DIVERSITY IN CONSULTATION: "High Stakes Exams and Latino Students: Toward a Culturally Sensitive Education for Latino Children in the United States"

This article was downloaded by: [Central Michigan University]On: 20 November 2014, At: 12:44Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Journal of Educational andPsychological ConsultationPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hepc20

DIVERSITY IN CONSULTATION:"High Stakes Exams and LatinoStudents: Toward a CulturallySensitive Education for LatinoChildren in the United States"Martin J. La Roche & David ShribergPublished online: 09 Dec 2009.

To cite this article: Martin J. La Roche & David Shriberg (2004) DIVERSITY INCONSULTATION: "High Stakes Exams and Latino Students: Toward a Culturally SensitiveEducation for Latino Children in the United States", Journal of Educational andPsychological Consultation, 15:2, 205-223, DOI: 10.1207/s1532768xjepc1502_8

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s1532768xjepc1502_8

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hepc20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1207/s1532768xjepc1502_8

http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s1532768xjepc1502_8

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

44 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

DIVERSITY IN CONSULTATION

High Stakes Exams and LatinoStudents: Toward a CulturallySensitive Education for LatinoChildren in the United States

Martin J. La RocheHarvard Medical School at the Children’s Hospital

David ShribergMiami University

Latino children living in the United States are not faring well in an educa-tional system that increasingly is turning to “high-stakes” exams to make im-portant decisions in the lives of students. While some argue that these examshave the potential to equalize educational opportunity, we review informa-tion that challenges this view. In this article we cite the mismatch between La-tino children’s home and school settings as a primary factor diminishing theirschool performance. We also describe three distinct Latino cultural practicesand values (respeto, familismo, and allocentrism) and contrast these withU.S. school practices and values. We then discuss some of the specific chal-lenges posed by high stakes testing to the educational success of Latino stu-dents. Finally, we offer ideas for consulting psychologists to develop cultur-

JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL CONSULTATION, 15(2), 205–223Copyright © 2004, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

NOTE: Mary M. Clare of Lewis & Clark College is column editor for DIVERSITY INCONSULTATION.

Correspondence should be addressed to David Shriberg, Miami University, College of Ed-ucation and Allied Professions, Department of Educational Psychology, 154 McGuffey Hall,Oxford, OH 45056. E-mail: [email protected].

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

44 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

ally sensitive educational strategies to address the academic needs of Latinochildren and the problems posed by the high stake movement.

The number and percentage of Latino students enrolled in the U.S. schoolsystem is rapidly climbing. According to the U.S Census Bureau (2001a),the total number of students enrolled in elementary or high school in theUnited States in 1999 reached a record high of 49 million. In 1970, 79% ofU.S. students enrolled in elementary or high school were non-HispanicWhite and only 6% were Latino. By 1999, Latinos represented approxi-mately 15% of all elementary and high school students and non-HispanicWhite students represented 64%. Current demographic indicators suggestthat in future years the Latino student population will continue to rise.

With this exponential growth has also come an alarming increase inschool drop-out rates, grade repetition, overrepresentation in special educa-tion, low GMAT scores and poor school adjustment among Latino students(President’s Advisory Commission for Educational Excellence, 1992). Forexample, Latino students have the highest annual high school dropout rate(7.1%, nearly double that of non-Hispanic White students) of any ethnicgroup and the percentage of Latino adults age 18–24 who are no longer en-rolled in school and who have not completed high school (34%) is morethan double that of any other ethnic group measured by the census (U.S.Census Bureau, 2001b). Latino students in the U.S. school system clearly arenot faring well. In fact, a growing number of studies have questioned theappropriateness of current educational practices for Latino students(McNeil & Valenzuela, 1998; Reyes, 1992; Valencia, 2000) and evidence sug-gests that the miseducation of Latino children may indeed be the norm(McNeil & Valenzuela, 1998; Reyes, 1992; Valencia, 2000).

Counter to the rhetoric linking increased testing with educational eq-uity, we argue that the recent growth of high stakes exams serve to aggra-vate Latino students’ academic difficulties rather than to ameliorate them.Specifically, we maintain that many Latino students experience a mis-match between their cultural values and the practices promoted by U.S.public schools and that the current high stakes testing movement reflectsthis mismatch, which may diminish many Latino students’ scores on highstakes exams. In addition, this mismatch may lead some Latino students toexhibit academic and adjustment problems. Some of them may be unnec-essarily referred to special education programs. These problems are of im-mediate relevance to psychologists and educators consulting in schools.Unlike classroom teachers and building administrators, consultants inschools are positioned to identify and help schools respond when educa-

206 DIVERSITY IN CONSULTATION

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

44 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

tional practices are not working well (Brown, Pryzwansky, & Schulte,2001; Henning-Stout, 1993).

An enhanced understanding of cultural differences acquired, main-tained, and conveyed by consultants in schools may prevent educatorsfrom labeling these differences as deficits and instead encourage them todevelop culturally sensitive strategies to address these problems. While aclash between the values and practices of the home and school environ-ments can impede Latino children’s functioning, findings suggest thatcompatibilities can facilitate positive academic outcomes. Thus it is sug-gested that, when the values and practices in the classroom support thoseof the home environment, Latino children benefit. To understand this idea,pertinent information related to Latino family demographics, parentingstyles, and cultural values (respeto, familismo, and allocentrism) must beconsidered. Also helpful is exploration of the contrast between Latino val-ues and the common values and practices of mainstream U.S. publicschools. At the close of this article, we combine these understandings andmake specific recommendations for consultants to consider in developingculturally responsive strategies that addresses Latino students’ culturallyspecific needs.

LATINO FAMILY CHARACTERISTICS AND VALUES

The term “Latino” is a label of convenience that refers to a very diversegroup of people who reside in the United States but were born in or cantrace the background of their families to a Spanish-speaking country. Theseindividuals represent many different nationalities and ethnicities (U.S.Census Bureau, 2001a). Although there is clearly much variability amongstLatinos, we highlight a handful of the many general characteristics thatmay affect their school performance and can be useful for consulting psy-chologists to effectively intervene in schools.

One of the most relevant demographic variables for Latinos is socioeco-nomic status. Socioeconomic data indicate that many Latinos experiencesevere levels of socioeconomic hardship. In 2000 the poverty rate for Lati-nos was 22.5%, compared to 7.7% for non-Hispanic Whites (U.S. CensusBureau, 2001a). Family income in Latino households averaged only aboutone-third of that in non-Hispanic White households (U.S. Census Bureau,2001a). Moreover, the average educational level of Latinos also is substan-tially lower than that of the general population and many Latinos reporthaving poor English proficiency (Moss & Puma, 1995). Low socioeconomic

DIVERSITY IN CONSULTATION 207

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

44 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

status, few years of education and limited English proficiency tend to in-crease exponentially Latino children’s risk of school failure.

In addition to these demographic characteristics, other family variableshave been noted to have a significant effect on children’s school adjust-ment and academic success. Two family variables shown to have the great-est effect on academic achievement among families of different ethnicitiesand levels of socioeconomic status are high parental school involvementand parenting practices (Steinberg, Dornbusch, & Brown, 1992). Childrenwho have higher parental school involvement do better academically thanchildren who have parents who are less involved (Steinberg et al., 1992).Effective parental involvement methods differ from culture to culture, butare related to cultural values and school communication. While some re-search indicates that Latino parents are less involved in their children’s ed-ucation than non-Hispanic White parents (Steinberg et al., 1992), in recentyears there also has been considerable research that has punctured themyth that Latino parents are less interested in school involvement (e.g.,Moles, 1995; Chavkin & Williams, 1995). For example, Ritter,Mont-Reynaud, and Dornbusch (1995) conducted a provocativelarge-scale study which found that many minority parents placed greateremphasis on their children doing their schoolwork and had a higher will-ingness to get involved with the school than their White counterparts.

While it is likely that the majority of parents from all groups within U.S.society would be pleased to receive helpful information from teachersabout how best to enhance their children’s academic performance, studiesare beginning to indicate that this desire is particularly strong among mi-nority parents who find their children competing in schools that generallyreflect White middle-class values (Ritter, Mont-Reynaud, & Dornbusch,1995). Unfortunately, despite the efforts of many to reduce stereotypesbased on issues such as ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, parent in-volvement efforts continue to be hindered by the perception that poor andminority families are not as interested in their children’s education as moreaffluent and higher status community members (Moles, 1995). Thus, manyparent involvement programs serve to perpetuate social inequality be-cause they predominantly reach those parents who are already involvedwith the school, who disproportionately tend to be White and relatively af-fluent (Lueder, 1998).

RESPETO, FAMILISMO, AND ALLOCENTRISM

Just as culturally responsive parent outreach practices can positively affectachievement, so can certain parenting practices influence school perfor-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

44 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

mance and adjustment. A good model for understanding these practiceswas provided by Steinberg, Elmen and Mounts (1989), who delineatedthree dimensions of parenting: (a) acceptance versus rejection, (b) firmnessversus leniency, and (c) autonomy versus control. These dimensions wereconceived as a continuum along which parents fall. Overall, the rejecting,lenient and controlling parenting styles have been associated with poor ac-ademic achievement across different ethnic groups (Dornbusch, Ritter,Leiderman, Roberts, & Fraleigh, 1987; Steinberg et al., 1992). Whileparenting practices affect academic achievement, these practices also re-flect the specific cultural values of an ethnic community (Steinberg et al.,1992). In this article three of the several prominent Latino cultural valuesthat could influence parenting styles and affect academic performance arehighlighted. These are: respeto, familismo and allocentrism.

Marin and VanOss-Marin (1991) defined respeto as a cultural value thatrevolves around obedience toward parents or elders. Latino children aretaught to respect and comply with authority figures. For example, manyLatino children, in deference to their elders, are taught not to make eyecontact when spoken to and that it is considered disrespectful to questionauthority. However, within the classroom, teachers may believe that thisattitude reflects passivity or lack of interest.

Familismo is defined by Comas-Diaz and Griffith (1988) as a tendency toplace great importance on family attachments, loyalty and reciprocity, andto devalue relationships outside the family. Comas-Diaz (1995) and LaRoche (1999) explain that the emotional support provided by the familynetwork helps Latinos cope with socioeconomic and cultural stressors. Forexample, when children need help in school matters, they may seek helpfrom family members, rather than school personnel. However, school per-sonnel may then assume that Latino children are not interested in whatthey have to offer, lowering their investment in working with them.

Allocentrism is a third important Latino cultural value that may impactschool performance and adjustment (Dabul, Bernal, & Knight, 1995) andaffect parenting practices (Comas-Diaz & Griffith, 1988). Triandis (1994)explained that allocentrism is a tendency in which people define them-selves through their relationships, emphasizing social relationships andhighlighting group goals rather than individual ones. Research has consis-tently found that Latinos define themselves in a predominantly allocentricmanner (e.g., La Roche & Turner, 1997; Marin & Triandis, 1985). Individ-uals with high levels of allocentrism value collaboration and group cohe-siveness, and devalue autonomy, assertiveness and competition. Forexample, Kagan (1986) found that Latino children who were moreallocentric did better in a cohesive classroom environment than non-His-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

44 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

panic White children who were less allocentric. Furthermore, Bos (1996)and Reyes (1992) reported that Latino children performed better academi-cally when they collaborated in small-group school projects than whenthey worked in isolation from their classmates. However, this orientationtoward relationships and collaboration may lead Latino children to be lesslikely to compete in class activities, making them appear less academicallymotivated. This preference for collaboration and social activities can bemisconstrued as an academic deficit by some U.S. teachers who are un-aware of these cultural values (Reyes, 1992).

U.S. SCHOOL VALUES AND PRACTICES

While there is clearly much variation within mainstream American class-rooms, they tend to reflect a particular set of cultural values and practices.Teachers, like parents, differ in their instructional styles and practices interms of acceptance, firmness, and encouragement of autonomy (Toro etal., 1985). Classrooms, like families, vary along dimensions such as cohe-siveness, friction, difficulty, satisfaction and competition (Fraser & Rentoul1982). Despite this variation, U.S. public schools tend to promote somecommon values that may differ substantially from traditional Latino cul-tural values. Delgado-Gaitan (1987) and Garcia (1991) describe U.S. schoolsas emphasizing learning by evaluation and competition, a very commonindividualistic practice (Triandis, 1994), which is in contrast to Latinos’allocentric self-orientation.

Kagan (1986) explained that the standard practice of grading is not onlya reflection of a society that emphasizes individualism and competition(e.g., students often compete to get the highest grade), but also of one thatpromotes the development of an individualistic self-orientation, ratherthan collaboration. The passage of the federal No Child Left Behind Act of2001 and its continued popularity arguably further serves to institutional-ize the values of self-reliance and individualism by requiring (startingwith the 2005–2006 academic year) every state to test all students in Grades3–8 every year in reading and math with “real consequences” (interpreteddifferently by state) for districts and schools that fail to make progress.Thus, it is not only school personnel who may be in competition with oneanother, students in a high-stakes system also are rewarded or penalizedbased on their individual test scores, not on their ability to work collabor-atively with their classmates. Whereas high stakes testing at the publicschool level was once primarily associated with New York and its long his-tory of the Regents exam, all 50 states now test their students (Kober, 2001),


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

44 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

28 states have high stakes attached to tests (Amrein & Berliner, 2002) and apassing grade on a state-mandated achievement test is now a graduationrequirement in 18 states (Winter, 2002).

Perhaps not surprisingly, a growing contingent of researchers and writ-ers (e.g., Lopez, 2000; Valenzuela, 2000) view high-stakes testing as an ex-tension of societal movements that seek to mute cultural differences and toportray minority children as “lazy” or “deficient” when they do not scoreas well as their peers who attend schools with greater resources. For exam-ple, Valencia and Bernal (2000) argued that school failure in general is of-ten attributed to minority students themselves, their families, and theircultures rather than being considered a byproduct of radically unequalschools. The argument is that many minority students of low socioeco-nomic status fail in school (e.g., read below grade level, dropout of school)because of diminished intellectual capacity, poor motivation to achieve,and poor familial socialization for academic competence. This argumentleads to assertions that defects (or deficits) in children, their families, andcultures thwart the learning process and lead to school failure and there-fore schools are held exculpatory regarding the failing grades of some oftheir students.

Although the use of high stakes tests is far from recent, the pervasive-ness and the zeal with which local, state, and national policy makers haveembraced them has not been seen for many years. Linn (2000) stated thatthere are several reasons why educational tests are so appealing to manypolicy makers. Among these are that tests and assessments are relativelyinexpensive, can be externally mandated, rapidly implemented, and re-sults are visible. In addition, proponents of high-stakes testing argue thatthese tests are beneficial for minority students because they hold allschools—be they rich or poor, predominantly white or predominantly mi-nority—to identical standards.

While the wish for both a level playing field and more stable measuringsticks is widely shared, there is also widespread criticism over the use of asingle measure to make high-stakes decisions. For example, denying highschool graduation to a student who has failed a mandated high-stakesexam but who has otherwise met school and state requirements to gradu-ate directly contradicts test usage standards jointly created and agreedupon by the American Research Association, the American PsychologicalAssociation, and the National Council on Measurement in Education in1999. These standards state that decisions affecting individual students’life changes or educational opportunities should not be made on the basisof test scores alone (Domenech, 2000). Figueroa and Hernandez (2000)stated that a fundamental assumption of all testing is that the normative


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

44 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

framework—psychometric, criterion, or rubric-based—on which the testscores are based contain a high degree of experiential homogeneity, cul-tural–linguistic similarity, and equity in learning opportunities among testtakers. In a real sense tests work best in a perfect democracy of monolin-gual and monocultural citizens. The sheer diversity of backgroundsamong U.S. students (particularly the large number of Latino students forwhom English is a second language) provides a massive—and to this pointunsolved—challenge to the validity of high-stakes tests (Figueroa &Hernandez, 2000).

Other challenges to Latinos presented by U.S. public schools are thatwhole class instruction is becoming more the norm and instruction withsmall collaborative groups of students or student pairing is less frequent(Baker & Zigmond, 1990). Moreover, schools also have become larger andmore impersonal, making connections with family more difficult and su-perficial (Vaughn & Schuman, 1991). The large classroom size and institu-tional structure may limit Latino parents from connecting sufficiently withtheir children’s teachers. This might be particularly true for those familieshigh in familismo. Finally, the competitive and individualistic instruc-tional practices evident in many schools may make it difficult forallocentric Latino children to feel adjusted within their classrooms (Kagan,1986). These and other differences in values and practices between homeand school can be a source of conflict for Latino students, and may make itmore difficult for them to succeed academically.

THE CHALLENGE PRESENTED BYHIGH-STAKES EXAMS

The recent movement toward requiring high school students to pass astate-created achievement test to graduate creates additional obstacles forLatino students. These obstacles take a number of forms. The first relates todifferential access to courses and material that typically are critical prereq-uisites to success on state-created exams. Most high-stakes tests are basedon state curriculum frameworks, and a fundamental assumption behindtheir creation is that all students have had comparable exposure to this cur-riculum. However, this is often not the case. For example, Upshur and col-leagues (2001) examined high school math and science course enrollmentpatterns by ethnicity in Massachusetts and found that Latino students weresignificantly more likely to be in lower level courses. While the argumentcan be made that having multiple levels of course offerings within the sameschool is not inherently undesirable, holding students who have not had


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

44 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

exposure to specific concepts to the same standard as students who havehad extensive exposure to these topics is very problematic, if not outrightdiscriminatory. Valencia and Bernal (2000) characterized as a “fundamen-tal form of discrimination” (p. 429) any process in which children are testedon material that they have never been taught and then stigmatized for their“failure to achieve.”

Another obstacle is misinterpretation and overgeneralization of test re-sults. When a new high stakes exam is created, the typical pattern is thatLatino students will score very poorly relative to White students and/ormore affluent students (Linn, 2000). What commonly happens next is thatthe subgroups of students who scored poorly on the exam the first time theexam was administered show gains in performance with each subsequentadministration of the exam. Often these gains are larger than the averagegains made by White and/or more affluent students. This can create thefalse impression that the gains represent “real” global improvement in thetarget subject areas being assessed and that the achievement gap betweenWhites and Latinos is closing. However, these gains can be illusory.Typically, these gains level off over time, and when either the test is signifi-cantly altered or the same students are compared based on a differentachievement measure, test scores drop and gaps between White and non-White students remain significant (Linn, 2000). Klein, Hamilton,McCaffrey, and Stecher (2000) illustrated this point by examining scoringtrends in Texas’ high-stakes exam, the Texas Assessment of AcademicSkills (TAAS), between 1994 and 1998. They found that in 1994 White stu-dents scored significantly higher than nonWhite students did on theTAAS. By 1998, the gap was substantially smaller. However, Klein and col-leagues (2000) report that during this same period in Texas the gap inscores between Whites and nonWhites on the National Assessment of Ed-ucational Performance (NAEP), which is not a high-stakes exam, increased.This was true even though the initial White/nonWhite discrepancy in 1994was larger on the NAEP than it was on the TAAS. Thus the NAEP scorediscrepancy between Whites and nonWhites, which was wider to beginwith, grew larger at the same time as the smaller initial TAAS White/non-White score discrepancy grew smaller. The stark differences betweenTAAS and NAEP scores based on race/ethnicity raise very serious ques-tions about the generalizability of the TAAS scores (Klein et al. 2000).

Another potential obstacle for Latino students involves dropout rates.Increased dropout rates among minority and/or lower performing stu-dents are a common finding in states that have implemented high-stakesexams. For example, in Massachusetts Lopez (2000) reports that 29% of La-tino students who entered the ninth grade in 1998 were projected to ulti-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

44 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

mately drop out of high school, compared to 10% of White students. FairTest of Cambridge (2000) reported that in 1998–1999, the first year thatMassachusetts’ high-stakes test, the MCAS, was administered 9.8% of La-tino students in Massachusetts dropped out of school, up from 8.2% in1997–1998. Over the same academic year, the dropout rate was 6.7% forBlacks (up from 6.1%), 3.6% for Asian/Pacific Islanders (up from 3.5%),and 2.5% for White students (down from 2.6%). These figures can some-times be buried within broader announcements that portray high-stakesexams as having no effect on dropout rates. For example, in August 2002,the Commissioner of Education for the state of Massachusetts reported astatewide dropout rate of 3.5%. This is a figure that has remained relativelyunchanged since the inception of high-stakes testing in 1998 and is onewhich has been used as part of the argument that high-stakes testing hasnot impacted Latino students negatively. However, after Wheelock (2002)reviewed these statistics more closely, she concluded that, although thedropout rate for all students remained stable over the last five years, Latinostudents in Massachusetts were in fact dropping out of school more often,were leaving school in lower grades than before, and were the least likelyto return to school. Wheelock (2002) also reported that the number of La-tino students dropping out of the Boston Public Schools in middle schoolnearly doubled from the 1997–1998 school year to the 2000–2001 schoolyear.

Another potential obstacle, negative psychological implications for La-tinos attending school within the current high stakes climate, is just begin-ning to be explored. In Texas, it has been reported that the combination ofpast low performance on a high-stakes test and the knowledge that onemust pass a similar test to graduate has had negative psychological effectson students. These effects may include reduced academic motivation, in-creased test anxiety, and fewer students viewing college as a realistic pos-sibility, even if students feel confident about their ability to pass theirschool’s other graduation requirements (Valenzuela, 2000). Uriarte (2002)reported that students in weaker schools who have tested poorly are par-ticularly vulnerable to decreased academic motivation and increaseddropout rates.

A final potential obstacle for Latino students posed by the climate ofhigh-stakes testing is the receipt of a diminished, test prep-heavy curricu-lum. One of the ways that schools have chosen to combat the dilemma ofincreased dropout rates, decreased confidence among students and com-munity members, and increased pressure on administrators to improvestudent test scores is replacing or altering their core curriculum to have amore explicit focus on preparation for the pertinent high-stakes exam. This


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

44 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

trend has the effect both of widening the curriculum gap even further be-tween White and nonWhite students and of making the curriculum of suchschools even less culturally responsive. Noting that “TAAS drills are be-coming the curriculum in our poorest schools” (p. 4), McNeil andValenzuela (1998) reported on the common tendency of schools in Texas,particularly poorer schools confronting funding cuts, to abandon a diversecurriculum and solid teaching practices in favor of a curriculum that re-quires art teachers to drill students in vocabulary and encourages the prac-tice of ordering science teachers to abandon science for weeks to drillstudents in “TAAS math.”

According to Jones and colleagues (1999), in North Carolina core sub-jects such as science and social studies were being squeezed out becausethey are not on the tests upon which schools and teachers are evaluated.Instead, teachers are “teaching to the test,” with more than 29% of teachersindicating that their students spend more than 60% of instructional timepracticing for tests. While this path may lead to increased test scores in theshort-term, the long-term consequences to students, particularly for stu-dents who are from a different cultural heritage, can be devastating.Through sheer drill and repetition students can increase their ability to an-swer reading comprehension questions but their capacity to apply theseskills to other learning tasks (e.g., reading an entire book) diminishes be-cause they are rarely asked to do so (McNeil & Valenzuela, 1998).

Our observation of this practice seems to indicate that this type of di-minished academic exposure and engagement will serve to only furtherhinder the educational development of Latino students receiving such acurriculum. No serious learning theorist would assert that the idealmethod for learning includes continuous exposure to several false answersand the lack of opportunity to generate correct answers that are not al-ready provided. Nor is this likely to be a particularly engaging way tolearn for most students since, as McNeil and Valenzuela (1998) wrote, “theTAAS system of testing is not respectful of, nor does it build on, children’spersonal experiences, the cultures of their families, nor the variations inlearning style and interests that span any classroom” (p. 11). These authorsnote that, while classes such as “TAAS English” and “TAAS Math” maylead to a higher rate of passing scores, schools that experience the best re-sults on the TAAS rarely teach to the test, but instead teach the subjects inan engaging way (McNeil & Valenzuela, 1998). “Teaching to the test” maybe a tempting short-term formula for increased scores, but this approachruns counter to virtually all schools of contemporary learning theory. Fur-ther, should the format and content of the test be changed, students fromthese schools will be at a significant disadvantage. Hard-fought gains can


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

44 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

disappear over night, leaving students in these schools further behindtheir peers in other schools less tied to “test prep” classes than when theystarted.

IDEAS FOR CULTURALLY SENSITIVE RESEARCHAND PRACTICE

Several main points for the particular consideration of educators and psy-chologists involved in consultation with schools deserve emphasis here.First, Latino children often have a different set of cultural values thanthose promoted by mainstream American schools and secondly, whenthese differences clash, it can be detrimental for the academic perfor-mance of Latino students. The recent movement towards requiring everystudent to pass a state-created achievement test to graduate from highschool is an immediate example of conflict between contrasting values.While many Latinos emphasize collaboration, social connections andother allocentric values, mainstream American pubic schools typicallyunderscore individualism and competition as reflected by the growingemphases on individual test scores, rather than on students’ learning ex-periences and cultural backgrounds. With this contrast in mind, the fol-lowing five recommendations are offered both for future research in edu-cation and psychology and to guide consultants as they supportpractitioners in the field seeking to promote culturally sensitive educa-tional practices for Latino students.

A More Extensive Study of the InterrelationshipsBetween Cultural Values of Latinos and the U.S. PublicSchool System Are Needed

Although currently there is much documentation about the differentsets of cultural values of both Latinos and American schools (Dabul,Bernal, & Knight, 1991; Kagan, 1986), the specific interrelationships be-tween these settings are understudied. It seems necessary to move be-yond an isolated conceptualization of each of these settings, and to startunderstanding the dynamics of interacting cultural contexts. More in-formation is needed on the beneficial linkages between schools and La-tino homes. The need to study these linkages is particularly importantgiven that the differences between home and school settings may pro-vide consulting psychologists and educators with crucial information tounderstand and ultimately to ameliorate the underachievement of La-tino children in American schools.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

44 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

It Is Important to Educate School Personnel AboutCommon Latino Cultural Values

Cultural differences between home and school environments are often mis-understood and misconstrued by educators as learning or behavioral prob-lems. Teachers who lack an understanding of Latino values consequentlyare likely to equate differences to deficits (Trent, Pernell, & Stephens, 1995).These misunderstandings may prompt teachers to refer Latino students tospecial education programs not because of real need, but because of cul-tural misunderstandings. Consulting psychologists and educators can takethe lead in preventing these errors by educating school personnel about thecultural meaning of specific behaviors. However, much more informationneeds to be explored in regards to the relationships between the culturalmismatch and placement to special education services.

A Resilience Model That Takes Into Account the CulturalMismatch Needs to be Developed

In addition to the cultural mismatches Latino children, and their familiesoften have to struggle with poverty, discrimination, poor housing and lim-ited English fluency amongst many other obstacles that could reduce fur-ther their academic performance. Despite these barriers, some Latino chil-dren are able to excel (Gordon, 1996). Resilience studies that identify thevariables and processes that allow these children to excel rather than theirdifficulties are needed. This knowledge on resilience would allow educa-tors and consulting psychologists to employ more effectively cultural dif-ferences as assets that promote Latino students’ academic performance in aculturally sensitive manner.

It Is Important to Continue to Develop and ImplementCulturally Sensitive Parent Involvement Initiatives

In recognition of familismo, it is important to start developing more sophis-ticated parental involvement trainings that are culturally sensitive. Takinginto account the myriad of Latino cultural values (e.g., familismo,allocentrism, respeto) the trainings would teach educators strategies to en-hance the compatibilities between the school and home context withoutstigmatizing them. This training might then extend into addressing openlyspecific issues of parent involvement with disempowered families. A


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

44 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

stronger research agenda must be established to explore in more detail howdifferent cultural, religious, and ethnic groups view their role within theschool setting and perceived barriers to realizing these roles. Crucial to thistype of an action-oriented research agenda is a conceptual shift both withinacademia and among consulting psychologists in which parent involve-ment specifically and home–school communication more generally areconsidered within the historical, social, and political context of the U.S.public school system (La Roche, 2002). As indicated by Culter (2000), thereis a long history of parent–school battles. Much of this history has either ig-nored or has led to the disempowering of certain parents and parentingstyles. Increased awareness of this history will enhance parents’ ability toeffectively get more involved in their children’s education. When consult-ing psychologists and educators contextualize problems as means to stopblaming Latino families for their child’s problems, schools will be morelikely to cease the perpetuation of social division and stigmatization of La-tino families. Consulting psychologists and educators need to take steps toensure that disempowered families are provided with culturally sensitivemeans to make meaningful contributions to their children’s education.

Capitalize on the Current Focus on Achievement Testing

In addition to the historic burdens felt by many Latino students in U.S. pub-lic schools, the simultaneous trend to overlook their unique cultural charac-teristics combined with the trend to make high-stakes decisions based on astudent’s performance on a single achievement measure creates significantproblems for many Latino learners and their families. However, schoolsthat acknowledge the challenges involved in increasing achievement testscores for its Latino students have a unique opportunity to examine and re-design the mechanism through which they relate to these students andtheir families. Consulting psychologists and educators can play an impor-tant role in advocating for Latino families and encouraging Latinos to voicetheir concerns and suggestions to address these problems. As schools seekstrategies that foster greater communication and mutual respect betweenhome and school, this enhanced communication and participation from La-tino families might not only increase the chances for academic and behav-ioral success for Latino and other minority students, but also energizeschools by creating an infusion of diverse cultural ideas and perspectives.

These types of discussions need not only take place at the local level. Inthe current enthusiasm to provide clearer core curriculum standards for allschools, a goal to which few object, there is sadly little dialogue at the na-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

44 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

tional level on how to achieve this goal within a culturally responsiveframework that views students and families as coming to school with a setof learning strengths. Instead, Western-American values (e.g., individual-ism, competition) that are not consistent with the rich diversity of valueswithin our society are relentlessly promoted and used as the standard towhich all students are compared and graded. A national dialogue isneeded, in which consulting psychologists, educators and Latino familiesare engaged with policy makers to bridge this disconnect. With every pub-lished report that indicates continued disparities in test scores by race/eth-nicity lies an opportunity to challenge the widely held assumption that aculturally void model featuring high-stakes individual competition istruly the best way to “leave no child behind” and to propose a culturallyresponsive model, as outlined in this article, as a constructive alternative.

CONCLUSION

A vital first step, not only for educators and psychologists, but for all whocare about improving the quality and appropriateness of the instructionthat Latino children receive at schools is a knowledge of common Latinovalues, combined with a commitment to reach out to all families. Such aphilosophy would not only serve the short-term political goal of boostingtest scores, but also enhance families and educators’ ability to designschool-based programs that respond in a culturally sensitive manner to theneeds of Latino children and their families.

The goals and structure of public schools in the United States have oftenreflected values that historically have not been conducive to success for La-tino students. We argue that the latest educational trend, high-stakes test-ing, not only threatens to institutionalize further homogeneouseducational models based on universal standards that are not consistentwith Latino students’ cultural identities, but also is likely having the im-mediate effect of increasing drop-out rates, lowering academic motivation,and denying diplomas to Latino students who in the absence of these testswould graduate from high school (Lopez, 2000; Valenzuela, 2000). Thesealarming problems suggest an urgent need to develop more sophisticatededucational models that are responsive to Latinos’ cultural characteristics.

We have provided several ideas for consulting psychologists and edu-cators that can facilitate the development of a culturally sensitive modelfor Latino students. Our recommendations, in contrast to the high-stakesexam movement, encourage educators to identify Latino’s cultural charac-teristics (e.g., respeto, familismo, allocentism) and to use these characteris-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

44 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

tics constructively to further their academic performance, rather thanobliterating cultural differences through test drill practices. Instead of un-derstanding students as a grade or achievement test score, we have arguedthat it is more beneficial to understand them in relationship to their owncultural context. We believe that the rapid growth of the Latino populationin the United States intensifies the need for consulting psychologists to de-velop more sophisticated and more culturally responsive educational ef-forts for this community. Educational models that take into accountLatino’s cultural and socioeconomic context and consider their culturaldifferences as assets proposing specific interventions to address culturalmismatches are needed. Such efforts may begin to address Latino’s educa-tional needs more effectively by educators and consulting psychologists.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Many thanks are offered to Amy Shriberg, Marjorie Shriberg, and ArthurShriberg for their editorial assistance.

REFERENCES

Amrein, A. L. & Berliner, D. C. (2002). The impact of high-stakes tests on student academic perfor-mance: An analysis of NAEP results in states with high-stakes tests and ACT, SAT, and AP test re-sults in states with high school graduation exams. Tempe, AZ: Education Policy Studies Labo-ratory, Arizona State University.

Baker , J. M., & Zigmond N. (1990). Are regular education classes equipped to accommodatestudents with learning disabilities? Exceptional Children, 56, 515–527.

Bos, C. (1996). Conversations with a Latina teacher about education for language minority stu-dents with special needs. Elementary School Journal, 96, 217–220.

Brown, D., Pryzwanksy, W. B., & Schulte, A. C. (2001). Psychological consultation: Introduction totheory and practice (5th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Chavkin, N. F. & Williams, D. L., Jr. (1995). Minority parents and the elementary school: Atti-tudes and practices. In N.F. Chavkin (Ed.), Families and schools in a pluralistic society (pp.74–83). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Comas-Diaz, L. & Griffith, E. (1988). Clinical guidelines in cross-cultural mental health. New York:Wiley & Sons.

Comas-Diaz, L. (1995). Cultural diversity. From the melting pot to tossed salad. The PsychologyTeacher Network, 5, 2–5.

Dabul, A., Bernal, M., & Knight G. (1995). Allocentric and idiocentric self description and aca-demic achievement among Mexican American and Anglo American adolescents. Journal ofSchool Psychology, 135, 621–630.

Delgado-Gaitan C., (1987). Traditions and transitions in the learning process: Anethnographic view. In Spindler G., and Spindler, L. (Eds.), Interpretive ethnography of educa-tion: At home and abroad (pp. 124–152) Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Domenech, D. A. (2000). My stakes well done. The School Administrator. Retrieved fromhttp://www.aasa.org/publications/sa/2000_12/domenech.html


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

44 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Dornbusch, S. M., Ritter, P. L., Leiderman, H., Roberts, D. F., & Fraleigh, M. J. (1987). The re-lation of parenting style to adolescent school performance. Child Development, 58,1244–1257.

FairTest/CARE (Coalition for Authentic Reform in Education) (2000). MCAS: Making the Mas-sachusetts dropout crisis worse. Available at http://www.fairtest.org/care

Figueroa, R. A., & Hernandez, S. (2000). Testing Hispanic students in the United States: Technicaland policy issues. Washington, DC: President’s Advisory Commission on Educational Ex-cellence for Hispanic Americans.

Fraser, B. J., & Rentoul A. J. (1982). Relationship between school-level and classroom-level en-vironment. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 28, 212–225.

Garcia E. (1991). The education of linguistically and culturally diverse students: Effective instruc-tional practices. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Lan-guage Learning.

Gordon, K. (1996. Resilient Hispanic youths’ self concept and motivational patterns. HispanicJournal of Behavioral Sciences, 18, 63–73.

Jones, M. G., Jones, B. D., Hardin, B., Chapman, L, Yarbrough, T., & Davis, M. (1999). The im-pact of high-stakes testing on teachers and students in North Carolina. Phi Delta Kappan, 81,199–203.

Henning-Stout, M. (1993). Theoretical and empirical bases of consultation. In J.E. Sinx, T.R.Kratochwill, and S.N. Elliot (Eds.) Handbook of consultation services for children: Applicationsin educational and clinical settings (pp. 15–45). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kagan, S. (1986). In sociocultural factors in schooling. In Cortes, C. (Ed.), Beyond language:Sociocultural factors in schooling in language minority students (pp. 282–285). Berkeley, CA:University of CA Press.

Klein, S. P., Hamilton, L. S., McCaffrey, D. F. & Stecher, B. M. (2000). What do text scores in Texastell us? Education Policy Analysis Archives. Available at http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n49

Kober, N. (2001). It takes more than testing: Closing the achievement gap. Washington, DC: Centeron Education Policy.

La Roche, M. (1999). Culture, transference, and countertransference among Latinos. Psycho-therapy, 36, 389–397.

La Roche, M. (2002). Psychotherapeutique recommendations in treating Latinos. Harvard Re-view of Psychiatry, 10, 115–122.

La Roche, M., & Turner, C. (1997). Self-orientation and depression level among Dominicans inthe United States. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 19, 479–488.

Linn, R. L. (2000). Assessments and accountability. Educational Researcher, 29(2), 4–16.Lopez, N. (2000). The missing link: Latinos and educational opportunity programs. Equity and

Excellence in Education, 33(3), 53–58.Lueder, D. C. (1998). Creating partnerships with parents: An educator’s guide. Lancaster, PA:

Technomic Publishing Company, Inc.Marín, G., & VanOss Marín, B. (1991). Research with Hispanic populations. Newbury Park, CA:

Sage.Marin, G., & Triandis, H. (1985). Allocentrism as an important behavior of Latin-Americans

and Hispanics. In R. Diaz Guerrero (Ed.), Cross-cultural and national studies social psychology(pp. 85–104). Amsterdam: North Holland.

McNeil, L. & Valenzuela, A. (1998). The harmful impact of the TAAS system of testing in Texas: Beneaththe accountability rhetoric. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project, Harvard University.

Moles, O. C. (1995). Collaboration between schools and disadvantaged parents: Obstacles andopenings. In N.F. Chavkin (Ed.), Families and schools in a pluralistic society (pp. 22–49). Al-bany, NY: State University of New York Press.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

44 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Moss, M. & Puma, M. (1995). Prospects: The congressionally mandated study of educational growthand opportunity. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates. (ERIC Document Reproduction ServiceNo ED 394 334).

President’s Advisory Commission for Educational Excellence. (1992). A Progress Report to theSecretary of Education from the President’s Advisory Commission on Educational Excellence forHispanic Americans, Washington, DC: US Department of Education.

Reyes, M. (1992). Challenging venerable assumptions: Literacy instruction for linguisticallydifferent students. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 427–446.

Ritter, P. L., Mont-Reynaud, R. & Dornbusch, S. M. (1995). Minority parents and their youth:Concern, encouragement, and support for school achievement. Families and schools in a plu-ralistic society (pp. 108–119). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Standards for educational and psychological testing. (1999). Developed jointly by the AmericanEducational Research Association (AERA), American Psychological Association (APA),and the National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME).

Steinberg, L., Dornbusch, S., & Brown, B. (1992). Ethnic differences in adolescent achievement:An ecological perspective. American Psychologist, 47, 723–729.

Steinberg, L., Elmen, J. D., & Mounts, N. S. (1989). Authoritative parenting, psychological ma-turity, and academic success among adolescents. Child Development, 60, 1424–1436.

Toro, P. A., Cowen, E. L., Gesten, E. L., Weisberg, R. P., Rapkin, B. D., & Davidson, E. (1985). So-cial environment predictors of children’s adjustment in elementary school classrooms.American Journal of Community Psychology, 13, 353–364.

Trent, S. C., Pernell, E., & Stephens, K. M. (1995, April). Preservice teachers’ conceptions about ef-fective teaching for culturally diverse learners. Paper presented at the annual meeting of theCouncil for Exceptional Children, Indianapolis, IN.

Triandis, H. (1994). Theoretical and methodological approaches to the study of collectivismand individualism. In U. Kim, H. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. Choi & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individ-ualism and collectivism (pp. 41–51). Thousand Oaks: Sage Press.

Upshur, C. C., Vega, R. R., Carithers, N., Jones, C., Lucy-Allen, D., Meschede, T., et al. (2001).Access to educational opportunities for Latino students in four Massachusetts school districts.Boston, MA: The Mauricio Gastón Institute for Latino Community Development and Pub-lic Policy, University of Massachusetts–Boston.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2001a). Profiles of general demographic characteristics 2000: 2000 census ofpopulation and housing: United States. Washington, DC: US Census Bureau.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2001b). School enrollment in the United States—Social and economic charac-teristics of students (pp. 520–533).Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.

Uriarte, M. (2002). The high stakes of high stakes testing. In Z.F. Beykont (Ed.), The power of cul-ture: Teaching across language difference (pp. 1–14). Cambridge, MA: Harvard EducationPublishing Group.

Valencia, R. R. (2000). Inequalities and the schooling of minority students in Texas: Historicaland contemporary conditions. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 22, 445–459.

Valencia, R. R., & Bernal, E. M. (2000). An overview of conflicting opinions in the TAAS case.Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 22, 423–444.

Valenzuela, A. (2000). The significance of the TAAS test for Mexican immigrant and MexicanAmerican adolescents: A case study. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 22, 524–539.

Vaughn, S., & Schuman, J. S. (1991). Classroom ecologies: Implications for inclusion of stu-dents with learning disabilities. In Speece, D. & Keogh, B K. (Eds.), Research on classroomecologies: Implications for inclusion of children with learning disabilities (pp. 139–159). Hillsdale,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

44 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Wheelock, A. (2002). Massachusetts dropouts leaving earlier and not returning. Retrieved fromhttp://www.caremass.org/research/Drop%20Out%20report.htm

Winter, G. (2002, December 28). More schools rely on tests, but study raises doubts. The NewYork Times.

Martin J. La Roche received his doctoral degree from the Clinical Psychology program at theUniversity of Massachusetts at Boston in 1996. He has been Director of Psychology Training atthe Martha Eliot Health Center for the last eight years, where he treats an inner city and cultur-ally diverse community and trains doctoral level psychology students. In addition, he is an in-structor in Psychology at the Harvard Medical School–Children’s Hospital. He is alsoCo-Chair of the Committee on Ethnic Minority Affairs at the Massachusetts Psychological As-sociation.

David Shriberg received his doctoral degree from the School/Counseling Psychology pro-gram at Northeastern University in 2003. A former president of Student Affiliates in SchoolPsychology (SASP), David has worked as a school psychologist and as a counselor in a varietyof settings and will begin as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Educational Psychol-ogy at Miami University in the Fall of 2004.

Please submit manuscripts and address inquiries regarding the Diversity inConsultation column to Mary M. Clare, Ph.D.; MSC 86, Counseling Psychol-ogy; Lewis & Clark College; Portland, OR 97219; 503-768-6069;[email protected]; Fax: 503-768-6065.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

44 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Documents

DIVERSITY IN CONSULTATION: "High Stakes Exams and Latino Students: Toward a Culturally Sensitive Education for Latino Children in the United States"