The Magazine for Educators of English Language Learners Volume 26, Issue No. 2 ■ November/December 2002

9 781932 106060

51000>ISBN 1-932106-06-5

Scaffolding and Successful

IEPs: What’sthe Secret?

page 26

Harvard’s CivilRights Project

Looks at RacialInequity in

SpecialEducation

page 22

Middle SchoolChallenges:Easing the

Transition forExceptional ELL

Studentspage 8

How to TrainTomorrow’s

BilingualSpecial

Educatorspage 12

Scaffolding and Successful

IEPs: What’sthe Secret?

page 26

Harvard’s CivilRights Project

Looks at RacialInequity in

SpecialEducation

page 22

Middle SchoolChallenges:Easing the

Transition forExceptional ELL

Studentspage 8

How to TrainTomorrow’s

BilingualSpecial

Educatorspage 12

■ Asian/Pacific-American Education ConcernsEdited by Ji-Mei Chang and Ward Shimizu

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 226

Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) for learners withdisabilities, including preschool-aged children, is one of themajor provisions of Public Law 105-17: The Individuals withDisabilities Education Act (IDEA). Hence, an IEP is a trulyindividualized document, developed for each specific studentwith special needs. The development of each learner’s IEPmust take place within the context of the special educationprocess, once he or she has been identified as having a disabil-ity and qualified for special education and/or related services.

By law, the IEP allows schools and families to create aninstructional environment where teachers, parent/guardians,school administrators, psychologists, advocates, related serv-ices personnel, and students (when encouraged to partici-pate) work together to provide multiple opportunities for thestudent with special needs in order to achieve their IEP goalsand objectives. Therefore, the provision of a meaningful IEPis the cornerstone of a quality school education for a studentwith special needs.

A Need for The ScaffoldThe importance of completing an IEP document for a studentwith special needs is not just fulfilling the administrativerequirements for schools, but also establishing a blue print toguide the school intervention and assessment predicated with-in the district’s general core curriculum. Therefore, all mem-bers participating in an IEP meeting must come together toclarify and brainstorm ways to generate meaningful education-al goals and objectives. All interventions must be supported bybest practices that address the learner’s unique needs within hisor her present levels of educational performance.

However, we are experiencing an extreme shortage ofqualified special education teachers in many regions, partic-ularly in Northern California. Many public school studentswho were qualified for special education services may facethe challenge of having been placed in special education, butwithout receiving the quality support and services. The situ-ation is further complicated when the students and familiescome from a diverse background that is characterized as non-proficient in school language and with less social and finan-cial means to monitor a child’s day-to-day school experiencesand progress. Without a strong commitment from schoolpersonnel, such students’ typical school day can be filled withmissed learning opportunities (Chang, 1995), such as chancesto improve language and literacy skills.

The purpose of this article is to describe how an IEPteam may be scaffolded using six strategies while developingand implementing an IEP in a school (see diagram). The sixstrategies illustrated in Figure 1 were based on six pedagogi-cal guidelines for classroom and home practices (Chang,

2001a). The Scaffold for Individualized Education Programwas designed by integrating two sets of pedagogical tools,each guided by a major theoretical framework. The first is aset of Five Standards for Effective Pedagogy proposed by theCenter for Research on Education, Diversity, & Excellence(CREDE, 2002). CREDE was funded by the U. S. Office ofEducational Research and Improvements (OERI) andinformed by sociocultural theory of education (Tharp, 1997)as the organizing conceptual structure to guide its researchprojects. The second set of pedagogical tools is usingMultiple Intelligences (MI) approaches to understanding(Gardner, 1999a), and these are powerful points of entry tograb attention, offering meaningful analogies or metaphorsto tie new with old knowledge, and generating multiple rep-resentations of core concepts.

The six strategies ref lected in the scaffold were field test-ed in a 3-year study conducted within a Title I middle schoolthat focused on teacher learning and collaboration to assistAsian American English learners with and without specialneeds (Chang, 2001a; Chang, 2002a). To assist the IEP teammembers in maximizing the joint effort in hosting a cultur-ally responsive and productive IEP meeting, Figure 1 repre-sents a metaphor of a scaffolding process. This scaffold sym-bolizes six strategies that would assist team members’ effortto pool knowledge about the student, the school curriculum,as well as the resources available within and beyond school todeliver services that will strengthen the direct connectionwith special education placement.

Theoretical Frameworks for The ScaffoldOf the two theoretical frameworks that guided the previousstudies, each provided us with viable pedagogical tools to gen-erate the six strategies used in this article. The first frameworkis the Sociocultural Theory of Education (Tharp, 1997),ref lecting the roots of Vygotsky’s (1978, 1981) theory oflearning and cognitive development. The gist of this theoryinforms us that individual learners are neither to be viewed asa receptacle, waiting for knowledge to be transmitted byteachers, nor an acquirer, obtaining information solelythrough an individual effort (Tharp, 1997). Instead, all indi-vidual learners are inf luenced profoundly by cultural andsocial factors in their environment. Hence, learning occurswhen individual learners are supported and actively partici-pate in teaching and learning activities. The same frameworkis applicable for each school’s IEP teams and meetings becauseconstructing an IEP is a joint learning and productive process.

To fully align the special education placement with thedelivery of quality services, all participating members in anIEP meeting must actively engage in sociocultural activities.

Scaffolding the Joint Venturefor Developing and Implementing a MeaningfulIndividualized Education Program

JI-MEI CHANG, PH.D.

N A B E N E W S 27

It is particularly important for inexperienced special educa-tion teachers or new education specialists to engage in jointproductive activities for developing and implementing anappropriate IEP for each student. If the Sociocultural Theoryof Education is valued and practiced in a school, then it willgenerate strong support for all participants in an IEP meetingto focus on what is best for the student with special needs.

The second framework is Howard Gardner’s (1983;1999a; 1999b) Theory of Multiple Intelligences. Although MIwas never intended to shape curriculum, instruction, orassessment in the field of school education, it has inspiredmany teachers, parents, and educators both within and beyondthe United States (Chang, 1999a; 1999b; 2000a). Kornhaber(1999) and her associates (Kornhaber, Fierros, & Veenema,1998) at Harvard University’s Project Zero systematicallyexamined how MI worked as a reform movement in schoolsover the years. They studied 41 schools in the US using thetheory of MI and generated six compass points as a guide foreducators, parents, researchers, and schools to plan and evalu-ate their attempts to build an MI school (Chang, 2000b).

The six compass points generated from the 41 schools high-lighted first that each school shared a culture of valuing each stu-dent. They believed that everyone can learn and succeed, andthat hard work by teachers is necessary to support diverse learn-ers. The second compass point showed that each school reflect-ed various stages of readiness for awareness-building in order toimplement the theory of MI as the basis for school reform. Each

school did not impose an administrative mandate for suchreform among the staff. The third point revealed that eachschool used MI as a tool for teaching and learning activities toassist student performance and produce high quality work. Theydid not promote MI for the sake of MI.

The fourth compass point stated that each school empha-sized staff collaboration in order to share ideas and exchangesuggestions. They generated an environment for everyone tocontribute and receive support through joint productiveactivities. The fifth point presented was that each school pro-vided options for students to make choices on projects andassignments. By doing so, the school demonstrated that theyvalue students’ choices when engaging in learning and assess-ment activities. The sixth point demonstrated that eachschool enriched a variety of art curriculum to broaden studentlearning and understanding within and across disciplines. TheProject’s findings also confirmed the fact that groups of stu-dents with learning disabilities and those placed at risk ofschool failure made the most significant gain in their testscores (Kornhaber, Fierros, & Veenema, 1998).

Our previous studies (Chang, 2000b; 2001a; 2001b;2002a) as well as The Project’s findings further support thevalue in using the theory of MI as tools (Garden, 1999a;Kornhaber, 1999) to assist teachers, students, and their fami-ly members to tap fully into everyone’s multiple abilities andmultiple pathways in teaching, learning and assessing studentoutcome. In addition, I have always believed strongly that MIserves multiple functions in enhancing school education andthe lives of Asian American individuals (Chang, 1999b).From the perspective of addressing Asian Pacific Americanstudents with special needs, the theory of MI will guide theteam to explore these students’ multiple abilities within per-ceived or diagnosed disabilities. This is a positive directionmoving away from the traditional within-child deficit syn-drome, which sends signals blaming an individual student’sinability to perform school tasks. To reduce any challengesthat might be faced by families that have a child with disabil-ities in Asian American communities, an MI-oriented IEPteam would be a strong support. Together, the team wouldsend a strong message to those who come into contact withthe learner and family that every child has multiple abilities,including those with disabilities. Mostly, every student withdisabilities deserves to obtain responsive special and/or gen-eral education intervention characterized in cultivating theirmultiple abilities and addressing individual differences allthrough his or her formal schooling.

Six Strategies for The ScaffoldThe major purpose of this scaffold presented in Figure 1 wasto guide the school’s IEP team to support teacher, students,and parents/guardians to align special education placementwith quality services. When implemented properly, this scaf-folding process will also generate a workable model for schoolpersonnel to forge a multi-level collaboration within andbeyond school to build a strong safety net for Asian PacificAmerican students in needs of school support (Chang, inpress). The six strategies for IEP team are as follows:

Strategy 1: Joint productive activities—All participants produce IEP together.CREDE Standard 1: Joint Productive Activity (JPA) high-lights the need for team members to interact and work joint-ly to produce a meaningful IEP. JPA is characterized by pro-

Figure 1. Scaffold for Individualized Education Program Development

1. JPA 3. CTX

Individualized Education Program (IEP) Present Levels of Educational Performance Measurable Annual Goal/Benchmarks of Short-term Objectives Special Education & Related Services General Education Participation Least Restrictive Environment Placement Participation in Statewide or Districtwide Assessment IEP Implementation Parent(s)/Guardian(s) Comments

Conn

ectin

g

s

choo

l to

stu

dent

s &

fam

ilies'

lives

.

Join

t pro

duct

ive

activ

ities

: All

part

icip

ants

pro

duce

IEP.

toge

ther

.

Deve

lopi

ng c

larit

y an

d co

mpe

tenc

y in

the

lang

uage

and

lite

racy

use

d in

the

IEP

docu

men

t & m

eetin

g.

Mod

elin

g th

e an

alys

is, s

ynth

esis

and

eva

luat

ion

of a

sses

smen

t dat

a an

d pl

acem

ent d

ecis

ion.

5. IC Engaging participants through dialogue and purposeful conversations.

6. MI Using the theory of multiple

intelligences as tools to prevent students from the cycle of defeat.

2. LLD 4. CA

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 228

ducing a joint product, either tangible or intangible. Thetangible product would be the IEP document as a blueprintto yield the preferred student outcome. The intangible prod-uct could be the change in attitude towards students with dis-abilities, the empowerment of students (whether he or she ispresent), and of parents or guardians as well as empoweringteachers through collaboration and assisted performanceextended to inexperienced teachers.

In the context of pooling knowledge about the student,parents or guardians play an important role because they havea much more comprehensive view of their child’s abilitiesversus disabilities manifested in real life contexts. In light ofthe current demand to align a student’s measurable IEP goalsand short term objectives withthe student’s current level ofeducational performance andthe content standards of relevantcore curriculum, inexperiencedspecial education teachers andrelated service providers mayrely on regular education’s con-tribution to be informed aboutthe content standards. With thepush to place students with spe-cial needs in the least restrictiveenvironment, the IEP teammust monitor student learningand progress periodically inorder to validate such a place-ment as the best placement.Hence, it is particularly impor-tant for the teachers who areresponsible for implementing achild’s IEP to inform parent(s)or guardian(s) abut their child’sprogress towards achieving his or her IEP goals and objec-tives. When complex and multiple services are deemed nec-essary, the scheduling, contents of services, as well as effec-tiveness of such placement will place further demand in JPAamong team members. This is true for students who receiveservices in language, occupational, and physical therapy, aswell as for students who require careful planning for transi-tion services moving from a high school to college/universi-ty or to work place.

To ensure the effectiveness of a JPA, the IEP team mustconsider a wide range of factors to ensure a successful IEPmeeting. These factors include, but are not limited to: thetime of the meetings, clarity in the invitation letters and legalprocess, the seating arrangement, group atmosphere, bodylanguage, as well as important elements to be covered in thefollowing five strategies.

Strategy 2: Developing clarity and competency in the lan-guage and literacy used in the IEP meeting and document.CREDE Standard 2: Language & Literacy DevelopmentAcross the Curriculum (LLD) informs IEP team membersabout the importance of clarification and mastery of the edu-cational language, terminologies, and jargon associated withIEP documents and parent/guardian’s legal rights, etc. Overthe years, I observed that language used in special educationconfused many credential candidates and teachers. Inheritedfrom the tradition of education, special education language isalso full of abbreviations and acronyms, such as IEP, IDEA,

SDC, RSP, SELPA, SLI, LRE, LD, CD, BD, ED,ADD/ADHD, etc. Furthermore, there are legal terms, suchas due process and Independent Educational Evaluation(IEE) regarding the lists of parental rights. Special educationassessment terminology present another set of challenges,such as reading at 2.2, math 3.5, etc. In addition to specificdiagnostic terms used by service providers, parents also needto know abbreviations used for related services, such as SLP,OT, PT.

In short, without a clear guidance to understand the spe-cial language and literacy used in the IEP process, membersof the IEP team would not be able to contribute effectivelyto co-construct a meaningful IEP document. Members’ use

of such language could also cre-ate gaps in communication, thegist of the discussion may bemissed, and lay persons may bealienated, which may includeparents/guardians as well asmany inexperienced or uncre-dentialed interns and teachers.

Keeping up with languageof education is a life long learn-ing process. If it is challengingfor native English speakers, itwill be a major hurdle for thosewhom English is a second lan-guage or those who use a signlanguage. Strategy 2 reminds usto build awareness of potentiallanguage barriers or gaps andprovide all necessary supportand materials among IEP mem-bers. For example, providingand updating a list of frequently

used language, acronyms, and glossary would be helpful. Wealso need to schedule the necessary wait time for questionsand responses in order to clarify such language. We must alsoavoid using jargon and acronyms in order to reduce languagebarriers to ensure an inclusive meeting without frustrationand miscommunication.

Strategy 3: Connecting schools to students and families’lives to develop meaningful IEPCREDE Standard 3: Contextualization (CTX) or makingmeaning emphasizes the need for the IEP team to ground thediscussion in the lives of students and family in order to helpthem make sense about the special education process.Strategy 3 reminds us that contexualization serves as a linkfor members to connect student’s experiences and skills fromthe home and community with school learning and expect-ed behaviors. This is a tool that helps teachers and other relat-ed service providers to define what accounts for “authentic”therapy that can assist a student transferring what they haveacquired in one setting into another context.

One way of using MI as tools for teaching and learning isto use metaphors to enhance understanding. Strategy 3 pro-vides us with a justification to verify the relevancy of suchmetaphors to learners from diverse cultural background. Forexample, in guiding a group of teachers to implement proj-ect-based learning activities through JPA (Strategy 1) inChina this summer, I cited CREDE Director Dr. RolandTharp’s metaphor that the seating arrangement in a tradi-

The six strategies reflected inthe scaffold were field testedin a 3-year study conductedwithin a Title I middle school

that focused on teacherlearning and collaboration to

assist Asian American Englishlearners with and without

special needs.

N A B E N E W S 29

tional classroom is like a cemetery roll. The puzzled facialexpression among the audience signaled that they wereunable to make meaning from such a metaphor. In reality,they have not seen a western cemetery roll, and their ceme-tery is nothing like the ones customarily displayed in theStates. Strategy 3 reminds us to verify as well as refine themetaphors or analogies used in teaching and communication.In today’s school, diversity exists among IEP team membersin their culture, language, religious and ethnic background,hence the gaps in understanding each other’s values, beliefs,attitude towards special education and/or school personnel,as well as prior experiences/knowledge about schooling oftenplay an important role to trigger miscommunication. Totruly scaffold the development of a meaningful IEP docu-ment that can be fully implemented, we must reach a sharedunderstanding about the special education process. No mat-ter how much we think we may know about the studentbased on standardized testing results and classroom behav-iors, we are likely to paint a partial image of this student if wedon’t actively solicit insights and synthesize information andobservations shared by parents or guardians on the informa-tion they have about their child in regards to school andhome life.

To fully implement Strategy 3, we must rely on the wis-dom of school personnel to exercise empathy in listening andresponding, an art that can be further enhanced by a habit oflooking at an issue from multiple perspectives. We also needto help school personnel be familiar with knowledge of thelocal community and the skills that are important in thecommunity. Such an effort will help teachers design mean-ingful instructional activities that are linked to what the stu-dent already knows from home and/or community as well asmaking a connection in applying their learning to a familiarenvironment. Hence, it requires the IEP team to be f lexibleand well versed in helping each other make and clarify mean-ing at the IEP meeting.

Strategy 4: Modeling the analysis, synthesis, and evaluation of assessment data, placement decision and intervention strategies.CREDE Standard 4: Teaching Complex Thinking throughChallenging Activities (CA) reinforces the team’s commit-ment to collaboratively solve complex problems in addressinga student’s special needs. For example, special educationassessment and placement processes are often difficult forlaypersons to fully comprehend. In the case of identifyingstudents with learning disabilities, there is no uniform for-mula across districts or states to yield the discrepancy scoresneeded to qualify a student for special education services.Furthermore, in the current standard-based school educa-tion, part of each student’s IEP process is to create appropri-ate annual goal and short-term benchmarks/objectives thatare aligned with core content standards. When a middleschool student reads three or four grades below his or hercurrent grade level, the team will face the challenge of align-ing his or her short-term objectives with appropriate districtbenchmarks in reading. Guided by the IDEA Amendment1997, a special education teacher is also obligated to reportperiodically to parents/guardians how their child is progress-ing towards meeting his or her objectives and annual goals. Ifthis child was placed in a responsive special education pro-gram and supported by most qualified special educationteacher/specialist, we would observe expected progress.

The shortage of qualified special education teachers inmany regions, however, casts further concerns about ineffec-tive special education intervention. For example, it is com-mon to place students with special needs in rote learning orengaging in drills tasks with much less emphasis on cultivat-ing their higher order thinking skills (HOTS). This type ofspecial education placement and services would not convinceus that they have high expectations of students with specialneeds. Furthermore, many testing results administered byinexperienced special education teachers can be faulty. Forexample, many such new teachers, who only have an emer-gency teaching credential, are routinely asked to administerstandardized tests after receiving a one-shot district-spon-sored training. Many may not be ready to administer andinterpret such tests. This is a realistic concern among schoolsor districts that have a high demand of referrals for specialeducation assessment and/or annual/triennial IEP evaluation.Strategy 4 reminds the school personnel to engage in anenculturation approach, that is, modeling-explaining-inter-acting-feeding back to promote and develop HOTS in orderfor them to be well equipped in coping learning challengesand realizing learning potentials.

To implement Strategy 4, it requires the team to devel-op and enhance our productive habits of mind, or a set ofintelligent behaviors (Costa & Kallick, 2000). This will notonly help the team co-produce a meaningful IEP document,but also models for students when we invite one to partici-pate, how adults behave in a decision making process byusing a set of habits of mind, such as thinking interdepend-ently, gathering data through all senses, listening with under-standing and empathy, thinking f lexibly, remaining open tocontinuously learning, or thinking and communicating withclarify and precision, etc. All of these habits of mind willform the basis for our students to develop viable self-deter-mination skills, that is, the skills allow an individual to makechoices and decision for themselves. Equipped with self-determination skills and a set of habits of mind, we are farmore likely to guide students with special needs to monitortheir own behaviors and engage in active learning. It is alsocritical for those to seek appropriate transition services at thesecondary schools in order to secure support and pathways toenter a two-year or four-year postsecondary institution aswell as to secure meaningful employment.

Strategy 5: Engaging participants through dialogue andpurposeful conversations in an IEP meetingCREDE Standard 5: Instructional Conversation (IC) guidesthe IEP team members to engage each other in respectfultwo-way or multi-way conversations; it is not thatparents/guardians must listen to the experts in the meeting.Strategy 5 reminds us that to solve problems and make com-plex decisions, every member must be invited and activelyengaged in sharing their perspectives, raise questions andconcerns, and seek clarity about language, issues, assessmentdata, placement and services.

In essence, the art of IC is to help IEP team membersweave three major elements: Student and parent(s)/guardian(s)’ prior knowledge or experiences, current rele-vant examples for clarification, as well as specific special edu-cation process and knowledge. Hence, IC is critical in an IEPmeeting. Strategy 1 provides the foundation for Strategy 5,and we must rely on Strategy 5 to actually deliver the con-tents of all other strategies in a non-threatening atmosphere.

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 230

Implementing an IC in a classroom is often challengingbecause we have a large number of students. Conversing witha large group, we are likely to lose some students’ attentionand cannot effectively weave each student’s prior knowl-edge/experiences and meaningful examples/metaphors witha targeted concept to be taught in a lesson. The size of an IEPmeeting provides an optimal context for generating mean-ingful IC as a means to solveproblems, reach the sharedunderstanding, and produce aresponsive IEP document.

To implement strategy 5,we must believe that everyonehas something important tocontribute; hence we must showrespect and interest in invitingthe student and his or her par-ent(s)/guardian(s) into this deci-sion making and problem solv-ing process. For example, whenan interpreter is used, we musttry to maintain the eye contactwith the parents/ guardians orany other speaker, without sole-ly focusing on the interpreter. Inaddition, we must exercise thehabits of mind, such as listening with understanding andempathy or thinking interdependently. Such an effort will helpthe team relate to these members’ knowledge, cultural experi-ence, concerns, and aspirations, etc. to reach the goal of ashared understanding about the special education process.

Strategy 6: Using the theory of MI as tools to prevent students from the cycle of defeat through building a meaningful IEP.MI as tools for learning enhances the IEP team members’abilities to value the learning differences, the abilities withthe diagnosed disabilities as well as explores multiple path-ways conducive to his or her learning style. Strategy 6reminds us that we must hold ourselves accountable andstrongly believe that all students can learn. Hence, we mustalso explore various pathways, such as drawing, role-play,drama, films, pictures, and stories, etc., to reach them, meettheir needs, and allow them to make choices about ways toref lect their learning of certain topics/concepts.

Through our modeling the use of MI as tools in teach-ing, learning, assessing student learning as well as discussingwith his or her parent(s)/guardian(s), we demonstrate to ourstudents that they are valued in our classroom/school. This iscritical for them to develop a healthy and productive sense ofself-respect and confidence. Strategy 6 also provides a frame-work for teachers to prevent students from the cycle of defeat(Brophy & Good, 1974) that is initiated from teacher’s lowexpectation, reduced interaction with the student, and indif-ference. Students are sensitive, and they can pick up signsfrom teacher’s behaviors to know that they are not welcomein a classroom. Such a phenomenon will lead to further dete-rioration in student behaviors and school performance.Strategy 6 will help the IEP team members raise their expec-tations of students with special needs while providing assis-tance and support.

To implement strategy 6, we may study the implications

of the six compass points for a school (Kornhabor, et al, 1998)and use MI approaches to understanding (Gardner, 1999b).Most of all, having diverse groups of members, we are morelikely to brainstorm suitable entry points to a student’s atten-tion in a given lesson, culturally appropriate metaphors fortying the new concepts with the old ones, and presentingcore concepts across many contexts to enhance student

learning. Such a JPA approachwill gradually help teachersbuild instructional repertoiresthat are effective for scaffoldingstudent learning.

A Closing RemarkAn IEP meeting often serves thepoint of entry for many familymembers and community advo-cates to observe school practicesas well as for schools to establishthe working partnership withina n d b e yo n d s ch o o l . S i n c etoday’s school personnel encoun-ter diverse groups of parents/guardians and students who arein need of school support, Ibelieve that this proposed scaf-

fold for IEP Development will highlight important strategiesfor strengthening any collaborative partnership that schoolsneed to build both within and beyond school. It will alsoempower the teaching staff and related service providers inthe effort to promote and build a responsive inclusion for allstudents and school personnel.

This article intends to broaden the application of theinstructional scaffold in many inter-related contexts, so theset of pedagogical tools generated from CREDE standardsand an MI approach to understanding may become secondnature for school personnel. It is my hope that such a practicewould be valued in schools because the school administratorsand teachers control the power to prevent students from thecycle of defeat by infusing more effective strategies as well ashigh and responsive expectations. ●

Ji-Mei Chang, Ph.D. is a Professor in the College of Education, SanJose State University. For more information please email:jmchang@email.sjsu.edu.

The author’s research was supported by CREDE, under the EducationalResearch and Development Center Program (Cooperative AgreementNo. R306A60001-96), administered by the Office of EducationalResearch and Improvement (OERI), U.S. Department of Education. Thefindings and opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect the posi-tion or policies of OERI.

ReferencesBrophy, J. & Good, T. (1974). Teacher-student relationships: Causes and

consequences. New York: Holt, Rinchart & Winston.

Chang, J. M. (1995). LEP, LD, poor, and the missed learning opportunities:A case of inner city Chinese American children. In L. L. Cheng (Ed.),Integrating language and learning: An Asian-Pacific Focus (pp. 31- 59).San Diego: Singular Publishing Group, Inc.

Chang, J. M. (1999a). A synthesis of the school-based professional develop-ment models across seven model sites: Achievement and challenge.Educational Research, 69(2), 19-27.

We must rely on the wisdomof school personnel to

exercise empathy in listeningand responding, an art that

can be further enhanced by ahabit of looking at an issuefrom multiple perspectives.

Continued on page 36

N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 236

Chang, J. M. (1999b). Multiple functions of multiple intelligences in thelives and education of APA English language learners. NABE News,23(2), 15-18.

Chang, J. M. (2000a). The role of multiple intelligences in Taiwan’s Schoolreform. An invited essay for Chinese readers for the Chinese translationof Howard Gardner (1999) Intelligence Reframed: Multiple intelli-gences for the 21st Century. Chinese translation copyright by Taipei,Taiwan: Yuan-Liou Publishing Co., Ltd.

Chang, J. M. (2000b). Implementation of multiple intelligences for schoolreform: Compass points and challenges. New Wave: EducationalResearch & Development. 5(1), 29-33.

Chang, J. M. (2001a). A scaffold for school-home collaboration for readingand language development. Research Brief #9, Santa Cruz, CA andWashington DC: Center for Research on Education, Diversity, andExcellence.

Chang, J. M. (2001b). Realizing the theory of multiple intelligences as toolsfor educational reform through the sociocultural theory of education.New Wave: Educational Research & Development, 6(4), 41-54

Chang, J.M. (2002a). Expanding the knowledge base on teacher learningand collaboration: A focus on Asian Pacific American English learners(Final Report). Santa Cruz, CA and Washington, DC: Center forResearch on Education, Diversity, & Excellence.

Chang, J. M. (in press). Multi-level collaboration for English learners: AnAsian American perspective. In G. Garcia (Ed.) English Learners:Reaching the Highest Level of English Literacy (pp. 259-285). Newark,DE: International Reading Association.

Chang, J. M. (2002b). Foundation for teaching innovation: Enculturation ofjoint productive teaching and thinking. A guide for Chinese readers forthe Chinese translation of Tishman, S., Perkins, D. N., & Jay, E. (1994)The thinking classroom: Learning and teaching in a culture of thinking.Translation copyright by Taipei, Taiwan: Yuan-Liou Publishing Co., Ltd.

Costa and Kallick (2000). Assessing and Reporting on Habits of Mind(Book 3). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

CREDE (2002) The five standards for effective pedagogy. RetrievedOctober 12, 2002, from http://www.crede.ucsc.edu/standards/stan-dards.html.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences.New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, H. (1999a). The disciplined mind: What all students should under-stand. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Gardner, H. (1999b) Intelligence Reframed: Multiple intelligences for the21st Century. New York. Basic Books.

Kornhaber, M. (1999). Multiple intelligences: theory in practice. In J. H.Block, S. T. Everson, & T. R. Guskey (Eds.), Comprehensive schoolreform: A program perspective (pp. 179-191). Dubuque, Iowa:Kendall/Hunt.

Kornhaber, M., Fierros, E., & Veenema, S. (1998). Project SUMIT website.Retrieved October 18, 2002, from http://pzweb.harvard.edu/SUMIT.

Tharp, R. G. (1997). From at-risk to excellence: Research, theory, andprinciples for practice (Research Report #1). Washington D.C. & SantaCruz: Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence,University of California.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The genesis of higher mental functions. IN J. V.Wertsch (Ed.) The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 144-188). White Plains, NY: Sharpe.

SCAFFOLDINGTHE JOINT VENTURE...(continued from Page 30)

Director of Diversity AffairsFT position, 7:30 a.m. - 4:30 p.m., M-F,$91,141 - $93,970 annual salary range, plusexcellent benefits. This person will assist thesuperintendent, administration and general staffin the advancement of diversity issues andprovide for a welcoming educationalenvironment for all students, parents and staffwithin the school district. Bachelor's degree ina field related to the job requirements. 3 yrs ofprofessional exp in human resources, civil rightscompliance, equal employment opportunitiesincluding coordinating projects, analyzing andresolving problems, and interpreting andapplying laws, regulations and policies.

Application and complete job announcementavailable at www.puyallup.k12.wa.us, 302Second St. SE, Puyallup WA 98372, (253)841-8605. Closes 11/27/02. EOE

PUYA

LLUP

SCH

OOL

DIS

TRIC

TPOSITION ANNOUNCEMENT

University Of Wisconsin-Madison

School Of Education

Department of Curriculum and Instruction

Position: Associate Professor, Tenured (contingent on

review and approval of qualifications by appropriate

University committees), Bilingual/Bicultural Education.

Appointment Date: Semester I, 2003-04 academic year

beginning August 25, 2003.

Deadline: January 15, 2003.

For a complete list of qualifications, responsibilities,

rank, salary and application procedures please visit:

http://www.ohr.wisc.edu/pvl/pv_043165.html

For further information please contact:

Kathy Galloway, Secretary to Bilingual Education

Search Committee, galloway@education.wisc.edu,

608-263-4620.