Educational Evaluations in Culturally Diverse

¶ … Educational Evaluations in Culturally Diverse U.S. Schools Today

An Investigation of the Effectiveness of Standardized Evaluations in Culturally Diverse U.S. Schools Today

Today, the primary goal of education in the U.S. is an education that fosters the intellectual, social and personal development of virtually all students to their highest potential. In order to obtain this goal in a diverse classroom environment, a culturally sensitive teacher recognizes that cultural conventions inform their own approach to teaching, as well as to inform the student's approach to learning. Teaching diverse cultures is growing in the U.S. And is an important learning process of all students in all cultures. Cultural is central to learning; in fact, not only does culture shape the thinking process, it also defines modes of communicating and receiving information. A diverse classroom clearly calls for a teaching style that takes these differences into account. For example Marcus (1999) points out that, "A pedagodgy that ignores these fundamental differences gives an unfair advantage to students from the 'mainstream,' while alienating those with diverse backgrounds" (p. 1). The thesis of this study is that in years past, U.S. schools did not have to consider teaching to many culturally diverse students; however, in today's schools, this has become a major concern for educators. American educators today are accommodating culturally diverse students to the best their ability; however, evaluations still do not accommodate culturally diverse students. Testing and evaluations are standardized and are not accurately reflective of the highest potential of culturally diverse students. Therefore, identifying the salient issues involved in providing culturally sensitive curricula has assumed a new urgency today. To this end, this paper provides a review of the scholarly and peer-reviewed literature, followed by a discussion of the findings, and a summary of the research and relevant recommendations in the conclusion.

Review of the Literature

Background and overview.

There are a number of significant changes sweeping across the American landscape that are having profound implications for educators. In spite of some recent improvements, many members of racial and ethnic minorities continue to experience higher rates of unemployment and are more likely to be underemployed than their whites counterparts; as with older adults, this demographic group is also continuing to grow in terms of their percentage of the population (Doverspike, Mckay, Shultz, Taylor, 2000). According to a report from the National Center for Education Statistics (2000, cited in Growe et al., 2002), minority students now comprise more than 37% of the total American public school population in 1998, an increase of 15% since 1972. Clearly, the continuing rise of minority students means that the educational system must be prepared to meet the learning needs of a culturally diverse population (Growe, Henry, Perry & Schmersahl, 2002).

The same processes that are taking place in the United States, though, are at play all over the world. For example, in his book, Beyond the National Curriculum: Curricular Centralism and Cultural Diversity in Europe and the U.S.A., David Coulby (2000) reports that there is an enormous change taking place in the global economy; at once, it is becoming more internationalized and more centered on knowledge, a shift that has been characterized by one observer as: "At the end of the twentieth century, we are living through one of these rare intervals in history. An interval characterised by the transformation of our 'material culture' by the works of a new technological paradigm organised around information technologies" (Castells, 1996, p. 29, cited in Coulby, 2000, p. 60). Whenever there are changes in the economy, it is reasonable to expect that there will be corresponding changes in society and education, but many critics of standardized testing suggest that America's schools are failing to maintain pace with the changes that are taking place in the larger society in which they exist (Artiles, Higareda, Rueda & Salazar, 2005), and these issues are discussed further below.

The Bane of Standardized Testing in a Culturally Diverse Nation.

In the 20th century, two models of school practice have dominated American educational theory; each of these theories was based on somewhat different goals and conceptions of the teaching and learning process. The first, termed the "cultural transmission" approach, places emphasis on socializing young students into a uniform pattern and culture; this approach has been associated with traditional school policies and practices and emphasizes standardized and regimented curricula. The second educational approach has been closely identified with progressive education and emphasizes the individual and personal nature of education and proposes diversity in goals and methods (Bowman, 1994). Both of these educational models have been applied to the education of poor and minority students, students most frequently regarded as being at risk of failure.

These efforts have not been without purpose or effect, certainly. The performance differences between racial and ethnic groups on standardized tests, including the SAT (from the Educational Testing Service) and its counterpart, the ACT (from ACT, Inc.) have been analyzed extensively both in academic journals and in the popular press. According to Zwick (1999), "Researchers, social theorists, and politicians have offered an array of reasons for these score differences, ranging from socioeconomic, cultural, linguistic, and genetic factors to test bias" (p. 320).

The controversy, though, has not been restricted to the reasons for the differences in performance because even the issue of determining which groups are advantaged by standardized tests is less straightforward than it first appears (Zwick, 1999). According to this author:

In the popular press, the existence of bias in admissions tests is typically assumed to be demonstrated by the persistent pattern of differences between racial groups in average test scores. The idea that score differences are sufficient evidence to establish bias is reflected in the original language of the California standardized testing legislation that is currently under consideration. According to the initial version of the bill, "a test discriminates . . . If there is a statistically significant difference in the outcome on test performance when test subjects are compared on the basis of gender, ethnicity, race, or economic status. (Zwick, 1999, p. 320).

Another example of the view that score differences are sufficient evidence for test bias have been posted on a Web site provided by Time and the Princeton Review, a test preparation company; according to one post, "Studies show persistent . . . race bias in both the SAT and the ACT. . . . The SAT favors white males, who tend to score better than all other groups except Asian-American males" (cited in Zwick, p. 320). Complicating matters, though, is the manner in which the results of these standardized tests are used. For example, when academic researchers analyze the accuracy of the SAT relative to ethnicity, they do not generally rely on the average scores achieved by each ethnic group; rather, researchers typically examine another aspect of the test results concerning how well these tests predict college grades for each group. Researchers have determined that using the SAT to predict first-year college grade-point averages (GPAs) results in a more positive prediction for black and Latino test-takers than is warranted by their actual performance; in other words, the predicted grades tend to exceed the actual grades achieved by these groups (Zwick, 1999).

Although the SAT tests, and to some extent the ACT as well, have been subjected to a growing amount of criticism in recent years concerning the selectivity of the test-taking population involved, shifts in measurement techniques over time, and so on, other tests have also shown significant declines in academic achievement, suggesting that the qualitative test performance results provided by the SAT may be more accurate than some observers have suggested. Some insights into recent trends can be discerned from Figures 1 and 2 below which reflect the performance of 17-year-old students on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).

As can be clearly seen from these figures, academic performance by minority students has declined in recent years, with only moderate gains being enjoyed by Latino students and otherwise flat performance by whites; African-American students, though, continue to experience a serious drop in test scores in all measures. Burtless points out that these tests are taken by a representative sample of the school population and are therefore not subject to the same constraints as the SAT; however, Burtless also points out that tests from other countries have provided similar results, with American students consistently achieving lower scores compared to students in a wide range of countries and failing to catch up with those students over time (Burtless, 1996).

Figure 1. Reading Achievement of Seventeen-Year-olds on the National Assessment of Educational Progress.by Race and Ethnicity, 1971-90.

Source: National Center for Education Statistics (1995) cited in Burtless, 1996, p. 50.

Figure 2. Science Achievement of Seventeen-Year-olds on the National Assessment of Educational Progress by Race and Ethnicity, Selected Years, 1970-96.

Source: National Center for Education Statistics (1995) cited in Burtless, 1996, p. 49.

Some proponents of standardization have argued that, in an egalitarian society, all students should have the same educational opportunities, and this goal is best accomplished through uniformity across the board; for example, in teacher preparation, in curricula, and in expectations for student achievement. This view is reflected in increasing calls for financial equity among schools, desegregation, mainstreaming, and standardized testing for teachers and students alike; it has been maintained that by providing the same education to all students, schools can equalize social opportunity (Bowman, 1994).

This latter position is typically followed up with the use of a particular curriculum designed to support the approach. In this regard, Bowman suggests that, "Knowledge is thought to exist in the collected wisdom of a canon, and education is the transferral of established wisdom to the learner" (p. 218). Unfortunately, when educators attempt to impose a "one-size-fits-all" curriculum on a diverse study body, there are bound to be problems -- particularly for those students who are already marginalized through language and other socioeconomic constraints.

Furthermore, in many ways, the public schools are unique in that they have been assigned the responsibility of communicating what American society regards as important values and instilling these in the next generation of workers -- and taxpayers. For example, in his book, Cultural Diversity in the United States, Naylor (1997) points out that:

Education transmits culture from generation to generation. If it is anything, culture is ever-changing. Sometimes fast, sometimes slow, but always changing. Cultures and their associated discourses and literacies change as a result of their own internal dynamics and in relation to other cultures. Cultural change is an inevitable, unavoidable historical progression. Cultures change as shared ideas, values, attitudes, and behaviors are altered as a consequence of interaction among members of a culture and between members of different cultures. The question then becomes: How can the educators grab hold of this malleable and ever-changing phenomenon of culture so that they can pass it on to the next generation? (p. 322)

According to Mcneil, "Standardization reduces the quality and quantity of what is taught and learned in schools. This immediate negative effect of standardization is the overwhelming finding of a study of schools where the imposition of standardized controls reduced the scope and quality of course content, diminished the role of teachers, and distanced students from active learning" (p. 3). In fact, the long-term effects of standardization have been shown to be even more severe over the long-term, where standardization creates inequities, it simply further widens the already growing gap between the quality of education for poor and minority youth and that of more privileged students in American classrooms (Mcneil, 2000). To the extent that these standardized testing regimens are allowed to remain in place in the extent to which this gap will continue to grow in the future. According to Mcneil:

The discriminatory effects of standardization are immediately evident in the reduction in both the quality and quantity of educational content for students who have historically scored low on standardized assessments. Over time, the longer standardized controls are in place, the wider the gap becomes as the system of testing and test preparation comes to substitute in minority schools for the curriculum available to more privileged students. (2000, p. 3).

Finally, while the problems associated with standardized testing have been shown to be complex and pervasive in American classrooms, the problem is further exacerbated by the fact that studies have shown time and again that cultural diversity is a sensitive topic in the United States, and many students may be hesitant to participate in class discussions or exercises in fear of offending one of their peers (Viramontez & Harrison, 2002). Therefore, "It is essential for educators to understand the nature of the problems faced by children at risk of school failure and to design educational solutions that take into account the importance of the social context in which learning takes place" (Bowman, 1994, p. 218). These issues are discussed further below.

The Importance of Identifying Effective Culturally Sensitive Educational Evaluations.

Clearly, there are a wide range of challenges facing both administrators and educators alike in delivering culturally sensitive educational services in the American classroom today. First of all, pedagogical choices are required in order to educate a culturally diverse student body. According to Naylor (1997):

Whether non-English speaking students should be taught in English or in their native language is a legitimate pedagogical question. But the way we deal with diversity in the classroom goes well beyond this. The language of use and the goal of language training is a part of the larger question of the dominant cultures expectations of the assimilating student. (p. 321)

These issues are becoming increasingly important for both American educators and society as well because of the need to remain competitive in a globalized economy that is assuming an international flavor more and more. To achieve this level of competitiveness, though, requires a workforce that is adequately educated. In this regard, Bowman points out that:

One of the inescapable requirements for the future well-being of the United States is a highly educated workforce. Our new national imperative, therefore, is to educate all children to the highest possible level. At present, schools are not successfully educating many of our students. Children from low-income families and those from some minority groups -- primarily African-Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans, and some Asians -- have higher rates of dropping out, retention in grade, and special education placements than do other children. (p. 219).

If these trends in educational achievement are not reversed, these disadvantaged students will not acquire the skills or background they will need in the future to secure gainful employment or achieve full participation in the economic and civic life of the nation. Bowman suggests that more importantly, the inequality that results from differences in educational achievement among these students is likely to make the social stability of the country increasingly questionable.

There are some distinct and important differences, though, in the respective responsibilities of administrators compared to those of classroom teachers which are discussed further below.

Administrators. Providing a culturally sensitive curriculum is the strict responsibility of the school administrator (Growe et al., 2002). Troutman (1998) maintains that educational administrators employ the dimensions of multicultural education as guidelines for the implementation of a cultural diversity program. The first dimension is content integration. It involves the inclusion of "examples and content from a variety of cultures and groups to illustrate key concepts, principles, generalizations, and theories in their subject areas or disciplines" (Troutman, 1998, p. 10). The role of school administrators is to motivate classroom teachers to incorporate racial and cultural content into the entire curriculum (Growe et al., 2002).

The second dimension is the knowledge construction; this is a process that is comprised of "methods, activities, and questions teachers use to help students understand, investigate, and determine cultural assumptions, frames of reference, perspective, and bias that influence the ways in which knowledge is constructed" (Growe et al., 2002, p. 206). In this regard, educational administrators must ensure that teachers assist their students in understanding how knowledge is constructed and how it is affected by race, culture, and social position (Troutman, 1998).

Those initiatives that are intended to reduce and eliminate prejudice should "describe the characteristics of students' racial attitudes and values"; for this purpose, educators should develop and implement cultural diversity programs that "promote positive interactions and cooperative learning activities" (Troutman, 1998, pp. 13-14). Therefore, an equitable pedagogy can be achieved in American classrooms when educators use "instructional techniques that promote cooperation and include the learning and cultural styles of diverse groups"; in addition, administrators must ensure that teachers accommodate the learning styles of a diverse student population (Growe et al., 2002).

The final dimension of multicultural education is implemented by generating a common or shared school culture, which draws on the ethos of students; this step involves developing an educational environment ensuring that all students will enjoy an equal education. The educational administrator's role is to evaluate "tracking and grouping practices, labeling practices, sports participation, ethnic tuff, and gifted programs" in order to provide an overall school community that promotes equality and appreciation of diversity among students (Growe et al., 2002).

A concomitant element in multicultural development is the awareness stage; this level of awareness is derived from the race and culture of others, but it is also developed in a manner that may tend to comprise a general culture. At the acceptance level, educators must acknowledge the origins of their own ethnocentric views and attain impartiality in their perception of other cultures. Still another stage in multicultural development is affirmation. According to these authors, "People, at this stage, use the skill learned in the previous stage and frequently facilitate and act as a liaison between cultures. They are now able to affirm the cultures of others (Growe et al., 2002, p. 207).

Administrators can determine whether a school's multicultural education program is effective through certain indicators. One such indicator is that a faculty and staff possess knowledge and activity that are truly reflective of the diverse population of the students. "It is important for the student to come in contact with educators who share their culture," Growe and his colleagues advise. "The administrator should strive to hire a multicultural staff and faculty. It is expected of the school administrator to be an example of knowledge and appreciation of others by valuing the cultural diversity of the entire school community, which includes the students and their families" (p. 207). This approach is congruent with the findings of a study by Flippin, Lopez-Reyna, Tyler and Yzquierdo (2004) who report that, "The intense push to hire teachers from diverse backgrounds is driven by the belief that diversity is important. There are three common justifications for diversifying the nation's teachers. The first is based on issues of equity and social justice" (p. 22).

Because the nation's schools represent a reflection of the larger society in which they exist, classrooms should also reflect the general composition of society. According to Flippin and her associates, "American society is diverse and public school students are diverse, and the teaching force should reflect this diversity. Particular attempts should be made to include groups that have historically been marginalized or excluded" (p. 22). In fact, Dee (2001) points out that it is now conventional wisdom in education that students from marginalized groups will tend to achieve more academic success when they are paired with teachers who match their race or ethnicity (Flippin et al., 2004).

Teachers and educational support staff. When the foregoing level of diversity has been achieved among the educators, it is possible for educational leaders, together with their staff and faculty, to provide students with successful cultural diversity educational experiences. In their recent book, Preparing Mathematics and Science Teachers for Diverse Classrooms: Promising Strategies for Transformative Pedagogy, Kitchen and Rodriguez (2005) point out that, "Prospective teachers may purposely refuse to teach for diversity and understanding for a variety of reasons, or they may simply avoid using more inclusive, multicultural, and student-centered approaches because they feel that they lack confidence and/or skills" (p. 2). The need for identifying more effective ways to prepare teachers to teach for diversity and understanding is even more urgent when the pervasive educational inequalities in the nation's schools are taken into account. "These inequalities continue to prevent many traditionally underrepresented students from fully participating and finding academic success in science and mathematics classrooms" (Kitchen & Rodriguez, 2005, p. 3). These are serious challenges for teachers and policymakers alike, but educators remain on the frontlines of the battle, so to speak. Notwithstanding the numerous obligations and responsibilities of teachers in the American classroom today, they are also faced with the challenges inherent in providing equitable educational opportunities for an increasingly diverse student body. According to Breitborde (1993), educators "should teach children about the contributions and concerns of all cultures and encourage them to think, explore and take risks. In other words, 'multicultural education' begins with the experience of the students" (p. 224).

Not surprisingly, then, in recent years, there has been a clear trend among national educational organizations to seek improved methods of delivering educational services in a culturally sensitive fashion. For example, today, national standards and professional organizations in science and mathematics require that teachers be prepared to teach in more culturally sensitive and responsive ways (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM], 1989, 2000; National Research Council [NRC], 1996). Likewise, the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) requires teacher education programs to include courses on multicultural education and/or provide activities and experiences designed to improve the prospective educators' teaching abilities and dispositions to work with a culturally diverse student body. According to Sleeter (2001, cited in Kitchen and Rodriguez), half of the states and the District of Columbia now require prospective teachers to complete multicultural education requirements (usually in the form of a university course) before certification.

Furthermore, national teacher organizations such as the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) have promulgated specific position statements that clearly show the importance of preparing teachers to teach for diversity. For instance, a primary goal of the NSTA is to ensure that ethnically diverse children have "access to quality science education experiences that enhance success and provide the knowledge and opportunities required for them to become successful participants in our democratic society" (NSTA, 2000). Likewise, in their essay, "Assessing Cross-Cultural Sensitivity Awareness: A Basis for Curriculum Change," Jackson and Wasson (2002) report that, "The critical role of colleges and universities in adapting their instructional models and course content to better prepare educators to handle increasing diversity in classroom settings must be recognized. Institutions must continually reassess their educational role in the context of a pluralist society" (p. 265).

More recently, the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act has stipulated that the gap in student achievement in the United States must be eliminated, and that schools must make adequate annual progress toward this goal. The NCLB also mandates that schools that fail to make adequate progress will be put in either the "identified for improvement category," or be reorganized under an improvement plan; such reorganizations can ultimately lead to a school's being reopened under a charter configuration with the concomitant termination of all responsible educators (Kitchen & Rodriguez, 2005).

Cochran-Smith (2005) report that there are profound implications for minority students as a consequence of the NCLB. Today, as a direct consequence of the NCLB, all schools in the United States must routinely demonstrate "adequate yearly progress" (AYP) in reaching accountability goals at the school level; however, schools must also achieve these results for all subgroups of students. Furthermore, there are specific AYP target goals for various subgroups of students such as special education students, English language learners, and minorities; each of these subgroups must succeed in having a minimum of 95% of students take the test and each of which must make its annual target goal toward achieving 100% proficiency. "On its face," Cochran-Smith notes, "the requirement that schools disaggregate and publicize achievement data for minority and other groups of students promises new attention to the inequities in quality of education provided for poor, immigrant, and minority students, and many civil rights group applaud this" (p. 100). According to Naylor (1997), there have been a number of rationales and initiatives advanced over the years for an educational system that recognize and provide for cultural diversity in the classroom. These include: 1) supporting the identity formation of students, 2) recognizing the diversity of American ethnic groups and providing them with equal support in the curriculum, and 3) teaching an accurate culture history of America (Naylor, 1997).

In reality, however, there is a trend toward a "diversity penalty" for these public schools as the result of the disproportionate numbers of students being labeled as requiring improvement of those schools with the greatest diversity. Unfortunately, this same effect has resulted in the largest number of AYP targets that must be achieved (Cochran-Smith, 2005). Statistics from the U.S. Department of Education in 1998 showed that black students accounted for 21% of all students in special education courses in the United States; these African-American students, though, represented only 16.8% of the American public school population (Mccray, Neal, Webb-Johnson, 2001).

Past studies have also clearly shown that overidentification of these students is related to specific indicators such as ethnicity, poverty, inappropriate assessment techniques used by schools, and teacher misperceptions of minority students (Mccray et al., 2001). In this regard, Martin (2000) reports that the studies of academic achievement and persistence among minority students have frequently relied on the analysis and presentation of aggregated test-taking data, with an insufficient amount of attention being given to the unique individuals in these studies. This issue is also taken up by Thompson (2002) who points out that:

During the last two years, I have been inundated with calls for help from teachers, administrators, school district officials, and parents. Most of the parents have been African-Americans. The common theme running through our conversations has been 'What can I do to improve the way that my child is treated by teachers and administrators at school?' The common theme from educators is 'What can be done to improve achievement levels of minority children, particularly African-Americans?' The quietest, yet strongest, cries for help, however, have come either directly from African-American students themselves or indirectly from others who spoke on their behalf. (p. xiii)

Because resources are by definition scarce, some observers may question where the funds for such initiatives can be found. Here again, while it is the primary responsibility of the classroom teacher to deliver ethnically sensitive educational services, it is the sole responsibility of the administrator to obtain the finances required for these programs. "A school-wide year-long program should be reflected in the whole learning environment. The school administrator should be the chief supporter of the multicultural education program and be receptive to encouraging all families to share their opinions and comments" (Growe et al., 2002, p. 207). When this has been achieved, student diversity is accepted and respected rather than "remediated or eliminated"; furthermore, administrators must remain vigilant in assessing the staff and faculty's attempts to institute an effective multicultural education program in a constructive manner. Finally, administrators are responsible for coordinating the staff and faculty in achieving a mutual objective of acknowledging and building upon cultural diversity (Troutman, 1998, p. 16).

Because school administrators are responsible for assuring that the school incorporates a multicultural approach to reaching and teaching all children, teachers must be made aware of the approaches to multicultural education as a way of permeating the curriculum and instructional strategies used in the school. Banks (1994) provided a model that describes the levels of integration of critical pedagogy that can be used in curriculum reform efforts intended to promote cultural diversity appreciation in the classroom.

The approaches to multicultural curriculum reform in teaching include:

1.

The Contributions Approach (Level One) in which the focus is on heroes, holidays, and discrete cultural elements.

2.

The Additive Approach (Level Two) is content, concepts, themes and perspectives that are added to the curriculum without changing the structure.

3.

The Transformational Approach (Level Three) focuses on the structure of the curriculum changing to enable students to view concepts, issues, events, and themes from the perspective of diverse ethnic and cultural groups; and,

4.

Finally, the Social Action Approach (Level Four) in which students made decisions on important social issues and take action to help solve them (Banks, 1994).

Many classroom management techniques that work with American middle-class students may be less effective or frequently ineffective when used with students who have been raised by adults from other cultures (Tauber, 1999). In order to overcome the constraints inherent in attempting to deliver culturally sensitive educational services in a multicultural classroom, teachers require cultural sensitivity, cultural literacy and, in some instances, attitudinal / behavioral change. According to Tauber:

To be culturally sensitive is to be aware of the ways in which cultures differ and the effects of these differences. Among these effects are the general problems culturally diverse students experience in school because of their cultural differences, how cultural differences may cause students to behave in ways that are acceptable in their cultures but not in school, and how these differences may lead students to react in unanticipated ways to behavior management techniques. (p. 192).

In order to achieve this level of cultural literacy, though, requires a comprehensive knowledge of the cultural characteristics of specific ethnic and socioeconomic groups. "Being sensitive to cultural differences in general is not sufficient," Tauber cautions (p. 193). In order to modify their classroom management techniques to the specific cultural characteristics of their students, teachers must also acquire an in-depth knowledge of the specific cultures that are represented in their classes.

According to Tauber, "This knowledge is not merely about holidays, food, dances, music, and so forth. It includes values, behavioral norms, acceptable and effective reinforcements, patterns of interpersonal relationships, and so on" (p. 193). The following characteristics are representative, but not exhaustive, of those required by teachers today when considering which classroom management techniques to use with students from different ethnic or socioeconomic backgrounds.

1.

Whether they work and learn better individually or in groups;

2.

Whether they think their individual desires and goals are most important or that they should usually submit to the will and welfare of the group;

3.

Whether they function better under cooperative or competitive situations;

4.

Whether they are indifferent or responsive to praise and criticism from others;

5.

Whether they respond better to impersonal rewards like toys, candy, time off, or personal rewards such as praise, smiles, and pats on the back;

6.

Whether they are present- or future-time oriented; and,

7.

Whether they prefer formal or informal relationships with adults (Tauber, 1999, p. 193).

While these may appear to be tall orders for a busy teacher, the research shows that making the effort to learn about the culture of the students represented in the classroom is time well spent. In this regard, Tauber points out that cultural literacy can help teachers make more efficient use of their time by avoiding many types of classroom management problems that might crop up otherwise. "Uninformed teachers may misunderstand students' behavior and try to solve problems that do not exist," he says. "For example, they may think that students brought up to not be assertive or to volunteer their opinions unless encouraged to do so by adults are insecure or lacking in self-confidence and try to remediate their 'problems'" (Tauber, 1999, p. 193). In addition, teachers may fail to recognize real problems if they are not culturally attuned. "Teachers who are not tuned in to the nonverbal ways students from different cultures communicate may miss a request for help or a signal of distress from students who communicate their needs in subtle and indirect ways. And they may use culturally ineffective techniques to deal with problems" (Tauber, 1999, p. 193).