One of the greatest challenges in evaluating special education services for ethnically diverse groups is obtaining accurate, valid, reliable, and relevant information. This can be achieved by the right person asking the right questions of the right people in the right way at the right place and time. These deceptively simple requirements are discussed in the context of research studies evaluating special education services for indigenous Maori children in New Zealand. Examples of cross-cultural misunderstanding and miscommunication are described and strategies to avoid them are discussed.
ArtilesA. J. (1998). The dilemma of difference: Enriching the disproportionality discourse with theory and context. The Journal of Special Education, 32, 32–36.
2.
ArtilesA. J.Zamora-DuranG. (Eds.) (1997). Reducing disproportionate representation of culturally diverse students in special and gifted education. Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children.
3.
ArtilesA. J.TrentS. C.Hoffman-KippP.Lopez-TorresL. (2000). From individual acquisition to cultural-historical practices in multicultural teacher education. Remedial and Special Education, 21, 79–89.
4.
BempechatJ.Drago-SeversonE. (1999). Cross-national differences in academic achievement: Beyond etic conceptions of children's understandings. Review of Educational Research, 69 (3), 287–314.
5.
Bevan-BrownJ. (1989). Intellectual disability: A Maori perspective. Unpublished master's thesis, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand.
6.
Bevan-BrownJ. (2000a, April). Evaluating special education services for learners from ethnically diverse groups: Getting it right. Paper presented at the Special Education World Congress, CEC, Vancouver, Canada.
7.
Bevan-BrownJ. (2000b, July). Why are learners with special needs from ethnically diverse groups missing out on effective, culturally appropriate services and what can be done about it? Paper presented at the International Special Education Congress, University of Manchester, Great Britain. Available from the World Wide Web: http://www.isec2000.org.uk/abstracts/papersindex.htm.
8.
BiklenS.LarsonM. (1998). The academy and the street: Using community fieldworkers to study children's social relations in school. In MeyerL.ParkH. S.Grenot-ScheyerM.SchwartzI.HarryB. (Eds.), Making friends. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
9.
BishopR.GlynnT. (1992). He kanohi kitea: Conducting and evaluating educational research. New Zealand Journal of Educational Research. 27 (2), 3–13.
10.
CanenA. (1999). The challenges of conducting an ethnographic case study of a United Kingdom teacher education institution. Journal of Teacher Education, 50 (1), 50–56.
11.
Department of Education. (1987). Draft review of special education. Wellington, New Zealand: Author.
12.
Diana v. California State Board of Education, No. C-70-37 RFP (Dist. Ct. Northern California, February, 1970).
13.
FordB. A. (1992). Multicultural education training for special educators working with African-American youth. Exceptional Children, 59, 107–114.
14.
FordD. (1998). The underrepresentation of minority students in gifted education: Problems and promises in recruitment and retention. The Journal of Special Education, 32, 4–14.
15.
GarciaG. E.PearsonP. D. (1994). Assessment and diversity. In HammondL. Darling (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 20, pp. 337–391). Washington, DC: American Education Research Association.
16.
GarciaS. B.PerezA. MendezOrtizA. A. (2000). Mexican American mothers' beliefs about disabilities. Implications for early childhood intervention. Remedial and Special Education, 21, 90–100, 120.
17.
HammillD. D.PearsonN. A.WiederholtJ. L. (1996). The comprehensive test of nonverbal intelligence. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
18.
HarryB. (1992). Cultural diversity, families and the special education system. Communication and empowerment. New York: Teachers College Press.
19.
HiebertE.AfflerbackP.ValenciaS. (Eds.) (1994). Authentic reading assessment: Practices and possibilities. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
20.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1990, 20 U.S.C. s1400 et seq.
21.
Ishii-JordanS. R. (1997). When behaviour differences are not disorders. In ArtilesA.Zamora-DuranG. (Eds.), Reducing disproportionate representation of culturally diverse students in special and gifted education (pp. 28–46). Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children.
22.
JoeJ.MillerD. (1993). American Indian cultural perspectives on disability. Tucson: The University of Arizona.
23.
KingJ. (1995, March 4). Arts award winner sees language value. Evening Post, p. 5.
24.
KleinM. D.ChenD. (2001). Working with children from culturally diverse backgrounds. Albany, NY: Delmar Thomas Learning.
25.
Larry P. v. Riles, No. C-71-2270-RFP (N.D. Cal., October 16, 1979).
26.
LeeC. D. (1998). Culturally responsive pedagogy and performance-based assessment. The Journal of Negro Education, 67 (3), 268–279.
27.
LynchE.HansonM. (1998). Developing cross-cultural competence: A guide for working with young children and their families (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
28.
MalloryB.NicholsR.CharltonJ.MarfoK. (1993). Traditional and changing views on disability in developing countries, causes, consequences and cautions. Durham, NH: IEER University of New Hampshire.
29.
Massey University. (2000). Special education 2000: Monitoring and evaluation of the policy. Phase one final report. Report commissioned and funded by the Ministry of Education, New Zealand. February, 2000.
30.
McCollumJ. A.McBrideS. L. (1997). Ratings of parent-infant interation: Raising questions of cultural validity. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 17 (4), 494–507.
31.
MeyerL. H. (1991). Advocacy, research and typical practices: A call for a reduction in the discrepancies between what is and what ought to be and how to get there. In MeyerL. H.PeckC. A.BrownL. (Eds.), Critical issues in the lives of people with severe disabilities (pp. 629–649). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
32.
MeyerL. H.ParkH. S.Grenot-ScheyerM.SchwartzI.HarryB. (1998a). Participatory research: New approaches to the research to practice dilemma. Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 23 (3), 165–177.
33.
MeyerL.ParkH.Grenot-ScheyerM.SchwartzI.HarryB. (1998b). Participatory research approaches for the study of the social relationships of children and youth. In MeyerL.ParkH. S.Grenot-ScheyerM.SchwartzI.HarryB. (Eds.), Making friends. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
34.
MiramontesO. B. (1990). Organizing for effective paraprofessional services in special education: A multilingual/ multiethnic instructional service team model. Remedial and Special Education, 12, 29–36.
35.
NAEYC. (1996). NAEYC position statement: Responding to linguistic and cultural diversity—recommendations for effective early childhood education. Young Children52 (2), 4–12.
36.
NaglieriJ. A. (1996). The Naglieri nonverbal ability test. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp.
37.
NitkoA. J. (1983). Education tests and measurement: An introduction. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
38.
OvertonT. (1996). Assessment in special education: An applied approach (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
39.
ParkH. S.MeyerL. H.GoetzL. (1998). Special series on participatory action research (PAR). Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 23 (3), 163–164.
40.
PattonJ. M. (1997). Disproportionate representation in gifted programs: Best practices for meeting this challenge. In ArtilesA.Zamora-DuranG. (Eds.), Reducing disproportionate representation of culturally diverse students in special and gifted education (pp. 59–85). Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children.
41.
RuedaR. (1997). Changing the context of assessment: The move to portfolios and authentic assessment. In ArtilesA.Zamora-DuranG. (Eds.), Reducing disproportionate representation of culturally diverse students in special and gifted education (pp. 7–25). Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children.
42.
SernaL.FornessS. R.NielsenM. E. (1998). Intervention versus affirmation: Proposed solutions to the problem of disproportionate minority representation in special education. The Journal of Special Education, 32, 48–51.
43.
SmithL. (1999). Decolonising methodologies: Research and indigenous people. London/Dunedin: Zed Books/University of Otago Press.
44.
StiglerJ. W.GallimoreR.HiebertJ. (2000). Using video surveys to compare classroom and teaching across cultures: Examples and lessons from the TIMSS video studies. Educational Psychologist, 35 (2), 87–100.
45.
TrentS. C.ArtilesA. J. (1998). Multicultural teacher education in special and bilingual education. Remedial and Special Education, 19, 2–6.
46.
TurnbullA. P.FriesenB. J.RamirezC. (1998). Participatory action research as a model for conducting family research. Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 23 (3), 178–188.
47.
VallesE. (1998). The disproportionate representation of minority students in special education: Responding to the problem. The Journal of Special Education, 32, 52–54.
48.
WashingtonV. (1996). Valuing diversity: A key to grassroots success. Journal of Early Intervention, 20, 179–182.
49.
WeinfurtK.MoghaddamF. M. (2001). Culture and social distance: A case study of methodological cautions. The Journal of Social Psychology, 141 (1), 101–110.
50.
WilliamsR. L. (1975). The BITCH-100: A culture specific test. Journal of Afro-American Issues, 3, 103–116.
51.
Zamora-DuranG.ReyesE. I. (1997). From tests to talking in the classroom: Assessing communicative competence. In ArtilesA.Zamora-DuranG. (Eds.), Reducing disproportionate representation of culturally diverse students in special and gifted education (pp. 47–58). Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children.
52.
ZurcherR. (1998). Issues and trends in culture-fair assessment. Intervention in School and Clinic, 34, 103–106.
