Chat with us, powered by LiveChat EDCI9990 GS Significance of Culturally Responsive Pedagogy in Mathematics | acewriters

Purpose of the study: Explore the experiences of teachers when implementing culturally responsive classroom practices. This study will be a narrative inquiry.You are writing about why there is a need to study teachers and ways they implement culturally responsive practices.You are writing about why it is important to study the experiences of teachers. I have attached some articles that will be heavily referenced in the larger paper. Please cite any works referenced in these documents if you can.Research may be required, so please do not accept this question if you are not familiar with culturally relevant/responsive pedagogy in education in the United States.



Unformatted Attachment Preview

Culturally Relevant Pedagogy 20 Years Later:
Progress or Pontificating? What Have We
Learned, and Where Do We Go?
University of California, Los Angeles
Chapman University
Background/Context: In this paper, the authors discuss the concept of culturally relevant
pedagogy 20 years after its introduction to the professional literature.
Purpose/Focus: The authors discuss key tenets of culturally relevant pedagogy, examine
empirical examples of it, and make recommendations on how the concept may inform and
influence the outcomes of culturally diverse students.
Issues pertaining to cultural, ethnic, and racial diversity in the United
States remain more entrenched in the nation’s DNA than ever before.
Nowhere is the manifestation of diversity more evident than in the nation’s schools (Banks, 2009). The U.S. Department of Education released a report in August, 2014, stating that for the first time in the nation’s history there were more non-White kindergarteners enrolled in
classrooms than White students. While demographers had predicted this
shift for some time, it still symbolized the changing racial dynamics in
the country and was a watershed moment in the changing make-up of
the nation that will only intensify over time. This ethnic and racial shift
comes as the nation’s public schools have enrolled surging numbers of
Latino and Asian American children. According to the National Center
for Education Statistics (NCES, 2014), Latino children in particular will
account for 25.8% of U.S. public PreK–12 students in the 2014–15 school
year and close to 30% in the 2019–20 school year. Moreover, NCES data
informs us that White students are projected to make up 49.8% of students in U.S. public schools in 2014–15 and 46.9% in 2019–20. The number of White students is expected to decline steadily over the next several
decades, dropping to as low as 35% of the total student population by
Teachers College Record Volume 119, 010308, January 2017, 32 pages
Copyright © by Teachers College, Columbia University
Teachers College Record, 119, 010308 (2017)
the year 2060. African American enrollment in public schools will be
approximately 15.4% in 2014–15 and approximately 15% in 2019–20.
Among U.S. public school students, Asian Americans will make up 5.2%
in 2014–15 and 5.3% in 2019–20, while Native Americans will be 1.1% in
2014–15 and 1% in 2019–20.
While news of increasing ethnic, racial, and cultural diversity is not
a novelty to large urban areas such as Los Angeles, Chicago, New York,
New Orleans, and Houston, it does signify a representational shift in
the nation’s racial and ethnic history that must be reckoned with. The
ethnic and racial diversity of the United States has become a permanent reality of the nation’s schools, and the rest of the nation is soon
to follow; some estimates predict that by 2060, people of color will
make up 57% of the nation’s population (Dillon, 2006; U.S. Census
Bureau, 2012). While ethnic and cultural diversity continue to increase
at a rapid speed nationally, the chronic achievement discrepancies between non-White and White students have been a disturbing reality
that has become more glaring in the era of increased student diversity
(Aud, Fox, & Kewal Ramani, 2010; Carter & Welner, 2013; DarlingHammond, 2010; Ladson-Billings, 2006). Despite a plethora of school
reform efforts over the past three decades—including standards-based
education movements, legislative interventions (No Child Left Behind,
the Every Student Succeeds Act), the Common Core State Standards
(CCSS), a multitude of neoliberal reform efforts, increased standardized testing, the proliferation of charter schools across the country,
and the unprecedented privatization of public education—one constant has remained: Students of color continue to underachieve in
comparison to their counterparts from different racial and ethnic
backgrounds (Howard, 2010). The opportunity gaps and learning
outcomes between African American, Latino, Native American, and
certain Asian American students and their White and Asian American
counterparts has been well documented (Braun, Wang, Jenkins, &
Weinbaum, 2006; Campbell, Hombo, & Mazzeo, 2000; Milner, 2010).
Researchers have contended that performance disparities are due to
factors such as structural inequality (Massey & Denton, 1993; Spring,
2006), poor teacher quality (Darling-Hammond, 2010), schools not adequately engaging parents and caretakers (Howard & Reynolds 2009),
lack of student motivation (Ogbu, 1987), and racism in schooling practices (Kohli & Solórzano, 2012). Others have called for a radical distribution of resources (McLaren, 2006) or a new social movement aimed
at authentic access and equity (Anyon, 2014). Despite these calls for
societal transformation and resource redistribution, many educational
practitioners, theorists, and researchers continue to seek meaningful
TCR, 119, 010308 Culturally Relevant Pedagogy 20 Years Later
day-to-day pedagogical interventions that may reverse the academic
underperformance of students of color (Banks, 2015; Ladson-Billings,
1994, 1995b, 2006; Powell, 1997). For example, a close look at academic outcomes reveals that graduation rates for certain non-White
students hover slightly over 50% in some school districts, and collegegoing prospects have shown little improvement over the past decade
(Aud et al., 2010).
Another indicator of disparate school outcomes across student groups
is in student punishment and discipline. It has become increasingly apparent that the greater the ethnic and racial diversity in schools, the
higher the rates of school punishment and discipline. Disproportionate
expulsions, placement in special education, and suspensions of Black
and Brown children in particular remain a normative practice in many
school districts (Artiles, Kozleski, Trent, Osher, & Ortiz, 2010; Harry &
Klingner, 2014). A number of scholars have found that cultural misunderstandings are a part of this reality that has seemingly gotten worse
over the past decade (Ford, 1996; Howard, 2010, 2014). A report released by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights
(OCR) in 2014 revealed distinct differences across racial and cultural
lines where school discipline is concerned. The OCR data inform us
that the discipline disparities start early and remain intact for much of
the school experiences of students who belong to cultural and racial
minorities. Consider that the data show that African American youth
make up 18% of all preschool-age children, yet they made up almost
50% of preschool-age children who received out-of-school suspensions
in 2012 (OCR, 2014). One can only question what the offenses could
be that lead to the suspension of four- and five-year-old children, but
for Black children it is happening with a high degree of frequency
across the nation. Furthermore, Black children remain three times
more likely to be suspended or expelled than their White counterparts,
and Black girls are suspended and expelled at higher rates than girls of
any other racial or ethnic group and most boys (OCR, 2014). Englishlanguage learners continue to be disproportionately suspended from
school, and Latino and African American males are among the groups
with the most dismal outcomes across multiple indicators, including
reading and math proficiency, suspension and expulsions, high school
completion, and college-going rates (Schott Foundation for Public
Education, 2012). At the 20-year retrospective of culturally relevant
pedagogy (CRP), what, if anything, do these data tell us about the state
of affairs for children of color? What should the takeaways be for educational practitioners and scholars? And given the role of increasing
racial and cultural diversity in the nation’s schools, what role should
Teachers College Record, 119, 010308 (2017)
cultural relevance in teaching, practice, and policy play in this process?
After several decades of calling for cultural relevance in instruction,
content, and assessment, what, if any, progress has been made in the
educational experiences and outcomes of culturally diverse students?
This article will examine CRP 20 years after its introduction to the professional literature on teaching and learning. Examining CRP at this
point is critical because its introduction to the professional literature
sought to move educational research, theory, and practice on educating students of color in a distinctly different and transformative direction, a direction that moved away from the pathology of communities,
students, and families of color (Bloom, Davis, & Hess, 1965; Jensen,
1969; Moynihan, 1965) and persistent underachievement, and toward
the improvement of school outcomes for children of color. CRP also
sought to move us away from the reductive notion of “learning styles,”
which suggested that students of color possessed cognitive approaches
that were racially mediated (Irvine & York, 1995). In short, CRP provided an important landmark in research, theory, and practice because
it promoted the idea that students of color possess a rich, complex,
and robust set of cultural practices, experiences, and knowledge that
are essential for learning and understanding. Furthermore, the call
for cultural relevance in pedagogy was made to recognize that the rich
cultural fabric that students possess was valuable enough that, if it was
thoughtfully connected to teaching, academic outcomes for students
of color could improve (Gay, 2010). The introduction of culture into
pedagogy has resulted in a notable number of research articles, academic and practitioner-friendly books, technical reports, school initiatives, and policy recommendations about the salience of lived experiences that students bring from home, which are often neglected in
schools. In this article we will discuss the origins of CRP, revisit its core
definitions and tenets, identify some notable empirical examples, and
then discuss important next steps for the concept moving forward. We
do this with a careful eye on ways of improving academic outcomes, reducing achievement disparities, and identifying a standard of academic
excellence for all students, but with a particular focus on culturally
diverse students. The genesis of the culture–pedagogy connection was
to improve school outcomes, yet the verdict would suggest that this is
far from a reality for many students of color. More importantly, it is
essential to give necessary clarity to CRP because, over the past two
decades, the deficit paradigm around students of color has re-emerged
and requires empirically based rebuttals. Authors such as Ruby Payne
(1996), Dinesh D’Souza (1995), John McWhorter (2000), and Abigail
& Stephen Thernstrom (2003) have raised questions about the end of
TCR, 119, 010308 Culturally Relevant Pedagogy 20 Years Later
racism and offered a dangerous framework for understanding poverty,
based on anti-intellectualism and a no-excuses approach that essentially ignores issues of structural inequity, racism, and discrimination
and places inequities squarely on the backs of marginalized groups.
Culture and Education: From past to present
The work on CRP is important, but by no means is the concept of culture, teaching, and learning a new one. In the early 1970s and 1980s,
scholars such as James Banks, Carl Grant, Christine Bennett, Geneva Gay,
Sonia Nieto, and others called for multicultural education to become an
integral part of school curriculum and instruction and school culture
(Banks, 2004, 2015). The early multicultural-education pioneers were
transformative at the time because they understood and recognized the
forthcoming racial, ethnic, and cultural change in the nation’s schools
and what it would mean for students if schools did not rethink and revise
curriculum and practice. Dating back to the mid-1970s, scholars such as
Ramirez and Castaneda (1974) talked about the cultural differences possessed by students of color and the need for educational practitioners to
take notice of diverse ways of knowing, thinking, and communicating.
In the early 1980s, scholars offered terms such as culturally appropriate
(Au & Jordan, 1981), culturally congruent (Mohatt & Erickson, 1981), and
culturally compatible (Jordan, 1985) approaches to instruction to recognize the value of cultural characteristics of non-White students. Later,
scholars such as Ronald Edmonds (1986) and A. Wade Boykin (1986)
suggested that there were unique cultural features that explained the
manner in which African American students processed and participated
in the learning process. Kathy Au (1980) examined teachers’ participation structures in lessons consistent with language practices common
in Native Hawaiian speech events called “talk story” and saw reading
achievement increase significantly. These scholars’ work must be recognized, because they were instrumental in moving away from the cultural
deprivation and deficit explanations that had become entrenched in the
professional literature about students of color.
In the early 1990s, Gloria Ladson-Billings (1995) built on the work
of multicultural scholars by suggesting that the complexity of culture
was such that it required educational theorists and practitioners to think
about a culturally relevant approach to education. Ladson-Billings (1995)
suggested that the marriage of culture and pedagogy would be a more
suitable means to provide students of color with equitable opportunities
for success in the classroom. She referred to CRP then as:
Teachers College Record, 119, 010308 (2017)
a pedagogy of opposition (1992c) not unlike critical pedagogy
but specifically committed to collective, not merely individual,
empowerment. Culturally relevant pedagogy rests on three criteria or propositions: (a) Students must experience academic
success; (b) students must develop and/or maintain cultural
competence; and (c) students must develop a critical consciousness through which they challenge the status quo of the current
social order. (p.160)
Similarly, Banks & Banks (1995), in their framework on multicultural
education, called for equity pedagogy, which they conceptualized as:
teaching strategies and classroom environments that help students from diverse racial, ethnic, and cultural groups attain the
knowledge, skills and attitudes to function effectively within and
help create and perpetuate a just, human and democratic society (p. XX)
Banks & Banks’ (1995) equity pedagogy is important here, because
they maintained that multicultural content integration alone would
not improve the schooling experiences of culturally diverse students.
They suggested that practitioners should rethink teaching strategies
and instructional variations that would create learning environments
that recognized, embraced, and respected differences in all of their
Culturally relevant pedagogy encouraged educational researchers and
practitioners to examine culture as endemic to students’ socialization
and ways of knowing, and therefore a fundamental aspect of the learning process of students of color. Erickson’s (2012) notion of culture is
important here, as he informed us that:
Such learning began through child rearing and continued
through further socialization throughout the life span. Through
teaching and learning, much of which was non-deliberate and
intuitive, humans transform an essentially labile human nature
into differing cultural manifestations of humanness. In this
sense, human culture is intrinsically connected with human education, formal and informal. It can be thought of as the basic
“curriculum” of any social group; the patterns of organization
within the conduct of everyday life. (p.3)
In staying with the idea of culture as the “basic curriculum” of any
group, Geneva Gay (2010), who was also instrumental in the development of culture and pedagogy, stated that culturally responsive teaching
TCR, 119, 010308 Culturally Relevant Pedagogy 20 Years Later
is important because “the validation, information, and pride it generates are both psychologically and intellectually liberating” (p. 35). An
examination of the terms culturally relevant and culturally responsive reveal
little difference in scope, definition, aims, or purpose. Both recognize
the salience of student culture, both contend that the affirmation of
students’ identities is important, and both advocate for student achievement to occur without compromising cultural integrity. Ladson-Billings
(1995a) also stated that culturally relevant teaching is an approach that
“empowers students intellectually, socially, emotionally, and politically
using cultural referents to impart knowledge, skills and attitudes” (pp.
16–17). She contended that there were additional elements of CRP that
must be in place for the theory to be actualized:
Student learning being able to be enhanced with pedagogical
interaction with skilled teachers. This reference is not limited
to standardized testing outcomes, but frames learning within a
broader context.
Cultural competence, or “helping students to recognize and
honor their own cultural beliefs and practices while acquiring
access to the wider culture” (Ladson-Billings, 2006, p. 36).
Sociopolitical consciousness, where teachers help students to
“recognize, understand and critique current social inequalities
(Ladson-Billings, 1995b, p. 476).
Ladson-Billings (1995a, 2006) offered CRP to serve as an important
theoretical tool to analyze how instructional practices could be arranged
in a manner that could tap into a wide array of communicative and cognitive processes. Ladson-Billings’s (1995a) work helped to shed a much
needed light on practitioners who were using a culturally centered approach in understanding and teaching students of color, as opposed to
the cultural-deficit paradigm that was prevalent in educational research
and practice.
To add further clarity to the culture-teaching concept, Gay (2010) described this approach to teaching as having the following characteristics:
It acknowledges the legitimacy of the cultural heritages of different ethnic groups, both as legacies that affect students’ dispositions, attitudes, and approaches to learning and as worthy
content to be taught in the formal curriculum.
It builds bridges of meaningfulness between home and school
experiences as well as between academic abstractions and lived
sociocultural realities.
Teachers College Record, 119, 010308 (2017)
It uses a wide variety of instructional strategies that are connected to different learning styles.
It teaches students to know and praise their own and each other’s cultural heritages.
It incorporates multicultural information, resources, and materials in all the subjects and skills routinely taught in schools. (p. 29)
As practitioners and researchers continue to make nuanced distinctions between relevance and responsiveness where culture and teaching
are concerned, we believe such efforts are counterproductive. Both
approaches emphasize similar ideas with comparable goals, and whatever differences exist between the two are minimal at best. The bigger
challenge is to seek clarity about how both approaches are working in
PreK–12 schools, where and how they are affecting students’ school experiences and outcomes, and where future work concerned with culture,
teaching, and learning can go to move the field forward.
Culturally relevant pedagogy: What have we learned?
As scholars continue to make a compelling case for the importance of
CRP as a way to rethink instructional practices to improve the educational performances of students of color, gaps in outcomes remain persistent. It could be argued that many practitioners have not quite grasped
how to translate theory into practice. With the introduction of CRP, it
has become more …
Purchase answer to see full

error: Content is protected !!