moll et al., 1992).
Although the asset mapping process has not been extensively studied with teachers of students with EBD, findings from research in urban education environments link closely to instructional and intervention programming common to students with EBD who identify as BIPOC. Research found that when teachers in diverse environments engaged in critical dialogue with their students, families, and members of the local community they developed stronger relationships between the classroom and home environment (Borrero & Sanchez, 2017; Borrero & Yeh, 2016). These relationships lead to more engagement of both parents and families and teacher engagement with opportunities in the community (Allar et al., 2017; Mosavel et al., 2018; Ordoñez-Jasis & Myck-Wayne, 2012). Finally, teachers tend to develop a stronger understanding of the complex interactions that exist across systems of their students’ development in urban education environments (Borrero & Yeh, 2016; Ordoñez-Jasis & Myck-Wayne, 2012) and a deeper understanding of the relationship between community factors and the educational programming provided to their students (Green & Gooden, 2014). As research in the field of EBD has found, these critical connections across home and school environments can support the outcomes of students in both spaces.
Assets Within Urban Educational Environments
Assets can be defined by a community in different ways and may take a variety of forms relative to their integration in the lives of students (Borrero & Sanchez, 2017). Therefore, as educators engage in the asset mapping process it is important that they (a) use varying techniques to identify potential assets within the school community and (b) engage in critical discourse with members of the school community. Globally, educators can begin to identify two main types of assets—internal and external—across Bronfenbrenner’s (1994) ecological systems. Internal assets are resources found within the microsystem (i.e., within their immediate environments and through the face-to-face interactions with individuals in these environments), such as student and family identity, ideas about learning, cultural knowledge and skills, and relationships outside of the school environment. External assets, or resources found within the mesosystem (i.e., systems of microsystems that multi-directionally interact, such as from home to school and vice versa), can include resources and supports for learning in the home and community, social networks that students and families might rely on for support, and available programming aligned to student need. Assets can be human or cultural (Green, 2015), tangible or intangible (Mosavel et al., 2018), or defined otherwise by members of the urban community where a school is located (Green, 2015). Ultimately, assets are identified resources within the community that can enhance a students’ ability to rely on available cultural wealth to advance their networks and support their goals (Yosso, 2005).
It is important to note that asset mapping as a process should not negate the fact that discrepancies in access exist for students and families due to systemic inequity in urban environments (Green, 2015). This is the “paradox” of school in urban environments as described by Green (2015)—assets exist in resource and opportunity for students to develop critical capitals that will support them, but limitations to access (e.g., transportation, costs associated with resources, resources not available in family home language) also exist, particularly for students who identify as BIPOC or as having a disability. A teacher’s ability to take an assets-based approach can allow reframing of the needs of students with EBD and their families and of the supports that may be available for collaborative intervention across systems.
Assets and Specially Designed Instruction
There are a variety of processes that can be used for special education teachers to engage in asset mapping within their school community (Allar et al., 2017; Borrero & Sanchez, 2017; Borrero & Yeh, 2016; Green & Gooden, 2014; Ordoñez-Jasis & Myck-Wayne, 2012). Within these processes, there is no prescribed method for teachers to follow; the goal is to identify resources that can support students with EBD in building their community capital to achieve their goals and address their educational needs (Yosso, 2005), as well as to build deeper relationships with students, families, and the community (Borrero & Yeh, 2016). In addition, recommendations are made in this article for teachers to engage in the asset mapping process, but teachers are encouraged to work with other educational stakeholders in identifying potential assets within the community (e.g., social workers, school counselors, school leaders, community stakeholders). Greater collaboration with stakeholders may result in strengthening communication channels across different groups and ultimately integrate a more holistic approach to asset mapping as partners can provide ongoing feedback related to the identification and integration of assets. With that said, there are three main activities that special education teachers can engage to implement asset mapping: (a) identifying intangible, internal assets; (b) identifying external, tangible assets; and (c) integrating assets into evidence-based programming for students with EBD. An asset mapping planning document that teachers could use is provided in Figure 1, with considerations for how to complete each box provided, and a sample completed asset map focused on a student with EBD who identifies as BIPOC is included in Figure 2.
Sample asset map with instructions for how to complete each section.
Example of completed asset map for a hypothetical student with EBD.
Identifying Internal, Intangible Assets
As previously discussed, defining assets is a complex endeavor and should be focused on the interests and goals of the student with EBD and consider the definition of assets from the perspective of parents, families, and community stakeholders (Green, 2015). Teachers interested in engaging in asset mapping first spend time learning about the community where their school is situated as well as the daily lives and interactions of the students they serve to begin developing an operational definition of potential assets. Once teachers have a stronger understanding of the perspectives of key stakeholders in the educational outcomes of students with EBD, they can begin to explore opportunities that exist within the community, aligning these identified needs with the goals and programming of the student with EBD.
Teachers can begin the asset mapping process by exploring potential intangible, human assets (e.g., understanding the characteristics and perspectives of students and family, familial variables that can be integrated with the curriculum, social norms and expectations within the home) that are available within the microsystem and mesosystems of the students with EBD they are serving. These intangible assets can support teachers in (a) understanding the cultural norms and perspectives of key stakeholders in students’ educational experience, (b) situations that students with EBD may socially engage with outside of the school environment, (c) individuals who may be critical to engage in programming for students with EBD, and (d) developing a better understanding of the patterns of interaction within the community as a whole.
To begin, educational professionals should work to develop an understanding of the history of the community they are serving (Green & Gooden, 2014). This can be accomplished through readings on the development of neighborhoods and municipalities, historical demographic trends that have occurred around the school environment, policies and practices that may have shaped the school’s interactions with the community it serves, and perspectives of community members related to the role of the school in the community. As has been noted, schools in urban education environments are paradoxical in nature—both serving to build on the strengths of students and families to improve outcomes and to reinforce systemic inequities that exist within community environments (Borrero & Sanchez, 2017). For teachers looking to reframe their practice to an assets-oriented approach, it is important to note the sociopolitical factors that exist in and around the school and how their recommendations may be viewed by the community based on historical structures and previous school initiatives.
Once special education teachers have developed a deeper understanding of the history of their school community, they can begin to engage in critical dialogue with parents, families, and community leaders about the structure of community norms and potential assets that exist to support the outcomes of students with EBD. This is critical for students, as behavioral and social-emotional interventions should serve students with EBD as they navigate a variety of spaces both inside and outside of the school environment.
Special education teachers could engage students, parents and families, and community members in family history and asset mapping activities (Borrero & Sanchez, 2017; Borrero & Yeh, 2016). Family histories provide special education teachers additional information about the family unit outside of school, potential points of familial and relational capital that might exist to support the outcomes of students, and information about the assets that students with EBD bring with them to the classroom. Asking students, parents and families, and stakeholders to develop asset maps themselves (e.g., identifying times and spaces in their lives that helped them accomplish goals, identifying characteristics within themselves that helped them accomplish goals, identifying external resources that supported the achievement of a task) can provide special education teachers an idea of the activities that are valued by the student and their family.
Another way for special education professionals to develop a better understanding of the internal, intangible assets available to students with EBD in their home and community environment is to engage in community activities and make specific observations about commonly noted norms and values (Allar et al., 2017). Special education teachers could attend community events or gatherings that are popular within the school community to identify ways of interacting and engaging that might serve as assets to support their students. It is important that special education teachers be transparent with students, parents, and families during these observations relative to the goal of identifying assets and resources that can be used to support student outcomes and that conclusions drawn from these observations are checked and verified by stakeholder groups. These observations can be coupled with a series of interviews or focus groups with students with EBD, their parents and families, and critical members of the school community (Allar et al., 2017; Green & Gooden, 2014; Moll et al., 1992).
As special educators identify internal, intangible assets, they can make note of them in the corresponding box in Figure 1. In addition, special educators can note where and how they identified the asset, how the asset might be used in addressing the goals of the student with EBD, and how they confirmed the asset with key stakeholders. This notation will support the integration of assets into programming for students with EBD in the final stage of the asset mapping process. For example, the asset map for the sample student represented in Figure 2 indicates family structure and potential cultural norms that might be used as assets, as well as opportunities for engagement in social settings in the community (e.g., playing at the park, activities offered by apartment complex). Each asset indicates how the asset was verified (e.g., in conversation with parents and families, by asking students). These internal, intangible assets are both critical to better understanding the student being served and in finding ways to integrate programming into the home and community environment.
Identifying External, Tangible Assets
Once teachers have engaged in critical discourse to better understand the goals and perspectives of students with EBD, parents and families, and community members, they can begin to explore the urban school community to identify potential external, tangible assets that may be used to support the outcomes of students with EBD who identify as BIPOC. Examples of external, tangible assets might include community centers, nonprofit organizations that provide services and opportunities to students with EBD, religious institutions, community programming in neighborhood spaces, cultural institutions such as libraries or museums, or other organizations or businesses that can align to the goals of the student in the classroom environment.
One easy way to begin exploring external, tangible assets within a school community is to conduct an internet search for community resources that exist in and around the school environment (Allar et al., 2017; Green, 2015). Special education teachers can then map the location of organizations that are housed around the school and note potential accessibility variables that need to be considered when accessing the organizational resource (e.g., transportation, cost of attendance or entrance). The search for resources should focus on the specific goals of the student with EBD and their family (e.g., community sports if the student indicates they would like to be a member of a team, literacy resources if the student indicates they would like to develop their reading and writing skills, social programming if the student indicates they would like to build networks with peers). When conducting the search, special educators can use search terms aligned to the resource they are exploring within map software available on either a computer or mobile device or in an internet search browser (e.g., Apple or Google Maps application, searching for terms and the distance from school in a search browser). For example, if a student with EBD would like to engage in extracurricular sports to practice collaboration and communication skills, the teacher might search “youth sports” or “after-school intramurals” and the zip code of their school to identify potential services available. Educators can also follow-up with the organization using contact information identified in the internet search to verify potential services available to students.
Another way for special education teachers to engage in external, tangible asset mapping within their school community is to identify the attendance zone boundaries of their school and engage in a community walk or drive to better understand potential assets available within the community in and around the school (Green & Gooden, 2014). These physical explorations of the community around an urban public school environment can help special education teachers identify resources that may not populate on an internet search, such as neighborhood parks or gathering spaces, nonprofits, and businesses with titles that may not populate in the results of an internet search. It can also help special education teachers better understand the physical structure of the community, observe methods of interacting within the community, and identify potential barriers that may need to be overcome relative to accessing assets and resources. Again, findings can be discussed with students, parents and families, and members of the community to ensure the resource identified would actually serve as an asset.
Like internal, intangible assets, special educators can make notes about identified external, tangible assets in the corresponding box in Figure 1 with notes about how the identified resource connects to the goals of the student with EBD, potential barriers to access (e.g., cost, transportation), and a process for verifying the asset with stakeholders. An example of these external, tangible assets is provided for the sample student in Figure 2. In this example, the identified programs or organizations were noted as well as if there was a cost to participate and how far the service was from the school. Knowing this additional information about the external, tangible assets may help a special educator determine how best to integrate these assets.
Developing Assets-Based Programming
The final step in the asset-mapping process would be for special educators to pair assets identified with evidence-based educational interventions and programming to support the goals of the identified student. To accomplish this, a special education teacher can consider the academic, behavioral, and social-emotional programming being provided to students with EBD and identify assets within the community that may need to be integrated during in-school intervention programming (e.g., as a component of the curriculum, scenarios to discuss) or that may be accessed within the community to expand opportunities to practice skills in a natural, community setting. While a full discussion of all the connections that can be made between programming for students with EBD who identified as BIPOC and assets identified within the community is beyond the scope of this article, sample recommendations of how assets may be integrated are provided in Table 1 aligned to common instructional practices used in the education of students with EBD identified by Sutherland and colleagues (2019). This table is designed to give practitioners ideas of how they might individualize asset planning to the programming of their students with EBD.
Integrating Assets and Instructional Practices for Students With EBD.
Note. EBD = emotional and behavioral disorders.
When considering the integration of assets into the educational program of students with EBD, there are two main things special education teachers can consider. The first is, specifically, how assets might be integrated into the educational experience of their students with EBD. As described in Table 1, this can be done in a variety of different ways, including the inclusion of examples from the community in curriculum and programming that occurs in the classroom, alignment of goals in the students’ educational programming to opportunities in the community, identification of mentors and supports for students in the community environment, discussion of social skills within the context of the students’ community environment, and enrollment in extracurricular programming that will allow students to practice social-emotional and behavioral skills. The second thing to consider is how special educators might collaborate with key members of the community to ensure that these assets can be integrated. This collaboration can include access to resources to support access to identified community organizations (e.g., cost, transportation), follow-up with parents and families on access to resources and impact of included assets on educational outcomes, and collection of data to inform the impact of the inclusion of assets on student outcomes.
Conclusion
Educating students with emotional and behavioral disorders who identify as BIPOC in urban environments is a complex, paradoxical undertaking for special education teachers as it requires an understanding of the critical role that schools place across ecological systems of development for the student (Bronfenbrenner, 1994; Dodge et al., 2002; Gadsden & Dixon-Roman, 2017; Green, 2015). However, while complex, it is essential that special education professionals reframe their perspective related to the role of the community in the educational outcomes of students and begin to develop an understanding that there are a variety of assets that can be used to support students with EBD in developing their community cultural wealth (Yosso, 2005). It again should be noted that an assets-based orientation alone will not overcome systemic inequities that exist within diverse, urban education environments and that additional supports and resources need to be provided to students with EBD who identify as BIPOC to best support their outcomes (Green, 2015). Yet, taking an asset-based stance allows special education teachers to engage in culturally responsive pedagogies and practices aligned to and reflective of the lived experiences of the students that they serve (Borrero & Sanchez, 2017; Borrero & Yeh, 2016). Whereas there are many variables in urban environments that need to be addressed through changes in policy and practice, there are also many experiences that can support the academic, behavioral, and social-emotional outcomes of students served.
The critical juncture is in teachers and school leaders taking the time to fully engage and understand the assets that connect schools to home and community spaces. Finally, while the focus of asset mapping in this article has been on urban education environments, special education teachers from rural communities are encouraged to consider the asset mapping process within their context as the diversity of rural populations is on the rise (U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, n.d.). Because ethnically and racially diverse groups may have shorter histories in rural communities, stakeholders may need to engage in lengthier interviews to appraise the internal assets of students and their families who may also be the most informed of the burgeoning external assets in rural neighborhoods. Regardless of the setting, a focus on integrating assets can be beneficial for diverse students with EBD as this process is centered on leveraging the strengths found in students, their families, and their diverse communities.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
Our work was funded by a Full-Service Community Schools Grant 84.215J, entitled ReInvent Schools Las Vegas (U215J190009), from the U.S. Department of Education Office of Elementary and Secondary Education.
