# data[].attributes.body
Students from different origins are overrepresented in special education programs in the United States, according to decades' worth of educational research. The research indicates that there are other variables at play here, including the evaluation of students from various backgrounds.
Many educators don't have the necessary testing instrument knowledge to appropriately assess and evaluate students from different backgrounds. 2019 (Becker & Deris)
"Teachers are more likely to refer students for special education when they are faced with a cultural mismatch and are unsure of what to do with the students." (2008) (Williams).
"The student has a greater than 50% chance of being identified as disabled once referred to an assessment team." 2019 (Becker & Deris)
According to Kreskow (2013), test bias is one of the main reasons why evaluating kids from different backgrounds results in a disproportionate number of referrals for special education services.

Assessment of Students with Diverse Backgrounds: Some Considerations
What impact do language, gender, and/or ethnicity have on test results?
Every child we test comes to the table with a unique set of experiences. They have had various educational, linguistic, and cultural experiences.  We must test students using a few different speech-language assessment instruments.
We should be aware that a child's earlier experiences affect how they will react to certain items. With this in mind, we must understand that in order to obtain the information we require, we cannot simply look at a fixed point in time and a single instrument.

How can we change the way we administer tests to prevent sending too many students for special education services?
Diagnostic choices are made by us; tools are not intended to make those choices for us.
When evaluating bilingual students using English tests, disregard the results. We frequently are unable to utilize the results when we administer a test that was not created for a student with the cultural and language background of the student we are testing. When we translate a test from English to another language, this is unquestionably the case.

Impact of translating a test: If you translate a test your test statistics are no longer valid or meaningful and should not be used in making a diagnostic decision.

What if we are testing students from diverse backgrounds who speak a language we do not have a test for? Can we translate the items on an English test?

When we translate a test, Peña (2007) suggests that we need to think about:

linguistic equivalence

functional equivalence

cultural equivalence

metric equivalence (is the difficulty level of the items the same in both languages?)

The content validity of the test may be in jeopardy if there is a lack of equivalence in any of these areas (Rogler, 1999). The test's content validity provides an assessment of how well it measures the intended outcomes.

Learning a second language with a gender system, like Spanish, takes time, as anyone who has attempted to do so can attest. It's a complicated system, therefore test equivalency isn't possible when we test young children, and one of them is expected to be able to identify noun genders while the other isn't.

Another scenario is when you test a bilingual child who is still learning English but has lost proficiency in their original language, and they perform poorly on BOTH examinations. Although you can't know that, we could argue that is indicative of a linguistic issue or delay. You can obtain a more complete picture by using additional measurements, such as parent and teacher interviews, classroom and playground observations, and triangulating. All the data allows you to get a fuller picture.

# data[].attributes.body
Most educators concur that having a solid grasp of both pedagogical principles and subject matter is necessary for effective teaching. Exactly as Howard (1999) put it, "We can't teach what we don't know."
This statement is true for both subject-specific knowledge and understanding of student groups. To teach children of different racial and ethnic backgrounds, however, too many teachers are not appropriately trained. Despite the rising numbers and disproportionately low performance of students of colour, some professional programs are still undecided about adding multicultural education.

1. Understanding cultural diversity goes beyond only being aware of, respecting, and generally acknowledging the reality that different ethnic groups have distinct values or express comparable values in different ways. Consequently, learning in-depth factual knowledge about the cultural distinctiveness of certain ethnic groups serves as the second criterion for creating a knowledge base for culturally responsive teaching. This is required to increase ethnically diverse students' engagement in learning and to ensure that it is representative of their needs.
Cultural diversity has a place in every subject that is taught in schools. Additionally, adopting multicultural instructional methodologies and including multicultural content in the curriculum are both aspects of culturally responsive teaching.

2. Teachers who are sensitive to cultural differences are able to assess the multicultural strengths and weaknesses of curricular plans and teaching resources and make the required adjustments to raise the standard of both. The narrative texts, visual illustrations, learning exercises, role models, and authorial sources utilized in the instructional materials should be the main topics of these studies. They should also be examined for amount, accuracy, complexity, location, purpose, diversity, significance, and authenticity.

Culturally sensitive teachers need to challenge numerous recurring patterns in how formal education curricula approach racial diversity. Such as avoiding contentious subjects like racism, historical atrocities, powerlessness, and hegemony, concentrating on the accomplishments of a select few prominent individuals while ignoring the actions of groups, decontextualizing women's issues and actions from those of their race and ethnicity, ignoring poverty, emphasizing factual information while downplaying other types of knowledge (such as values, attitudes, feelings, experiences, and ethology), and emphasizing factual information over other types of knowledge. By addressing contentious issues head-on, researching a diverse range of ethnic people and groups, contextualizing issues within race, class, ethnicity, and gender, and including many types of information and views, culturally responsive education reverses these tendencies.

3. Creating classroom environments that are supportive of learning for children of different ethnic backgrounds is a third essential step in preparing for culturally responsive teaching.
This starts by exhibiting culturally aware caring and establishing culturally sensitive learning environments. Teachers must be so invested in the academic success of their students of colour that they accept nothing less than an exceptional performance from them and put forth the necessary effort to make it happen (Foster, 1997; Kleinfeld, 1974, 1975).
Teachers must therefore comprehend that culturally responsive caring is action-oriented in that it sets high standards and employs creative techniques to guarantee academic success for students of different ethnic backgrounds.
Another crucial component of culturally responsive teaching is creating a sense of community among diversified students. It's crucial for instructors to understand how to create learning communities that are culturally relevant. Learning that is comprehensive or integrated should be prioritized. Culturally responsive education addresses them together, in contrast to the propensity of conventional teaching to separate distinct types of learning (cognitive, physical, and emotional). Academic knowledge and abilities are taught with personal, moral, social, political, cultural, and other information and skills. For instance, in addition to math, science, reading, critical thinking, and social activity, kids are taught about their cultural heritages and how to establish healthy ethnic identities. Along with learning about their own, students are also educated about the histories, customs, and contributions of other ethnic groups.

4. The fourth essential component of becoming ready for culturally responsive teaching is effective cross-cultural communication. The communication patterns of various ethnic groups reflect cultural values and influence learning behaviors, and culturally sensitive teacher preparation programs show how to adapt classroom interactions to better accommodate them.

5. The actual delivery of education to students from different ethnic backgrounds is the final preparation for culturally responsive teaching. Learning styles do have core structures, and specific patterns by ethnic groups are discernible (see, for instance, Shade, 1989).

The internal organization of ethnic learning styles consists of at least eight key components (which are set up differently for different groups): preferred content; methods for completing learning tasks; techniques for structuring and expressing ideas and thoughts; physical and social settings for task performance; structural arrangements of work, study, and performance space; and perceptual stimulation for receiving, processing, and demonstrating comprehension and competence; Because culture has a significant impact on the attitudes, values, and behaviors that students and instructors bring to the learning process, it must also play a significant role in determining how underachievement problems are addressed.

Conclusion:
Education has not been very culturally sensitive to students from different backgrounds. These students have instead been asked to separate themselves from their cultures and learn according to European American cultural norms.  They are put in double jeopardy because they must perform academically while adjusting to cultural norms that are foreign to them and frequently uncomfortable. Their academic performance would be significantly improved by getting rid of this second burden.

# data[].attributes.body
Co-teaching and teacher collaboration for the benefit of English language learners (ELLs) still raises many questions. The majority of questions concern routine instructional procedures (what to do and how to do it), while others concern research (what kind of evidence supports co-teaching for ELLs) and student results (how co-teaching affects student learning).
Some of the burning questions were:

How do you make the time to work together?

What co-teaching strategy works best?

What if my fellow educator is unwilling to work together?

I don't want to just be a classroom assistant, but how can I help the instructors if I'm not confident in Math and scientific material?

Who is in charge of grading?

How do we share the space in the classroom when I feel like I'm encroaching on another teacher's domain?

The case for school leaders to have a thorough understanding of collaborative practices is growing. For instance, McClure and Cahnmann-Taylor (2010) noted that a mandated co-teaching program ignored "real differences in practice and epistemology, often leaving co-teachers to make their way through these challenges on their own" (p. 111) without administrators' understanding of and support for teacher collaboration. Additionally, they came to the conclusion that the co-teachers who took part in the study "all resisted the notion that co-teaching is a simple and neutral endeavor and confirmed the need for sustained dialogue and support as they worked to collaboratively develop their co-teaching" (p. 122).

Dahlman and Hoffman (2012) even made the case that it's important to acknowledge how different each collaboration situation is and give it time to go through an organic transformation process. Co-teaching, they advised, "must be integrated into a school's philosophy and become part of the organization's culture and practice through genuine connections to existing practices" (p. 42) if it is to have long-lasting impacts. Co-teaching is therefore anticipated to develop differently in different schools and districts and also have a distinctive appearance in varied circumstances. Yet, we look for a shared understanding of what co-teaching for ELLs is supposed to include (Glenda Harrell, personal communication, July 27, 2014).

Although it started out as a solitary practice motivated by regional concerns to create a more inclusive program for ELLs, it is now a more widely accessible program alternative for ELLs both domestically and abroad (Honigsfeld & Dove, 2012a). Many professional associations, academics, and ESL teachers have recently reinterpreted the position of the ESL instructor. ESL instructors "should be recognized as experts, consultants, and trainers well versed in teaching rigorous academic content to ELLs" (Staehr Fenner, 2013, p.9).

Additionally, we noted that ESL teachers' "expertise is critical in analyzing the academic language demands of the content curriculum, developing and demonstrating lessons that successfully address academic language and content at the same time, scaffolding oral language and literacy development, and coaching general education teachers in the most effective, standards-based instruction for ELLs. ESL/ELD instructors need to be developed into leadership roles rather than feeling marginalized and alone, which is frequently the case (Honigsfeld & Dove, 2015, pp. 54–55).

# data[].attributes.body
Five "Elements"—areas of focus—included in the Invitational Education framework define what it means to approach oneself and others with an open mind. Intentionality, care, optimism, respect, and trust are these components; they are frequently referred to as I-CORT.

For some people, incorporating the I-CORT components into their teaching practices comes easy; utilizing one or more of these components in the classroom may even come automatically to some. Intentionality comes before the other components of Invitational Theory since the key to an invitational position is that it works best when it is deliberate. When asked to choose a teacher who has had the greatest influence on them, children frequently mention a teacher who showed them compassion, and care or had faith in them. Hattie (2012) asserts that a skilled educator fosters a trust-based learning environment in the classroom.

According to Carol Dweck's research on growth mindset, an experienced teacher thinks intelligence can be altered rather than fixed (Dweck 2006). High degrees of optimism and respect are necessary for this attitude towards other people. In general, the reach of experienced teachers' influence extends beyond raising test scores (Hattie 2012).

Here are some strategies I learned and "spaces" I try building to accommodate various levels of feedback:
Level 1: Task
• Encouraging students to check their answers at the back of their textbooks to determine whether they are correct or incorrect.
• Tying certain questions or comprehensions to the success criteria that are displayed in the classroom, such as "Are you able to do this yet?"

Level 2: Process
• Explicit teaching model when appropriate, using the "I do, we do, you do" method to teach processes while gradually granting independence to make mistakes and learn from them.
• Homework club and my availability via email give students access to me when they have questions about questions they "got wrong" while working through practice questions.

Level 3: Self-regulation
• As you can see from the examples above, some of the feedback given (and the manner in which feedback is offered for the previous two levels) contains a degree of self-regulation.
• The use of a growth mindset as a method of managing challenges is a form of metacognition (thinking about thinking), which has been shown to have an effect size of 0.69 in Visible Learning. This allows students to regulate their approach to challenges.
• Students are coached to use a growth mindset from the beginning of the year. This allows them to self-regulate emotionally as well as when approaching technical problems that they need to overcome.
• Through the use of a growth mindset as a metacognitive method, the attitudes and behaviors of our classes are beginning to shift in the direction stated in 10 Mindframes, becoming "very good at seeking and using feedback."

# data[].attributes.body
4c. Candidates demonstrate knowledge of how to select research-based accommodations appropriate to ELLs for standardized assessments.

# data[].attributes.body
2a. Candidates demonstrate knowledge of how dynamic academic, personal, familial, cultural, and social contexts – including sociopolitical factors – impact the education of ELLs.

# data[].attributes.body
5d. Candidates engage in collaborative teaching to apply and hone their teaching of ELs and
professional practice using self-reflection.

# data[].attributes.body
1c. Candidates demonstrate knowledge of language processes (e.g., interlanguage, translanguaging, language progressions, social and academic language, and individual variables) to facilitate and monitor ELs’ language learning in English.
3c. Candidates adjust instructional decisions after critical reflection on individual ELLs’ learning outcomes in both language and content.

# data[].attributes.headline
Week 8 - Cornell Notes on Standardised Assessment 

# data[].attributes.subject
Week 8 - Cornell Notes on Standardised Assessment 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Valar - Cornell Notes (Standardized Assessment) 

# data[].attributes.headline
Week 5 - Giving Feedback To Multilingual Learners

# data[].attributes.subject
Week 5 - Giving Feedback To Multilingual Learners