Culturally Responsive Education in the Classroom

An Equity Framework for Pedagogy

Adeyemi Stembridge

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN: 9781138339453
• eBook ISBN: 9780429804953
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

This exciting book helps educators translate the concept of equity into the context of pedagogy in the K-12 classroom. Providing a practice-oriented framework for understanding what equity entails for both teachers and learners, this book clarifies the theoretical context for equity and shares rich teaching strategies across a range of content areas and age groups. Unpacking six themes to understand Culturally Responsive Education (CRE), this powerful book helps teachers incorporate equity into behaviors, environments, and meaningful learning opportunities. Culturally Responsive Education in the Classroom provides specific, practice-based examples to help readers develop a culturally responsive pedagogical mindset for closing equity gaps in student achievement.

1

Equity Work Defined

Equity, as an education concept, is the implementation of an Equity mindset into thoughtful pedagogical design. Equity work is the sum total of the instructional and policy-developing tasks of operationalizing the values of Equity in real-time school contexts. It is, in my view, unwise to try to define Equity outside of the consideration of what the notion of Equity requires of us in terms of pedagogy. To define one minus attention to the other is problematic. Whenever we talk about Equity, we should be invoking actions, and those actions should evoke further insights – insights that support reflection, which, in turn, leads to further action.

Method Acting

Ms. Allen’s fourth-grade classroom had become one of my favorite places to hang out whenever I had a little free time; and over the school year, I had developed my own relationships with her students through several co-teaching experiences. Ms. Allen and I both invest a great deal of time and energy into thinking about how we teach writing especially. We both believe that writing is one of the most powerful exercises in literacy for our students because they own such rich stories and have so much to say. The thing about fourth graders, though, is that they often have a hard time grasping the concept of revision. Revision to many fourth graders means the correcting of any mistakes specifically pointed out by the teacher; and elaboration means begrudgingly adding one or maybe two sentences at the very end of the essay. (Frequently when they submit their revision, it’s with a What do you want from me? sort of shrug as in: I revised… just like you asked. Now leave me alone.)

Our problem of practice centered the question of how we can better teach our kiddos the notion of revision as a commitment to deconstruct and reconstruct their writing. We specifically wanted them to give attention to the various ways in which they could improve their clarity and also better present the tone and voice most befitting of the piece. Our idea was to have the students plan and compose a first draft of a personal narrative in the study of a specific historical event from the perspective of people whose voices are often marginalized or altogether ignored. After the first drafts were written, we instructed the students to treat their pieces like scripts and act them out – while recording themselves – so that they could observe (with the support of their peers) any disconnects between what they wrote and what they saw on the screen. In the words of Ms. Allen:

The purpose of them being able to do that activity is for them to be able to ask, ‘Is my writing conveying the message that I want my reader to see as they are reading it?’ We really wanted our students as authors to be able to convey their message to their readers. We need to be able to act out the scenes, and the scenes need to be set in a way that the reader will be able to visualize what we are saying.

But in order for this to work, our students had to give dynamic and authentic screen performances of their writing or we knew they wouldn’t see what could be revised. In fact, it might be more accurate to say that we wanted them to feel what could be revised. We needed for them to feel any difference between an authentic performance and a written piece – specifically in terms of detail, dialogue, and elaboration. If the students were shy in their performance, they might not see the possibilities for revision. The performance was key…

So we introduced the students (through YouTube) to two famous experts on the subject of acting, Lee Strasberg and Stella Adler. These esteemed acting teachers rather grumpily modeled for our students three key concepts for actors that also translate to writing: histrionics, imagination, and concentration. We needed our students to understand and apply all three into their performances so that they would best be able to discern how to revise their first draft of writing with the inspiration and direction of their own acting.

In order to get the best possible performances, we practiced several method-acting exercises. First, we drank a breakfast beverage from an imagined cup. We practiced exploring the sensory aspects of holding the cup in our hands. What does it feel like? Is it heavy? Or light? What color is it? What does it smell like? And eventually, What does it taste like? Then we fixed our hair in front of an imagined mirror making sure to get it just the way we like it. Finally, we put on our imagined socks and shoes practicing concentration and sustained attention to the task, until… a foul imagined stench consumed the room causing us to perform our stomach-churning disgust. After more than a few giggles and a few pertinent yet silly questions (e.g. “Should we pretend like someone farted?”), our students were ready to go off and act out their first drafts of the personal narratives.

Almost immediately, our students saw there were palpable differences between the texts. Said one of our kiddos, “When I’m acting, it brings out more energy than writing. So when I’m usually writing, I mostly get all the stuff that I planned about in my writing. But when I’m actually acting it out, it gets more detailed in my writing.” As they experienced the gaps, they began to ask, “Can I re-write my draft? I need to elaborate more, and I need more dialogue.” After revising their first drafts, we had the students record their scenes again; but this time, they shared their videos with peers. To raise the rigor further, we had each kiddo act out their own in addition to another student’s writing, as well. They got to see how others interpreted their writing. If their interpretations were close, bravo! If some things were still not quite right, they knew more clearly what could be revised and how.

The students were then able to give each other feedback as they discussed strategies for making their writing better reflect the richness and energy of their acting. By the end of the unit, our students were analyzing the weaknesses of their own writing, and they were identifying their opportunities to improve what they had composed so as to more accurately capture their intent. A key to teaching revision, we learned, is to create experiences that allow the students to analyze and evaluate their own texts rather than having us evaluate on their behalf – because when they evaluate themselves, it’s more likely to be understood as a personal opportunity to find the words and devices of language that best express their intended meaning with their voice. That was how we taught our kiddos tools for writing personal narratives; they learned those tools as part of a larger purpose of creating pieces that are valid expressions of their meaning. The difference is significant. By emphasizing the purpose over the tools, through a writing experience, our students felt like writers.

Equity as a Performative Construct

Beyond contemplating the scope and impact of Equity (or inequity) in any conceptual or statistical sense, we must get to the point where the word Equity is understood as a performative construct; and by that I mean, any utterance of the term – if the meaning is to be believed and understood – is aligned with an expression of its idea so that the utterance becomes a demonstration in and of itself.

A bit grandiose? Semantics? Maybe, but I’m offering no apologies. Let’s think about it this way…

Language is a system of symbols (words and phrases) that represent ideas. Performative is a word that means the extent to which the utterance of the word (or phrase) is itself both an expression and demonstration of the idea.

It’s like saying, “I love you.” The language is both an expression of an idea and also a demonstration of it. Further, the way we understand the phrase, “I love you” is contextualized by behaviors. We are more or less inclined to believe we are loved by someone who has uttered the words given the corresponding behavioral evidence. Another example is the phrase, “I’m sorry,” which just like “I love you” is both the expression and demonstration of an idea. In fact, we get frustrated with the people who say “I’m sorry” to us but then go and repeat the offending act. Their behavior is an outright contradiction to the words they’ve spoken because “I’m sorry” is nice to hear when appropriate but it can be downright infuriating when it isn’t performed with a demonstration that confirms the words. The concepts of “love” and “apology” have little practical use if they aren’t understood in the performative sense.

Equity, if only deliberated in conceptual terms, will be limited in its impact on policies and practices. Equity in education is a construct best understood by its performative meaning. Where “love” and “apology” are words that define affective concepts, Equity is a word that expresses a belief. The word Equity embodies the belief that we will see achievement in all student groups when all students receive opportunities that they are able to perceive as meaningful and that allow them to draw on their social and cultural literacies in order to be academically successful. Both in terms of systems and individual educators, the evidence of the beliefs about Equity should show up in practice. To speak of Equity without corresponding evidence that demonstrates how the belief lives in one’s work is either an incomplete or a contradicting statement. It shouldn’t be possible to claim an Equity mindset without such supporting behavioral references. Equity is an idea that is demonstrated in our work.

Beliefs

If Equity work is the performance of beliefs about Equity, then any credible discussion on Equity must center beliefs, not teaching techniques, or curriculum, or even education policy. And yet, this discussion that centers beliefs is also about all of those things because it is the beliefs about Equity that are performed through the choices we make relative to teaching techniques, curriculum, and education policy.

But really though? Why beliefs? Isn’t it more practical to pen an education book specifically about strategies for teaching “at-risk” student populations? Isn’t a focus on beliefs just ideological grandstanding?

No. I believe that the concept of Culturally Responsive Education (CRE) provides a template for a body of work more than a menu of isolated actions. CRE is a framework for how we define excellent pedagogy – with particular attention to gaps in performance and achievement between sub-groups. (We’ll discuss that “at-risk” term later.) Though it may seem like I am using the terms CRE and Equity interchangeably, I don’t intend to imply that they mean exactly the same thing. To be sure, they are closely related, but they differ in scope and purpose. My argument in this book is that CRE is a pedagogy (i.e. a theoretical framework for thinking about teaching and learning) that is most appropriate for closing Equity gaps. Equity work is the sum total of the pedagogical and systems-level tasks of operationalizing the values of Equity in real-world contexts.

Ultimately, it is wrong-headed to try to define Equity in education outside of the consideration of what the construct of Equity requires of us. The operationalization of an Equity mindset into thoughtful practices is the work of Equity. Equity cannot be effectively described without a multi-angle view of the action and the motivations that underscore the action. The actions of the culturally responsive teacher are altogether a function, product, and extension of an Equity mindset. You will have, at best, a partial understanding of the effectiveness of a culturally responsive educator without the full view; or, at worst, you’ll miss the most valuable learning to be gained from the models of brilliant teaching because of a misplaced, singular focus on the technical skill. Talking about Equity in theoretical terms should invoke action in our practice, and those actions should evoke further insights which, in turn, frame choices and compel further action. As much as anything, that’s my message to schools and the people who animate them.

What Equity Is Not

For some, it may be easier to understand Equity by what it is not. Equity is not equality. These are closely related paradigms, but they represent two different commitments to the notions of fairness and opportunity. The pursuit of Equal Educational Opportunity (EEO) is a central part of the larger American Civil Rights narrative (Tesconi & Hurwitz, 1974). EEO is well represented by the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education case (Brown). The landmark Brown decision ruled that American public schools could no longer legally segregate children based on race. Separate was deemed “inherently unequal.” In other words, the goal of equality in that historical moment was to provide the same learning opportunities (at least in terms of which schools students attended) as a measure of fairness. If sameness was provided in terms of inputs, then equality could be said to have been achieved. Thus, the notion of EEO promotes fairness by giving everyone the same thing. But equality defined this way is only valid as a fair opportunity construct if everyone starts from the same place and is able to perceive the opportunity on the same terms. That is, opportunities can only be considered equal if students are similarly able to justify the investment of risk and effort required of them in order to be successful (Howe, 1989). The inputs must be equally effective in conveying the meaningfulness of the opportunity, or the opportunity itself will undoubtedly advantage some groups over others. Unlike Equity which identifies outcomes at the finish line of schooling as the measure of fairness, equality focuses on the inputs at the starting line.

Educational Equity is about fairness with a focus on outputs. Like EEO, Equity is about ensuring that students have access to meaningful opportunities. Equity, however, posits that equality isn’t necessarily fair because the social, economic, historical, and political contexts in which students learn impact how they perceive and are able to take advantage of the educational opportunities available to them in school. These sociohistorical implications can create barriers to both group and individual participation that make some opportunities less accessible and less meaningful than others. This means that where equality is served by sameness, Educational Equity, by definition, compels difference – because different students need different inputs to support their fair opportunities to learn. In the Equity way of thinking about opportunity, sameness is almost inherently unfair because it assumes that everyone’s potential success is equally served by identical inputs; but in the performative sense, it isn’t Equity if it isn’t acting in ways to close opportunity gaps. Thus I define “fairness” as the differentiating process through which Equity is achieved.

Zero-sum Game Thinking

Equity as a paradigm is challenging for so many of us educators because we’ve been largely indoctrinated with an equality frame of reference for understanding the concepts of fairness and opportunity. In addition, equality is (seemingly) much easier to invoke in practice. It (theoretically) requires much less of us to give everyone the same thing; but to differentiate according to need seems to be a more daunting task. To some, Equity arguments feel like we are making excuses for underperforming students and communities. To others, it feels like we are giving unfair preference to specific student populations. They ask, But shouldn’t I just treat all my students the same as everyone else? Shouldn’t I just love them all equally?

While I would never tell a teacher not to love all of their students with equal enthusiasm, it’s rarely the case that we would think of sameness of love as an expectation in other parts of our lives. When giving talks, my friend and colleague Pedro Noguera will often ask: “Who in here has more than one child?” And when many hands go up, he’ll say sincerely: “Look around everyone. These are the experts on Equity.” We learn intuitively when it’s our own children – or nieces or nephews, or grandchildren, or siblings, or parents, or grandparents, etc. – that to love someone authentically means precisely to love them knowing they aren’t a carbon copy of their counterparts. Even when our own children share the same DNA, live in the same house, eat the same food, and attend the same schools – we know that we must engage in our relationships with them differently according to their individual personalities and our unique histories with them. In our personal lives, we understand that kind of love to be the highest expression of care rather than some inconceivably impossible abstraction to consider.

Our intuitive understanding of Equity is undermined by our misconceptions of what it means in practice. In recent times, Equity has been politicized as an offspring of entitlement ideologies. Equity, say its detractors, means we give something more to someone who doesn’t really deserve it; and further, it’s unfair to take an opportunity away from one child to give more to another. This “zero-sum game” interpretation of opportunity is especially prevalent in counter-arguments to Educational Equity. Unlike economic opportunity, which we are more likely to think of as a positive-sum construct, those who oppose the notion of Educational Equity see opportunity as a finite resource (Game theory, 2008; Mulligan, 2009; Greenhill, 2015). In matters of financial opportunity, however, most are more inclined to see it as a generative entity – meaning that where econ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Contents
• Preface
• 1 Equity Work Defined
• 2 Theory of Change: Culturally Responsive Education
• 3 The Six Themes of Culturally Responsive Education
• 4 Planning with Equity in Mind
• 5 Promising Practices
• 6 Implications and Next Steps: Where Do We Go from Here?
• Index