Today’s post continues a yearlong series on the common mistakes made in the name of culturally responsive teaching.

‘Maintaining High Expectations’

Andrea Castellano serves as an elementary teacher in New York City’s public school system. She also supports teachers as an instructional coach and project-based-learning curriculum writer and staff developer:

Teachers want the best for their students. We take responsibility for our role in our students’ academic, personal, and social development. We read, attend workshops and webinars on all kinds of pedagogies, and experiment with different instructional approaches. We know students learn better in classrooms where they feel valued and included. It’s time to examine our current practices and commit to deepening our commitment to teaching in ways that humanize, uplift, and sustain.

It’s been almost 30 years since Gloria Ladson-Billings, Geneva Gay, and Django Paris gave us, respectively, culturally relevant, culturally responsive, and culturally sustaining teaching. (More on asset-based pedagogies here.) Since then, educators have recognized but consistently struggled to adopt their teaching practice to align with the more transformative aspects of these pedagogies.

We’ve diversified our classroom libraries, acknowledged cultural holidays, become more adept at discussing issues relating to identity, race, and culture, and encouraged students to make connections between the content and the real world. These are all important steps. But they’re just the beginning.

Culturally responsive and sustaining education (CRSE) is an inclusive approach to instruction that manifests itself in both theory and praxis, making systems more equitable, content more expansive, and instructional methodologies more effective to address the needs of all learners.

It’s also, as the National Association of Elementary School Principals states, about “the right of every child to access fair and equitable educational opportunities.” Differentiated instruction in the form of CRSE is the cornerstone of a pedagogical approach that centers students, their preferences, abilities, and experiences and positions student knowledge and contributions as valid and valuable parts of the curriculum. In short, it’s about giving students what they need to learn and grow.

Though there are brilliant authors and educators regularly writing and speaking on this topic, many teachers still struggle to understand how CRSE aligns with their current practice, or even accept that it can, while others are willing but lack the time, resources, or ability to modify their assigned curricula in a meaningful way.

One significant barrier is knowing where and how to start. Though most of us have attended professional learning sessions on the topic, they tend to dwell in the theoretical, failing to address the reality of the demands of our specific curricula.

And while expecting change without developing a solid understanding of the philosophical shifts is unsustainable and yields superficial results, explaining over and over what culturally responsive teaching is without getting into the specifics of what it looks like in the classroom ensures the work is never actually started.

Naturally, teachers should be examining their practice and interrogating their own biases. In a profession where 79 percent of teachers are white, diversity is often framed as “other” while white, English-speaking Anglo culture is positioned as the status quo. This is part of the work, and its importance should not be diminished. But at some point, we need to shift the focus to our students and start to make concrete choices that improve and extend the provided curriculum for the benefit of our students.

It starts with anticipating the pitfalls of culturally responsive teaching and identity. The first and foremost is the reduction of culture to concrete or visible markers such as cultural holidays, food, flags, and clothing. Considering students’ cultural identities, knowledge, and norms while planning helps teachers make content more meaningful and memorable, but knowing a few basic facts about a student’s background does not mean we know the student.

While we do want to draw upon students’ backgrounds for connections, we can’t ignore how language, perspectives, beliefs, and value systems inform our respective cultural identities. Nor do we want to overlook or erase transcultural identities at the intersection of queer, disabled, religious, racial, and linguistic identities.

And for teachers from outside the culture, it’s especially important to not just include but to center the voices and perspectives of people within to avoid relying on or reinforcing harmful stereotypes. Our students are not just one thing, and our perceptions of them must be as nuanced and multifaceted as they are.

The beauty of CRSE is that there is not just one way to practice it. It can show up in big and small ways. CRSE is modifying classroom systems and structures to be more inclusive. That can look like flexible seating and student-driven restroom and water breaks.

It’s about how and when we enforce discipline policies and what tools are in place or needed to accommodate students’ specific needs. But it also includes making information available to families who speak languages other than English or making an extra effort to support low-income families and those in temporary housing. It’s about investing in the community, being present for events, and being politically engaged.

Educators who promote these practices in theory should be building pathways for these principles to be put into practice. In the absence of a culturally responsive curriculum, the hidden curriculum is key. CRSE is how we establish a community of learners, how we position students as holders of knowledge, and how our students feel when they make a mistake.

It’s about maintaining high expectations for all while still remaining flexible and giving grace where needed. It’s about how we structure lessons to allow for information to be passed between students instead of strictly top-down instruction. It’s about building multiple entry points, collaboration, and discussion into each lesson. It’s about honoring multiple forms of literacy, affirming languaging practices, and redefining what constitutes “correct” or “academic” language.

It’s about teaching in ways that reflect the cultural norms of the students in the room and crafting school policies that uplift and uphold community values, needs, and assets. The result of these efforts are increased student engagement, retention, and motivation as well as an improved sense of belonging and bridge-building between home and school for the long-term benefit of the child.

But it’s more than that.

Ladson-Billings defined culturally relevant teaching as a “pedagogy of opposition … specifically committed to collective, not merely individual, empowerment.”

In 1995, she wrote, “Not only must teachers encourage academic success and cultural competence, they must help students to recognize, understand, and critique current social inequities.”

We should understand that the work we do in our classrooms and schools is part of something bigger than us and that by pouring into our students with the love and commitment we do, by extension, contributes to the betterment of society as a whole. If we want the best for our students, this is what we will do.

‘Prioritize Educational Justice’

Erica Buchanan-Rivera is an educational consultant and DEI project specialist at the College of Education at Butler University. She has served as a teacher, principal of an international magnet school, director of curriculum and adjunct professor, and is the author of Identity Affirming Classrooms: Spaces that Center Humanity:

The ruling of Brown v. Board of Education (1954) did not automatically yield to the contextualization of race in curricula or equitable, affirming environments for Black children. Frameworks for culturally responsive teaching were developed decades later to nurture the potential and genius of students of color, who are often undervalued in educational settings.

As an educational consultant and former district-level administrator, I have devoted my career to the work of growing culturally responsive practitioners. Through professional learning communities, walk-throughs, and collegial discussions, I have noted vast interpretations and misconceptions of culturally responsive teaching in school spaces.

Some interpretations equate culturally responsive teaching to gestures or social interactions that build connections, while others emphasize pedagogical work. Unfortunately, there are also practices labeled as “culturally responsive” that are far removed from the research and scholarship of experts. The following aspects of culturally responsive teaching need to be considered to avoid missteps:

1. Lean on scholarship:

As educators, we are tasked to put research into practice. Therefore, it is critical to ground ourselves in knowledge and research related to culturally responsive teaching. Ladson-Billings introduced the framework of culturally relevant pedagogy in the 1990s, which discussed asset-based teaching approaches, cultural competency or being fluent in one’s culture, and social-justice advocacy among youth.

Culturally responsive teaching was coined by Gay, who also emphasized environments of high expectations and using students’ ways of being (e.g., communication, values, stories, etc.) as pedagogical tools. Both Black women scholars have provided specific language, strategies, and historical context surrounding the implementation of culturally responsive practices.

There are many other scholars who uplift or build upon the work of being culturally responsive (e.g., Paris, Zaretta Hammond, etc.), and we need to fuel our practices with research. If you have a strong knowledge base of scholarship, you can avoid defining culturally responsive teaching in ways that misconstrue its meaning.

Culturally responsive teaching is not solely a fist bump or the incorporation of Gen Z lingo into the classroom but is rather the cultivation of self-love, belonging, and community through intentional practices that honor the full humanity of children, particularly students of color. Instead of labeling all practices that make you feel good as “culturally responsive,” ask yourself if your pedagogy aligns with the research of scholars.

2. Mirror Work:

Culturally responsive teaching is not solely about the technicalities of instruction but also reflects a way of being. A strategy or instructional lesson is only as good as its implementer. If you uphold deficit ideologies about the identities of certain children or racialized groups, your approach to culturally responsive teaching is already coated with low expectations and flawed.

In my book, Identity Affirming Classrooms: Spaces that Center Humanity, I discuss the concept of “mirror work” and how the interrogation of self (e.g., ideologies about humanity) should be coupled with culturally responsive practices. We cannot be culturally responsive and believe that certain children hold less value or are not capable. It is necessary to understand the shaping of ourselves and how we show up for children who have different contextual experiences from our own. Mirror work is an ongoing practice and a critical foundation for culturally responsive teaching that is often neglected.

3. Changing Systems and Sustaining Communities:

Culture references the intersections of our humanity, including customs, language, beliefs, and values of social, racial, and ethnic groups. Being responsive involves the work of not only acknowledging the cultural identities and histories of racialized groups but recognizing the systems or practices that force students to shed parts of their being.

Culturally responsive teaching calls for us to prioritize educational justice and the conditions students need to feel a sense of belonging. We call out systems of harm and empower students to sustain and care for their communities. Our affirmations and personal interactions with students are important, yet the work of changing systems and conditions for just outcomes needs to be elevated.

Thanks to Andrea and Erica for contributing their thoughts!

Today’s post answered this question:

What do you think are the most common things teachers get wrong about culturally responsive teaching?

Part One in this series featured Zaretta Hammond.

In Part Two, Françoise Thenoux, Jehan Hakim, and Courtney Rose contributed their responses.

In Part Three, Crystal M. Watson, Tiffani Maher, Kristi Mirich-Glenwright, and Keisha Rembert shared their comments.

In Part Four, Gholdy Muhammad, Shondel Nero, and Denita Harris provided their commentaries.

Consider contributing a question to be answered in a future post. You can send one to me at lferlazzo@epe.org. When you send it in, let me know if I can use your real name if it’s selected or if you’d prefer remaining anonymous and have a pseudonym in mind.

You can also contact me on Twitter at @Larryferlazzo.

Just a reminder; you can subscribe and receive updates from this blog via email. And if you missed any of the highlights from the first 12 years of this blog, you can see a categorized list here.