Restricted accessReview articleFirst published online 2021-12
A Systematic Review of Boundary-Crossing Partnerships in Designing Equity-Oriented Special Education Services for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students With Disabilities
Providing quality special education services for culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students with or at risk of disabilities is a double bind, a larger systemic conundrum beyond individuals’ efforts. To create an inclusive, culturally responsive system of support beyond the fragmented division of roles and nonconcerted assemblage of practices and tools, there is a need to explore the possibility of boundary-crossing collaboration for CLD students with disabilities. The purpose of this systematic review is to synthesize the broader literature investigating K-12 school-based boundary-crossing collaborations among multiple stakeholders to address the unique academic, social-emotional, and behavioral needs of CLD students with or at risk of disabilities. Eight studies met the criteria for inclusion. Features of boundary crossers, problems of practice that boundary crossers collaboratively sought to address, emerging tensions in building partnership, facilitators of boundary-crossing communication and collaboration, learning experiences of boundary crossers, and learning outcomes of CLD students with or at risk of disabilities are reported and further discussed.
AnnammaS. A.ConnorD.FerriB. (2013). Dis/ability critical race studies (DisCrit): Theorizing at the intersections of race and dis/ability. Race Ethnicity and Education, 16(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2012.730511
3.
AnnammaS. A.JacksonD. D.MorrisonD. (2017). Conceptualizing color-evasiveness: Using dis/ability critical race theory to expand a color-blind racial ideology in education and society. Race Ethnicity and Education, 20(2), 147–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2016.1248837
4.
ArtilesA. J. (2011). Toward an interdisciplinary understanding of educational equity and difference: The case of the racialization of ability. Educational Researcher, 40(9), 431–445. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X11429391
5.
ArtilesA. J. (2019). Fourteenth annual Brown lecture in education research: Reenvisioning equity research: Disability identification disparities as a case in point. Educational Researcher, 48(6), 325–335. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X19871949
6.
BalA. (2017). System of disability. Critical Education, 8(6), 1–27.
7.
BalA.Betters-BubonJ.FishR. E. (2019). A multilevel analysis of statewide disproportionality in exclusionary discipline and the identification of emotional disturbance. Education and Urban Society, 51(2), 247–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124517716260
8.
*BalA.KozleskiE. B.SchraderE. M.RodriguezE. M.PeltonS. (2014). Systemic transformation from the ground-up: Using learning lab to design culturally responsive schoolwide positive behavioral supports. Remedial and Special Education, 35(6), 327–339. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932514536995
9.
*BalA.SchraderE. M.AfacanK.MaweneD. (2016). Using learning labs for culturally responsive positive behavioral interventions and supports. Intervention in School and Clinic, 52(2), 122–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451216636057
10.
BalA.TrainorA. A. (2016). Culturally responsive experimental intervention studies: The development of a rubric for paradigm expansion. Review of Educational Research, 86(2), 319–359. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315585004
11.
BangM.VossoughiS. (2016). Participatory design research and educational justice: Studying learning and relations within social change making. Cognition and Instruction, 34(3), 173–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2016.1181879
12.
BarrioB. L.MillerD.HsiaoY.-J.DunnM.PetersenS.HollingsheadA.BanksS. (2017). Designing culturally responsive and relevant individualized educational programs. Intervention in School and Clinic, 53(2), 114–119. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451217693364
13.
*BrownJ. E.AultP. C. (2015). Disentangling language differences from disability: A case study of district-preservice collaboration. Journal of Multilingual Education Research, 6, 111–136.
14.
BurenM. K.MagginD. M.BrownC. (2018). Meta-synthesis on the experiences of families from nondominant communities and special education collaboration. Exceptionality, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2018.1480953
15.
ChenW.-B.GregoryA. (2010). Parental involvement in the prereferral process: Implications for schools. Remedial and Special Education, 32(6), 447–457. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932510362490
16.
*ClarkeB. L.WheelerL. A.SheridanS. M.WitteA. L.SommerhalderM. S.SvobodaE. A. (2017). Supporting Latinx student success via family-school partnerships: Preliminary effects of conjoint behavioral consultation on student and parent outcomes. Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation, 27(3), 317–343. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2017.1293543
17.
Council for Exceptional Children. (2015). What every special educator must know: Professional ethics & standards (7th ed.).
18.
EdwardsA. (2005). Relational agency: Learning to be a resourceful practitioner. International Journal of Educational Research, 43(3), 168–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2006.06.010
19.
EngeströmY. (2011). Activity theory and learning at work. In MallochM.CairnsL.EvansK.O’ConnorB. N. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of workplace learning (pp. 74–89). SAGE.
20.
EngeströmY. (2016). Studies in expansive learning: Learning what is not yet there. Cambridge University Press.
*FoxP. G.RossettiJ.BurnsK. R.PopovichJ. (2005). Southeast Asian refugee children: A school-based mental health intervention. International Journal of Psychiatric Nursing Research, 11(1), 1227–1236.
23.
FrickerM. (2007). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford University Press.
24.
GarcíaS. B.Méndez PérezA.OrtizA. A. (2000). Mexican American mothers’ beliefs about disabilities: Implications for early childhood intervention. Remedial and Special Education, 21(2), 90–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193250002100204
25.
GutiérrezK. D. (2016). 2011 AERA presidential address: Designing resilient ecologies: Social design experiments and a new social imagination. Educational Researcher, 45(3), 187–196. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16645430
26.
GutiérrezK. D.VossoughiS. (2010). Lifting off the ground to return anew: Mediated praxis, transformative learning, and social design experiments. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2), 100–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109347877
27.
*HainesS. J.FrancisG. L.ShepherdK. G.ZieglerM.MabikaG. (2018). Partnership bound: Using MAPS with transitioning students and families from all backgrounds. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 41(2), 122–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143417698123
28.
HarryB. (2008). Collaboration with culturally and linguistically diverse families: Ideal versus reality. Exceptional Children, 74(3), 372–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290807400306
29.
HarryB.KlingnerJ. (2014). Why are so many minority students in special education? Understanding race and disability in schools (2nd ed.). Teachers College Press.
30.
HawkinsB.PyeA.CorreiaF. (2017). Boundary objects, power, and learning: The matter of developing sustainable practice in organizations. Management Learning, 48(3), 292–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507616677199
31.
HooverJ. J.EricksonJ. (2017). Culturally responsive special education referrals of English learners in one rural county school district: Pilot project. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 34(4), 18–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/875687051503400403
32.
*HuntP.DoeringK.Hirose-HataeA.MaierJ.GoetzL. (2001). Across-program collaboration to support students with and without disabilities in a general education classroom. Journal of the Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps, 26(4), 240–256. https://doi.org/10.2511/rpsd.26.4.240
33.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-446; 20 U.S.C. §§ 1401 et seq.
KlingnerJ. K.ArtilesA. J.KozleskiE.HarryB.ZionS.TateW.DuránG. Z.RileyD. (2005). Addressing the disproportionate representation of culturally and linguistically diverse students in special education through culturally responsive educational systems. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(38), 1–40. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v13n38.2005
36.
LeontievA. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality (HallM. J., Trans.). Prentice-Hall.
37.
NewmanL.WagnerM.KnokeyA.MarderC.NagleK.ShaverD.WeiX. (2011). The post-high school outcomes of young adults with disabilities up to 8 years after high school: A report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2). SRI International.
38.
PenuelW. R.GallagherD. J. (2017). Creating research-practice partnerships in education. Harvard Education Press.
39.
RobinsonL.BulyM. (2007). Breaking the language barrier: Promoting collaboration between general and special educators. Teacher Education Quarterly, 34(3), 83–94.
40.
SnowC. E. (2015). Rigor and realism: Doing educational science in the real world. Educational Researcher, 44(9), 460–466. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X15619166
41.
StarS. L. (2010). This is not a boundary object: Reflections on the origin of a concept. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 35(5), 601–617. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243910377624
42.
StarS. L.GriesemerJ. (1989). Institutional ecology, “translations” and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals on Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology. Social Studies of Science, 19, 387–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631289019003001
43.
TrainorA. (2017). Transition by design: Improving equity and outcomes for adolescents with disabilities. Teachers College Press.
VakilS.McKinneydeRoystonM.Suad NasirN.KirshnerB. (2016). Rethinking race and power in design-based research: Reflections from the field. Cognition and Instruction, 34(3), 194–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2016.1169817
46.
WaitollerF. RKozleskiE. (2013). Understanding and dismantling barriers for partnerships for inclusive education: A cultural historical activity theory perspective. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 9(1), 23–42.
47.
WaitollerF. R.ThoriusK. R. K. (2016). Cross-pollinating culturally sustaining pedagogy and universal design for learning: Toward an inclusive pedagogy that accounts for dis/ability. Harvard Educational Review, 86(3), 366–389. https://doi.org/10.17763/1943-5045-86.3.366
48.
WalkerD.NoconH. (2007). Boundary-crossing competence: Theoretical considerations and educational design. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 14(3), 178–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749030701316318
49.
WalkerJ. M. T.DotgerB. H. (2012). Because wisdom can’t be told: Using comparison of simulated parent–teacher conferences to assess teacher candidates’ readiness for family-school partnership. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(1), 62–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487111419300
50.
WengerE. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press.
51.
*ZetlinA. G.MacLeodE.MichenerD. (1998). Professional development of teachers of language minority students through university-school partnership. Teacher Education and Special Education, 21(2), 109–120.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
