TextbookInformation Governance Concepts, Strategies and Best P.docx

Textbook:
Information Governance: Concepts, Strategies and Best
Practices; 1st Edition; Robert F. Smallwood; Copyright © 2014
by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey (ISBN 978-
1-118-21830-3)
Q1. Week 3 Chapter 6 Forum Options Menu: Forum
Select and research one of the standards discussed in Chapter 6.
Briefly address how this standard could be used to establish an
Information Governance program within an organization
(perhaps at the organization in which you work). Remember to
respond to two other learners!
Q2.Week 3 Chapter 7 Discussion Options Menu: Forum
In chapter seven (7), we have learned from "The Path to
Information Value" that seventy percent of managers and
executives say data are “extremely important” for creating
competitive advantage. In addition, it is implied by the authors
that, “The key, of course, is knowing which data matter, who
within a company needs them, and finding ways to get that data
into users’ hands.” Looking at the Economist Intelligence Unit
report, identify the three (3) phases that led to the Brooklyn
Navy Yard's rebirth. Remember to respond to two other
learners.
Capacity
Building Series
SECRETARIAT SPECIAL EDITION # 35

K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2
Some definitions ...
Diversity – The presence of a
wide range of human qualities and
attributes within a group, organization
or society.
Equity – A condition or state of fair,
inclusive and respectful treatment of
all people.
Inclusive Education – Education that
is based on the principles of acceptance
and inclusion of all students.
(Ontario’s Equity and Inclusive
Education Strategy, 2009)
November 2013
ISSN: 1913 8482 (Print)
ISSN: 1913 8490 (Online)
The Capacity Building Series is produced by the Student
Achievement Division to support leadership and instructional
effectiveness in Ontario schools. The series is posted at:
www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/literacynumeracy/inspire/.
For information: [email protected]
support every child
reach every student
Culturally Responsive Pedagogy
Towards Equity and Inclusivity in
Ontario Schools
Ontario’s Equity and Inclusive Education Strategy (2009)

provides a framework for
building an inclusive education system. The strategy identifies
ways to remove
discriminatory biases and barriers to student achievement and
well-being that relate
to ethnicity and race, faith, family structure and socio-economic
status as well as
to sexual orientation, ability and mental health. To support
implementation, Policy
Program Memorandum No. 119, released by the ministry in the
spring of 2013,
requires all Ontario school boards to develop an equity and
inclusive education policy.
The goal is nothing less than the provision of equitable learning
opportunities for all
students in all Ontario schools.
This monograph emphasizes how crucial it is to acknowledge
our students’ multiple
social identities and how they intersect with the world. It is
designed to spark conversa-
tion and support educators as they seek to give life to equity
strategies and policies. Its
intent is to deepen understanding of teaching practices that
engage student populations
with a full range of differences in learning background,
strengths, needs and interests.
Culture is about ways of knowing ...
Culture goes much deeper than typical understandings of
ethnicity, race and/or faith.
It encompasses broad notions of similarity and difference and it
is reflected in our
students’ multiple social identities and their ways of knowing
and of being in the world.
In order to ensure that all students feel safe, welcomed and

accepted, and inspired
to succeed in a culture of high expectations for learning,
schools and classrooms
must be responsive to culture.
2
Culture is a resource for learning ...
Gloria Ladson-Billings (1994) introduced the term “Culturally
Relevant Teaching”
to describe teaching that integrates a student’s background
knowledge and prior
home and community experiences into the curriculum and the
teaching and
learning experiences that take place in the classroom. There are
three central
tenets underpinning this pedagogy: (1) holding high
expectations for all students,
(2) assisting students in the development of cultural competence
and (3) guiding
students to develop a critical cultural consciousness. In this
student-centred frame-
work, the uniqueness of each student is not just acknowledged,
but nurtured.
Other theorists, among them Gay (2000) and Villegas and Lucas
(2002), use the terms
“Culturally Responsive Teaching” or “Culturally Responsive
Pedagogy” to describe
teaching that recognizes all students learn differently and that
these differences may
be connected to background, language, family structure and
social or cultural identity.
Theorists and practitioners of culturally responsive pedagogy

more than acknowledge
the “cultural uniqueness” of each student; they intentionally
nurture it in order to
create and facilitate effective conditions for learning (Brown-
Jeffy & Cooper, 2011).
They see student diversity in terms of student strengths; they
orient to it as presenting
opportunities for enhancing learning rather than as challenges
and/or deficits of the
student or particular community.
Culturally responsive pedagogy is not about “cultural
celebrations,” nor is it aligned
with traditional ideas around multiculturalism. It involves
careful acknowledgement,
respect and an understanding of difference and its complexities.
Theorists write about three dimensions which comprise
culturally responsive pedagogy:
1. Institutional
2. Personal
3. Instructional
The institutional dimension refers to the administration and
leadership of school
systems, including the values developed and reflected in school
board policies and
practices. It highlights the need to critically examine the formal
processes of schooling
which may reproduce particular patterns of marginalization.
Educators need to consider
which patterns need to be intentionally interrupted and changed.

The personal dimension encompasses the mindset of culturally
responsive educators
and the practices they engage in, in order to support the
development of all students.
Not only are culturally responsive educators self-aware, but
they also have a deep
knowledge of their students and how they learn best.
The instructional dimension includes knowing learners well and
considering the
classroom practices which lead to a culturally responsive
classroom.
All three dimensions are foundational to the establishment of an
inclusive school
culture (Richards, Brown, & Forde, 2006).
Making a better space
for everyone ...
“Inclusion is not bringing people into what
already exists; it is making a new space,
a better space for everyone.”
(Dei et al., 2000)
3
Where we are in Ontario ...
To support culturally responsive pedagogy, school leaders
promote reflection, face
complex issues head on, find ways to honour community and
support authentic
collaboration among all stakeholders.

Here are some inquiry questions for school leaders:
What does a school look like, sound like and feel like when we
promote
reflection, honour the community and support authentic
collaboration
among staff, students and parents?
What does a classroom look like, sound like and feel like when
it is
inclusive and when instruction is responsive to the full range of
student
diversity?
What further information would be helpful in considering
cultural relevance
and cultural responsiveness in our school?
How do we work with our communities to help everyone
appreciate the
importance of culturally responsive teaching?
What is the impact on our students when we do not
acknowledge the
complexity of culture and difference?
Across the province, it is strongly believed, and well supported
by research, that
there is a strong correlation between school leadership and
student achievement.
According to Leithwood et al. (2004), leadership is second only
to teaching with
regard to impact on student outcomes.
Although principals are not as directly involved with students as
classroom teachers

are in terms of day-to-day instruction and learning, they do
make a difference.
Further, as outlined in Ontario’s Leadership Framework, it is
the responsibility of
school and system leaders to be responsive to the increasingly
diverse nature of
Ontario communities by ensuring that schools are inclusive and
welcoming of diversity,
as reflected in both school climate and the classroom learning
environment.
The institutional dimension of culturally responsive pedagogy
underscores the
significance of education policy and the way schooling is
organized. At the school
level, it means paying attention to school budget priorities, the
relationship between
parents and the community and how curriculum and instruction
impact the conditions
for student learning and student experience. While Ontario is
highly regarded
internationally as a leader in improving student achievement
and supporting
student well-being, there is still much work ahead.
Leaders take on the role
of catalyst ...
“School leadership acts as a catalyst without
which other good things are quite unlikely
to happen.”
(Leithwood et al., 2004)
The Mindset of Culturally Responsive Educators

Culturally responsive teachers share a particular set of
dispositions and skills – a mindset that enables
them to work creatively and effectively to support all students
in diverse settings. In the next few pages
these characteristics, as outlined by Villegas and Lucas, are
identified.
4
Characteristic #1 Socio-cultural
consciousness
Canadian research continues to affirm that
“membership in the white middle-class group
affords individuals within this group certain
privileges in society,” while those outside of
this group experience challenges (Dei, et al.,
2000). This is because society is influenced
by the norms established by the dominant
group (Gay, 2002; Dei et al., 2000).
Culturally responsive educators understand
their position in our present social, historical
and political context; through questioning
their own attitudes, behaviours and beliefs,
they come to terms with forms of discrimination
which can affect the experiences of students
and families in multiple ways.
Self-reflection is foundational to the examination
and identification of one’s own biases. This
critical process includes understanding the issues
related to the distribution of power and privilege
and the relationship of power dynamics to one’s
own social experience. Self-reflection also allows
us to recognize how our own social identity
is constructed and to think about how social
identities are positioned and shaped by society.

This is what it means to possess socio-cultural
consciousness.
Characteristic #2 High expectations
The perceptions we hold of students’ abilities have
a significant impact on student achievement and
well-being (Ladson-Billings 1994, 2001, 2011).
However, historically, some social identities –
particularly those linked with disabilities or
intersecting with race and low socio-economic
status – have been deemed as contributing to
notions of “at-risk-ness” in students (Dei, 1997;
Portelli, Vibert & Shields, 2007).
Culturally responsive educators hold positive
and affirming views of their students and their
ability to learn and achieve academic success.
They demonstrate genuine respect for students
and their families as well as a strong belief in
their potential. They consider the social identities
of students as assets rather than as deficits or
limitations.
Characteristic #3
Desire to make
a difference
See themselves as
change agents working
towards more equity.
Characteristic #1
Socio-cultural
consciousness

An awareness of how
socio-cultural structures
impact individual
experiences
and opportunities.
Characteristic #2
High expectations
Hold postive and
affirming views of
all students of all
backgrounds.
5
Characteristic #3 Desire to make
a difference
Educators who are culturally responsive see
equitable and inclusive education as fundamental
to supporting high levels of student achievement
(Ladson-Billings, 2001; Gay, 2004). Consistent
patterns of underachievement found in groups,
such as those students with special education needs
or those with students from low socio-economic
circumstances, need to be seen as created by
deeply problematic systemic and institutional
barriers. Culturally responsive educators are
committed to being agents of social change,
ultimately working to remove barriers and creating

conditions for learning that are beneficial for all
students (Ministry of Education, 2009).
Characteristic #4 Constructivist
approach
Culturally responsive educators build upon the
varied lived experiences of all students in order
to bring the curriculum to life. Through this
approach, they integrate locally situated learning
into daily instruction and learning processes.
Constructivist approaches promote
inquiry-based learning – they support
students asking questions and creating new
knowledge based on their natural curiosity
about their own experiences. Knowledge
building is reciprocal because students play
an active role in crafting and developing
learning experiences for themselves and their
peers. This results in making learning relevant
and accessible for all students in the classroom
as they are able to see themselves in the
curriculum.
Characteristic #5 Deep knowledge
of their students
It is important for educators to recognize that
parents, caregivers and families know their
children best (Kugler & West-Burns, 2010).
Therefore, in an effort to know their students,
culturally responsive educators work to build
strong relationships with their students’ families.
They promote mutual respect between home
and school and embrace a collaborative

approach to teaching and learning.
Deep knowledge, not just of content, but of one’s
students as individual learners, enables educators
to integrate lived experiences into the daily
learning of the classroom. Drawing on students’
experiences provides teachers with the opportu-
nity to represent their knowledge in the curriculum
so it is meaningful and students see themselves
reflected in the learning that takes place in the
classroom (Villegas & Lucas, 2002).
Characteristic #4
Constructivist approach
Understand that learners
construct their own
knowledge.
Characteristic #5
Deep knowledge
of their students
Know about the lives of
students and their families;
know how students learn
best and where they are
in their learning.
Characteristic #6
Culturally responsive
teaching practices
Design and build instruction

on students’ prior knowledge
in order to stretch students
in their thinking
and learning.
6
Characteristic #6 Culturally Responsive Teaching Practices
A wealth of research is available both nationally and
internationally on
culturally responsive instructional strategies. At the core of
these strategies is
a) holding high expectations for learning while b) recognizing
and honouring
the strengths that a student’s lived experiences and/or home
culture bring to
the learning environment of the classroom. As Villegas and
Lucas observe
about culturally responsive educators, “they use what they know
about their
students to give them access to their learning” (2002, p. 27).
Learning
experiences are designed to be relevant and authentic, enabling
students to
see themselves in the daily learning of the classroom. This
sends a message
to students and the community that student, parent/community
knowledge
and experiences not only have value, but that they are also
important to
the learning in school.
The following are some inquiry questions for culturally

responsive
educators:
What questions might we reflect upon to examine our own
biases towards
diversity and cultural responsiveness?
How would we start a staff discussion on moving towards
cultural respon-
siveness in a more intentional way?
How might we integrate specific life experiences of our students
into daily
instruction and learning processes?
Effective instruction matters!
The quality of the instruction and the expertise of the teacher
considerably outweigh
the challenging circumstances that some of our students bring to
the classroom
(Callins, 2006; Willis & Harris, 2000). Effective instruction
also ensures academic rigour
which is essential in a culturally responsive framework; high
expectations need to
be coupled with the appropriate supports to scaffold new
learning (Gay, 2002;
Ladson-Billings, 2000).
Some strategies to implement a culturally responsive framework
are suggested
below. They are adapted from the work of Jeff Kugler and
Nicole West-Burns (2010):
Expand upon what is considered as the “curriculum” –
recognizing both the
informal and the subtle ways in which the curriculum defines

what is and
what is not valued in our schools and society.
Use inquiry-based approaches to student learning to develop
engaged and
self-directed learners. Support students in making decisions
about their
learning that integrate who they are and what they already know
with
their home and community experiences.
Get to know your students ...
“Get to know your students. How do they
self-identify and what community do
they originate from? What types of print,
video, audio and other experiences
motivate them?”
(Toulouse, 2013)
Use a variety of resources, including community partners, to
ensure the
learning environment and pedagogical materials used are
accessible to all
learners and that the lives of students and the community are
reflected in
the daily workings of the classroom. Resources, materials and
books should
present both local and global perspectives.
See the curriculum as flexible and adaptive to the lived
experiences of
students so they see themselves and their lives reflected in daily
learning

opportunities.
Know and build upon students’ prior knowledge, interests,
strengths and
learning styles and ensure they are foundational to the learning
experiences
in the classroom and the school.
Ensure that learning engages a broad range of learners so that
varied
perspectives, learning styles and sources of knowledge are
explored.
Differentiate instruction and provide a wide range of methods
and oppor-
tunities for students to demonstrate their learning, ensuring both
academic
rigour and a variety of resources that are accessible to all
learners.
Work to ensure that the socio-cultural consciousness of students
is developed
through curricular approaches, emphasizing inclusive and
accepting education,
to inform critical examination and action regarding social
justice issues.
Here are some questions to provoke thinking about what a more
culturally responsive curriculum might look like:
How do we define relevant and authentic learning opportunities
in the
context of our school?
How might we support students in making decisions about their
learning

that integrate who they are and what they already know with
their home
and community experiences?
How can we lessen dominant perspectives in our curriculum so
that
contributions from different backgrounds can be better
understood and
integrated into learning?
Preparing to teach all our students ...
Those engaged in the work of culturally responsive pedagogy
are “committed to
collective, not just merely individual empowerment” such that
the impact of this
approach to teaching is directed towards making change for all
members of society
(Ladson-Billings, 1995, p. 160). As educators, we must be
prepared to teach all
students while also being committed to preparing students for
the reality of a
diverse Canadian and global society. The journey towards
equity and inclusivity in
Ontario schools seeks to empower everyone in the learning
environment. Such an
Take an asset-based
approach ...
“The knowledge children bring to school,
derived from personal and cultural
experiences, is central to their learning.
To overlook this resource is to deny
children access to the knowledge
construction process.”
(Villegas & Lucas, 2002, p. 25)

7
8
approach validates and affirms the cultural capital that our
students bring to the
classroom each and every day. This journey also brings us
closer to reaching our goal
in Ontario – providing relevant and authentic learning
opportunities every day for
every student in every classroom.
Here are some ways to think about your next steps in the
journey
towards equity:
What will our school conversation focus on?
How might a process of inquiry among staff further this
conversation?
If we implement specific strategies to support a culturally
responsive
approach to teaching and learning, how will we assess the
impact on
student learning and achievement?
References
Brown-Jeffy, S., & Cooper, J.E. (2011,
winter). Toward a conceptual framework of
culturally relevant pedagogy: An overview
of the conceptual and theoretical literature.

Teacher Education Quarterly, 65–84.
Callins, T. (2006, Nov./Dec.). Culturally
responsive literacy instruction. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 62–65.
Dei, G.J.S. (2006). Meeting equity fair and
square. Keynote address to the Leadership
Conference of the Elementary Teachers’
Federation of Ontario, held on September 28,
2006, in Mississauga, Ontario.
Dei, G.J.S. (1997). Reconstructing
drop-out: A critical ethnography of the
dynamics of black students’ disengage-
ment from school. Toronto: University of
Toronto Press.
Dei, G.J.S., James, I.M., James-Wilson,
Karumanchery, S.L., & Zine. J. (2000).
Removing the margins: The challenges
and possibilities of inclusive schooling.
Toronto: Canadian Scholar’s Press.
Gay, G. (2004, Spring). Beyond Brown:
Promoting equality through multicultural
education. Journal of Curriculum and
Supervision, 19(3), 193–216.
Gay, G. (2002, Mar./Apr.). Preparing for
culturally responsive teaching. Journal of
Teacher Education, 53(2), 106–116.
Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive
teaching: Theory, practice, & research.
New York: Teachers College Press.

Kugler, J., & West-Burns, N. (2010, Spring).
The CUS Framework for Culturally Respon-
sive and Relevant Pedagogy. Our Schools,
Our Selves, 19(3).
Ladson-Billings, G. (2011). Asking the right
questions: A research agenda for studying
diversity in teacher education. In Ball, A. &
Tyson, C. (Eds.), Diversity in teacher
education (pp. 383–396). Lanham, MD:
Rowman & Littlefield.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2001). Crossing over
to Canaan: The journey of new teachers
in diverse classrooms. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory
of culturally relevant pedagogy. American
Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeep-
ers: Successful teachers of African American
children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Leithwood, K., Seashore Louis, K., Anderson,
S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership
influences student learning: A review of
research for the Learning from Leadership
Project. New York, NY: The Wallace
Foundation.
Portelli, J.R., & Vibert, A.B. & Shields, C.
(2007). Toward an equitable education:
Poverty, diversity and students at risk: The

national report. Toronto: OISE/University
of Toronto.
Richards, H.V., Brown, A., & Forde, T.B.
(2006). Addressing diversity in schools:
Culturally responsive pedagogy. Buffalo
State College/NCCREST.
Toulouse, P. (2013). Fostering literacy
success for First Nations, Métis and Inuit
students. What Works? Research into
Practice, 45.
Villegas, A.M., & Lucas, T. (2002, Jan./Feb.).
Preparing culturally responsive teachers:
Rethinking the curriculum. Journal of Teacher
Education, 53(1), 20–32.
Willis, A.I., & Harris, V. (2000). Political
acts: Literacy learning and teaching.
Reading Research Quarterly, 35(1), 72–88.
Ontario Ministry of Education
Ontario Leadership Strategy. Resources for
Building Leadership Capacity for Student
Achievement and Well-Being (2012)
The Ontario Leadership Framework: A
School and System Leader’s Guide to
Putting Ontario’s Leadership Framework
Into Action (2012)
Realizing the Promise of Diversity:
Ontario’s Equity and Inclusive Education
Strategy (2009)

New from the ministry ...
Supporting Bias-Free Progressive Discipline
in Schools: A Resource Guide for School
and System Leaders http://www.edu.gov.
on.ca/eng/policyfunding/discipline.html
Jointly developed with the Ontario
Human Rights Commission, this guide
is intended to assist school and system
leaders in fostering a bias-free approach
to progressive discipline, prevention and
early intervention practices to support
positive behaviour among all students.
http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/policyfunding/discipline.html
http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/policyfunding/discipline.html
Editorial
Journal of Teacher Education
61(3) 191 –196
© 2010 American Association of
Colleges for Teacher Education
Reprints and permission: http://www.
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0022487109359762
http://jte.sagepub.com
Social Justice and Teacher Education:
A Hammer, a Bell, and a Song

Elizabeth Spalding1, Cari L. Klecka1, Emily Lin1,
Sandra J. Odell1, and Jian Wang1
The Journal of Teacher Education (JTE) has a long, distin-
guished record of publishing articles focusing on multiple
aspects of “learning to teach for social justice, social change,
and social responsibility” (Cochran-Smith, 2001, p. 3). Since
the most recent themed issue on the topic, “Culture, Diversity,
and Transformation,” appeared in 2004, the time seemed right
for an update. Furthermore, the current issue devoted to the
topic of social justice and teacher education emerged from the
field, as we assumed editorship of JTE and noticed that we
were receiving a number of quality manuscripts connected by
this theme. With this editorial and themed issue, we bring
together and highlight current research and scholarship that
focus on various practices and conceptions of learning to
teach for social justice. We use social justice as an umbrella
term to cover projects that differ in their focus (e.g., culturally
relevant pedagogy, antiracist pedagogy, intercultural teaching)
but share the common aim of preparing teachers to recognize,
name, and combat inequity in schools and society.
In fall 2009, as we were immersed in the process of work-
ing with authors, editing manuscripts, and conceptualizing the
editorial for this issue, Mary Travers, the passionate, female
vocalist of the folk trio Peter, Paul, and Mary, passed away.
Her death saddened members of our editorial team, as it
undoubtedly saddened many teacher educators of a certain
age both in this country and beyond its borders, who grew up
to the music of Peter, Paul, and Mary and developed their
social consciousness to the tunes that became anthems of the
civil rights and antiwar movements.1 Memories of those
songs sparked the idea for organizing this piece. The lyrics of
“If I Had a Hammer,” written by Pete Seeger and Lee Hays
but spread “all over this land” by Peter, Paul, and Mary, seemed
both appropriate and timely for framing an editorial on the

status of social justice in teacher education as represented by
the articles in this issue.2
Seeger and Hays wrote “If I Had a Hammer” in 1949
with the labor rights movement in mind, using three sym-
bols associated with the workplace of the time: the hammer,
the bell, and the song. The lyrics reminded workers that they
already had in their hands the means to bring about equality.
The hammer, the characteristic tool of the laborer, could
be transformed into the hammer of justice. The bell that
marked the beginning and ending of the workday could
become the bell of freedom. The songs that men, women,
and children have historically sung to ease the drudgery of
hard labor could become songs about love and caring for
one another. In this editorial, we apply the metaphorical
tools of hammer, bell, and song to the topic of learning to
teach for social justice. We interpret the hammer as the tools
(theories, ideologies, epistemologies, and practices) we
have for learning and teaching about social justice. We see
the bell as the means of sending a clear and persuasive mes-
sage to educators and teacher educators about the relevance
of teaching for social justice. We understand the song as the
means to unite those who may agree on the goals of teaching
for social justice but may disagree on how to go about
achieving them, as well as to convince those who may not
support those goals that we must work together to create a
just, democratic society. We argue that the hammer, the bell,
and the song must be used in concert and in balance if we
are to advance an agenda for learning to teach for social
justice.
The Hammer of Justice
A hammer is a hand tool used to deliver a blow or make an
impact. While most often used to build or construct, it can also
be used to break down, deconstruct, or destroy. In teaching and

teacher education, the hammer represents the theories, ideolo-
gies, epistemologies, and practices used to fight against social
injustice. Teacher educators have a number of hammers at their
disposal. For example, critical race theory (Ladson-Billings &
Tate, 1995), Whiteness studies (Leonardo, 2009), anti-oppres-
sive education (Kumashiro, 2000), culturally res ponsive
teaching (Gay, 2002), culturally relevant pedagogy (Ladson-
Billings, 1992), and lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender (LGBT)
education (Sears, 2005) are all powerful tools for striking
blows against racism, ableism, sexism, and the other ideologies
that marginalize students in schools. Such inequitable treat-
ment of students is compounded by social class, a factor that
receives too little critical scrutiny (Anyon, 1981; Oakes, 1985)
and poverty, which Hodginkson (2002) has called the “univer-
sally handicapping condition” (p. 103). Nevertheless, as the
variety of articles in this issue attest, the overzealous use of
1University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV, USA
Corresponding Author:
Elizabeth Spalding, University of Nevada, Las Vegas
4505 Maryland Pkwy Box 453005, Las Vegas, NV, 89154-3005
Email: [email protected]
192 Journal of Teacher Education 61(3)
hammers can create resistance, frustration, and confusion
among the very individuals they are intended to help.
For instance, Evelyn Young’s article in this issue demon-
strates how complicated learning to teach for social justice
can be in school settings. She describes the workings of a
school-based teacher inquiry group committed to understand-
ing and implementing culturally relevant pedagogy. Young’s

study highlights the dissonance between a theory as it is out-
lined in the literature and as it is applied in the classroom.
She notes that culturally relevant pedagogy is theorized as a
tool to empower students intellectually, socially, emotionally,
and politically; however, she found underdeveloped under-
standing, confusion, and frustration at the district, school,
and classroom levels as teachers attempted to use it.
Methodological tools are also needed to examine how
teacher educators and teachers learn to teach for social jus-
tice. In their review of teacher capacity and social justice in
teacher education, Grant and Agosto (2008) noted a deficit
of studies that carefully document how “dialogue shapes the
development of communities and serves as an indication of
learning, reflection, and social consciousness” (p. 193). Young
(2010) is but one of several authors in this issue who have
begun to address this empirical deficiency. The action research
approach she adopted using teacher inquiry groups shows the
potential of this methodological tool to construct, support,
refine, and sustain teachers’ practice for social justice.
Seonaigh
MacPherson’s (this issue) study uses Web-based communi-
cation to capture conversations about critical intercultural
incidents among a variety of participants. The work of Sally
Galman, Cinzia Pica, and Cynthia Rosenberger (this issue)
provides a strong example of how self-study can be used to
document learning about teaching for social justice.
The studies in this issue highlight the need for an analysis
of learning to teach for social justice that can be translated
into teachable practices. For example, Rachel Oppenheim,
Ruchi Agarwal, Shiri Epstein, Celia Oyler, and Debbie Sonu
followed recent graduates of an elementary preservice teacher
education program into their beginning teaching placements
and examined the ways in which they enacted social justice
curricula. The authors described the three novice teachers’

attempts to put conceptions of social justice into practice as
an “uncertain journey.” As D. L. Ball, Sleep, Boerst, and Bass
(2009) have suggested, teachers need access to practices that
can be rehearsed and developed in the field and subsequently
assessed and refined over time. Just as in the practice of
teaching a subject such as mathematics, learning to teach for
social justice needs to become part of “a reliable system of
preparing many ordinary people for expert practice” (D. L.
Ball, 2008, p. 43). This would entail theorizing learning to
teach for social justice grounded in beliefs and backgrounds
while making operational strategies to be practiced and imp-
leme nted in the field. Said otherwise, in order to make the
hammer of social justice an accessible tool for teachers to
use in classroom practice, teacher educators should treat
learning theories of social justice and the development of the
practice of teaching for social justice as concomitant
activities.
The Bell of Freedom
Throughout the empirical articles in this issue runs the common
thread of preservice and inservice teachers who want to teach
in socially just ways but who are at a loss as to how to do that.
Indeed, there has been a lack of clarity in teacher education
about the meaning of teaching for social justice (McDonald &
Zeichner, 2009). For example, in their contribution to this
issue, Mica Pollock, Sherry Deckman, Meredith Mira, and Carla
Shalaby describe preservice teachers who wonder whether
simply teaching their subjects well is adequate antiracist work,
whether everyday acts really do combat racism, and whether
the problem of racism is so big that nothing can be done. The
bell, in our view, must send a clear and persuasive message
to educators: In order to teach well, you must know yourself,
your students, and their community. The portraits of practice
in this issue ring out this message. Once the message is
heard and taken to heart, teachers and teacher educators will

seek out conceptual tools that will enable them to go beyond
lip service to actual teaching for social justice (Grant &
Agosto, 2008).
In this issue, Sharon Chubbuck provides a framework
that teacher educators can use to help preservice teachers
understand, adopt, and implement socially just teaching. She
demonstrates how teachers can use both an individual and a
structural orientation to analyze students’ academic difficul-
ties. Likewise, Pollock and her colleagues (2010) show how
teacher educators can pose a single question with three dif-
ferent inflections (What can I do? What can I do? What can
I do?) in order to use productively the tensions inherent in
antiracist teaching and to launch teachers into ongoing inquiry
into their practice. Jacqueline Leonard, Wanda Brooks, Robert
Berry, and Joy Barnes-Johnson writing in this issue remind us
of the necessity of providing preservice and inservice teach-
ers with subject-specific examples that clarify what socially
just teaching looks like, particularly in subjects such as
mathematics where achievement gaps persist. Without such
articulation of the definition, aims, and vision of social jus-
tice work, the teacher education profession risks social justice
becoming a clichéd phrase that lacks real meaning in practice
(Cochran-Smith, Barnatt, Lahann, Shakman, & Terrell, 2009).
This, most regrettably, would serve to minimize the impact
of any social justice hammer teacher educators might wield.
Self-study can help us teach about social justice and learn
about teaching for social justice (Loughran, 2006). Galman
et al. (2010) demonstrate how to combine self-study with
other methods of inquiry to clarify the role of teacher educa-
tors and teacher education programs in both maintaining and
combating the status quo of White privilege. They discovered
that despite their good intentions for transforming preservice

Spalding et al. 193
teachers’ beliefs through antiracist pedagogy, they inadvertently
created dissent, confusion, and discord due to their different
developmental levels as teacher educators. Their findings
highlight that even when a teacher education program pub-
licly affirms its commitment to teaching for social justice
(see Milner, 2008, on need for systemic commitment), indi-
vidual teacher educators grapple with the enactment of it.
Before teacher educators can expect others to teach about
social justice, they must begin with frank conversations among
themselves and critical reflection upon their practice.
Some scholars have characterized social justice teaching
as being undertheorized and have pointed out the need for
empirical studies that examine the classroom practices of
teachers who claim to teach for social justice. For example,
Zeichner (2006) has written that it is difficult to find any
teacher education programs across the country that do not
claim to be doing social justice teacher education. The prob-
lem is whether or not they actually are doing social justice
teacher education. The research in this issue helps to move the
field forward by providing empirical evidence of the work of
preservice and inservice teachers, as well as teacher educa-
tors, engaged in socially just teaching.
Even when preservice and inservice teachers are persuaded
by the clear and consistent message of the bell, the dissonance
between the message of learning to teach for social justice
and the perceived reality of schools contributes to a lack of
clarity in teachers’ responses to it. Teaching “against the grain”
has never been easy, but teaching against the “(new) grain of
standardized practices that treat teachers as interchangeable
parts and—worse—reinscribe societal inequities” (Cochran-
Smith, 2001, p. 4) may be more difficult than ever before. It

does not take long for the contexts of the school, community,
and the culture at large to destabilize even a robust commit-
ment to social justice. This problem is exemplified by
Oppenheim and colleagues (2010), who show how contextual
constraints, such as standardized testing, mandated curriculum,
and inflexible schedules, interfered with beginning teachers’
personal commitments to create inclusive and critically aware
classroom environments and to teach in socially just ways.
Teacher educators need to explicate both theories that are
more personally persuasive to teachers and teacher educa-
tion students and practices that will help them act on their
beliefs so that beliefs about and practices of teaching for
social justice are developed concurrently. In other words, the
hammer and bell should be interrelated and should mutually
reinforce teacher learning for social justice.
The Song About Love for One Another
In a review of the literature on teacher preparation, social
justice, and equity, Wiedeman (2002) identified seven key
themes that contribute to conceptions of learning to teach for
social justice. One of these is care theory. As Noddings (1988)
has defined it, an ethic of caring is built upon interpersonal
relationships, and a school system founded upon an ethic of
caring would look very different from the existing system.
But Noddings’s description of caring has been critiqued for
overlooking the role race, class, and gender play in systems
of oppression (Wiedeman, 2002). Perhaps as a result of such
critiques, discussion of caring is not in the forefront of the
contemporary discourse on learning to teach for social justice.
We find this unfortunate because we believe that caring—
the song about love for one another—is precisely what is
needed to make the hammer and bell of socially just teaching
effective. In those unfortunate instances where teacher edu-

cators guilt students and teachers into confessing that they
are part of the problem of social injustice (a message that
may not be personally persuasive to them), any affective
motivation the students and teachers have to change social
injustice in the world may be diminished. The song that pro-
motes love and caring for one another needs to be heard and
acted upon in order to unify and motivate teacher educators,
teachers, and students to combat the forces of oppression
that, in all likelihood, they truly detest.
Caring is critical to effective teaching:
Students need and want teachers to care for them as
persons and to convey this care through listening and
responding to their expressions of concern. . . . It mat-
ters to students whether or not they like and are liked
by their teachers. (Noddings, 2003, p. 244)
Caring teaching is multidimensional. It includes pedagogical,
moral, and cultural caring that necessitates understanding
students who are, more often than not, culturally different
from their teachers (Isenbarger & Zembylas, 2006). This
requires teachers to display respect and responsiveness to
students’ needs and capabilities, encourage discussion and
self-reflection, and engage students in meaningful learning
situations (Rogers & Webb, 1991).
People enter teaching because they care: Altruism remains
the most frequently identified characteristic that motivates
individuals to enter teaching (Brookhart & Freeman, 1992;
Nieto, 2005; Zumwalt & Craig, 2005). A predisposition to
care may serve as a foundation for building a commitment to
teaching for social justice. Yet, as teacher educators hammer
away in their quest to break through, change, and otherwise
deconstruct and reconstruct preservice teachers’ attitudes
and beliefs, they may unintentionally knock this foundation

down. Chubbuck’s (2010) conceptual analysis in this issue
stresses the basic role of care in helping preservice teachers
analyze students’ learning difficulties. The theme of caring
runs through MacPherson’s (2010) case study that describes
how participants worked collaboratively using Web-based
communication to address intercultural education in a Cana-
dian province with a fast-growing immigrant population and
sizeable indigenous communities. University researchers,
inservice teacher mentors, and preservice teachers conversed
online about critical intercultural incidents they witnessed.
MacPherson (2010) classified participants’ decision making
about the incidents into categories of “minding” and
“responding,” both extensions of caring.
Yet, having argued that caring lays a crucial foundation
for social justice teaching, we also assert that it is not suffi-
cient for it. Rather, teachers need to care about students enough
to focus on and hold high expectations for their learning.
Otherwise teacher educators fall victim to the critics who
characterize teaching for social justice as focused on “kids
feeling good and teachers being politically correct, while
nobody pays attention to learning” (Cochran-Smith et al.,
2009, p. 625). As Irvine (2003) has pointed out, care can be
conceptualized very differently in communities with large
populations of people of color. Care is not always seen as a
soft, fuzzy concept; rather, care is sometimes about teachers
being tough on students because they know the students’
capabilities. The hammer of justice, the bell of freedom, and
the song about love are interdependent and emergent. No
single one is maximally effective in teaching for social jus-
tice without the other two, and the effectiveness of the three

used together is much greater than the effects of each used
alone.
Challenges to Repurposing the
Hammer, Bell, and Song
Whiteness remains an “overwhelming presence” in teacher
education (Sleeter, 2001, p. 102) and one of the challenges to
learning to teach for social justice. Preparing predominantly
White teacher candidates to teach an increasingly diverse
student population involves more than simply equipping
them with neutral pedagogical knowledge and skills. And
despite strenuous efforts to recruit and retain teachers and
teacher educators who reflect more closely the demograph-
ics of school populations, their numbers have not increased
significantly. This is true, at least in part, because while K-12
students have no choice but to attend school, their teachers
elect to be there.
The disincentives to enter and stay in the profession con-
tinue to mount as its substantive rewards continue to dwindle
in comparison to other professions. The situation is exacer-
bated because evidence suggests that prospective teachers
of color may be even more motivated by altruism than by a
desire for money or prestige (Nieto, 2005). Yet, the current
constraints of schooling—pacing guides, scrimmage tests, real
tests, adequate yearly progress (AYP), scripted curricula—
work against teachers’ needs to establish caring relationships
with their students and limit their creativity, responsiveness,
and intellectual curiosity.
The increasing rigidity of schooling and a narrow defini-
tion of accountability do not make teaching an attractive
career choice for idealists committed to social change. This
is ironic in light of the fact that many would claim that the
standards and accountability movement was established pre-
cisely to bring about social justice. We are not nostalgic for

some “good old days” of teaching that never were: There
have always been competent and incompetent teachers and
educational environments that are more and less restrictive.
Nevertheless, it seems to us that economic, political, social,
and demographic factors are converging to turn teachers into
what S. J. Ball (1999) has called “pedagogic technicians” (p.
14).
What’s worse, the longevity of the standards and account-
ability movement has practically guaranteed that the educational
experiences of the majority of individuals entering teaching
today have been driven by externally imposed criteria. Today’s
apprenticeship of observation (Lortie, 1975) includes an
unhealthy dose of test preparation and test taking, with the
goal of meeting a state’s minimum performance standards.
The gap between how teacher educators for social justice
define learning and preservice teachers’ beliefs and disposi-
tions about teaching may be widening.
One of the greatest challenges for preparing teachers
to teach effectively for social justice is broadcasting a song
that the general public will find personally persuasive.
Songs like “If I Had a Hammer” helped bring the civil rights
movement to the attention of the public at large, and as a
consequence, the movement grew. Currently, however,
when teacher educators are successful in preparing teachers
to teach for social justice, their efforts at social activism
may get them into trouble. Here in Las Vegas, for instance,
some members of the community of a high school that is
nationally recognized for excellence attempted to block the
school’s production of the award-winning plays Rent and
The Laramie Project because they require students to play
gay characters. This is but one local example of the discon-
nect between the profession’s and the public’s visions for
education. How can teacher educators respect community

values as they work toward social justice and contribute to
the inclusion rather than the alienation of the public at large?
Is there a song about justice, freedom, and love that we can
all sing together?
Well, We Got a Hammer
The hammer represents the theoretical tools and practices
teacher educators have at their disposal, such as culturally
responsive pedagogy, Whiteness studies, and critical race
theory. Teacher educators need to make sure that they use
these tools not just to break down walls of prejudice, racism,
and intolerance but to construct new intellectual and affec-
tive scaffolds that will enable teachers and teacher educators
to be activists and advocates for social justice in their class-
rooms, their schools, and society. In order for this to happen,
teacher educators must use the bell of freedom to send out a
clear, consistent, and persuasive message that social justice
is a foundational goal of American education, not an add-on
to be addressed after academic standards are met. Without
clarity about the goals, objectives, and practices of socially
just teaching, well-intentioned pedagogy can become com-
promised. But even taken together, the hammer and bell
Spalding et al. 195
alone cannot accomplish the aims of teaching for social jus-
tice. The work must be done to the beat of the song of love.
The song is sung through the caring dispositions that teach-
ers and their educators almost universally bring to the
classroom and that teacher educators may fail to acknowl-
edge as they labor to change beliefs and attitudes that do not
align with socially just aims. While teacher educators should
not abandon the work of changing beliefs and attitudes, they
should consider beginning with the foundation of caring that

is already in place among teachers who enter the profession
with good intentions. Good intentions, however, are not
enough. In addition the work of changing beliefs and atti-
tudes must be carried out in concert with creating a socially
just practice.
To some readers this may sound like the sentimental hog-
wash of typical White, middle-class, female teacher educators.
In reality, we are an editorial team diverse in gender, age, and
ethnicity. Our roots extend from Appalachia to the People’s
Republic of China. Our diverse identities and experiences
inform how we use our voices. As we reflect on the impact of
the voice of one White, middle-class, female folksinger—Mary
Travers—we become more firmly convinced that it is only
with a hammer, a bell, and a song that the teaching profession
will prevail in the struggle for justice in schools and society.
Acknowledgements
The editors would like to thank Drs. Jesus Garcia and H.
Richard
Milner IV for their thoughtful feedback on earlier drafts of this
editorial.
Notes
1. Peter Yarrow, Paul (Noel) Stookey, and Mary Travers formed
the
folk group known as Peter, Paul, and Mary. In the 1960s, their
songs garnered a mass audience for folk music and for the
politi-
cal messages of songs like “Blowin’ In the Wind,” “If I Had a
Hammer,” “Where Have All the Flowers Gone?,” and “The
Times
They Are a-Changin’.” Please visit YouTube at http://www.you
tube.com/watch?v=_UKvpONl3No to view a video recording of

Peter, Paul, and Mary performing “If I Had a Hammer.”
2. For an in-depth discussion of the history and definition of
social justice together with a review and critique of recent liter-
ature, we refer readers to Grant and Agosto (2008). In addition,
Cochran-Smith, Shakman, Jong, Terrell, Barnatt, and McQuil-
lan (2009) have provided a concise review of the case for and
against what they call “good and just teaching.”
References
Agarwal, R., Epstein, S., Oppenheim, R., Oyler, C., & Sonu, D.
(2010). From ideal to practice and back again: Beginning teach-
ers teaching for social justice. Journal of Teacher Education,
61, 237-247.
Anyon, J. (1981). Social class and school knowledge.
Curriculum
Inquiry, 11(1), 3-42.
Ball, D. L. (2008, February). The work of teaching and the chal-
lenge for teacher education. Charles W. Hunt Lecture at the
annual meeting of the American Association of Colleges of
Teacher Education. New Orleans, LA.
Ball, D. L., Sleep, L., Boerst, T. A., & Bass, H. (2009).
Combining
the development of practice and the practices of development
in teacher education. Elementary School Journal, 109,
458-474.
Ball, S. J. (1999, September). Global trends in educational
reform
and the struggle for the soul of the teacher. Paper presented at
the British Educational Research Association Annual Confer-

ence, University of Sussex at Brighton.
Brookhart, S. M., & Freeman, D. J. (1992). Characteristics of
enter-
ing teacher candidates. Review of Educational Research, 62(1),
37-60.
Chubbuck, S. (2010). Individual and structural orientations in
soci-
ally just teaching: Conceptualization, implementation, and col-
laborative effort. Journal of Teacher Education, 61, 197-210.
Cochran-Smith, M. (2001). Learning to teach against the (new)
grain. Journal of Teacher Education, 52, 3-4.
Cochran-Smith, M., Barnatt, J., Lahann, R., Shakman, K., &
Ter-
rell, D. (2009). Teacher education for social justice: Critiquing
the critiques. In W. Ayers, T. Quinn, & D. Stovall (Eds.), The
handbook of social justice in education (pp. 625-639). London:
Taylor & Francis.
Cochran-Smith, M., Shakman, K., Jong, C., Terrell, D. G.,
Barnatt, J.,
& McQuillan, P. (2009). Good and just teaching: The case for
social justice in teacher education. American Journal of Educa-
tion, 115, 347-377.
Galman, S., Pica, C., & Rosenberger, C. (2010). Aggressive and
tender navigations: Teacher educators confront whiteness in
their practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 61, 225-236.
Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching.
Jour-
nal of Teacher Education, 53, 106-116.

Grant, C., & Agosto, V. (2008). Teacher capacity and social
justice
in teacher education. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser,
D. J. McIntyre, & K. Demers (Eds.), Handbook of research on
teacher education: Enduring questions in changing contexts
(3rd ed., pp. 175-200). Philadelphia: Taylor and Francis.
Hodginkson, H. (2002). Demographics and teacher education:
An
overview. Journal of Teacher Education, 53, 102-105.
Irvine, J. J. (2003). Educating teachers for diversity: Seeing
with a
cultural eye. New York: Teachers College Press.
Isenbarger, L., & Zembylas, M. (2006). The emotional labour of
car-
ing in teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 120-134.
Kumashiro, K. K. (2000). Toward a theory of anti-oppressive
edu-
cation. Review of Educational Research, 70, 25-53.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1992). Culturally relevant teaching: The
key
to making multicultural education work. In C. A. Grant (Ed.),
Research and multicultural education (pp. 106-121). London:
Falmer Press.
Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate, W. F. (1995). Toward a critical
race
theory of education. Teachers College Record, 97, 47-68.
Leonard, J., Brooks, W., Berry, R., & Barnes-Johnson, J.
(2010).
The nuances and complexities of teaching mathematics for cul-

tural relevance and social justice. Journal of Teacher Education,
61, 261-270.
Leonardo, Z. (2009). Race, Whiteness, and education. New
York:
Routledge.
Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological perspective.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Loughran, J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher
education:
Understanding teaching and learning about teaching. New York:
Routledge.
MacPherson, S. (2010). Teachers’ collaborative conversations
about
culture: Negotiating decision-making in intercultural teaching.
Journal of Teacher Education, 61, 271-286.
McDonald, M., & Zeichner, K. (2009). Social justice teacher
edu-
cation. In W. Ayers, T. Quinn, & D. Stovall (Eds.), The hand-
book of social justice in education (pp. 595-610). Philadelphia:
Taylor and Francis.
Milner, H. R. (2008). Critical race theory and interest
convergence
as analytic tools in teacher education policies and practices.
Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 332-346.
Nieto, S. (Ed.). (2005). Why we teach. New York: Teacher

College
Press.
Noddings, N. (1988). An ethic of caring and its implications for
instructional arrangements. American Journal of Education, 96,
215-230.
Noddings, N. (2003). Is teaching a practice? Journal of
Philosophy
of Education, 37, 241-251.
Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure
inequality.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Pollock, M., Deckman, S., Mira, M., & Shalaby, C. (2010). “But
what can I do?” Three necessary tensions in teaching teachers
about race. Journal of Teacher Education, 61, 211-224.
Rogers, D., & Webb, J. (1991). The ethics of caring in teacher
edu-
cation. Journal of Teacher Education, 42, 173-181.
Sears, J. T. (2005). Youth, education, and sexualities: An
interna-
tional encyclopedia. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Sleeter, C. E. (2001). Preparing teachers for culturally diverse
schools: Research and the overwhelming presence of White-
ness. Journal of Teacher Education, 52, 94-106.
Wiedeman, C. R. (2002). Teacher preparation, social justice,
equity:
A review of the literature. Equity & Excellence in Education,
35,
200-211.

Young, E. (2010). Challenges to conceptualizing and actualiz-
ing culturally relevant pedagogy: How viable is the theory
in classroom practice? Journal of Teacher Education, 61,
248-260.
Zeichner, K. (2006). Reflections of a university-based
teacher educator on the future of college- and university-
based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57,
326-340.
Zumwalt, K., & Craig, E. (2005). Teachers’ characteristics:
Research on the indicators of quality. In M. Cochran-Smith &
K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The
report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education
(pp. 157-260). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 53, No. 2, March/April
2002Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 53, No. 2, March/April
2002
2001 AACTE OUTSTANDING WRITING AWARD RECIPIENT
Editor’s Note: This article draws from Geneva Gay’s recent
book, Culturally Responsive
Teaching: Theory, Research, and Practice, which received the
2001 Outstanding Writing
Award from the American Association of Colleges for Teacher
Education.
PREPARING FOR CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE TEACHING
Geneva Gay

University of Washington, Seattle
In this article, a case is made for improving the
school success of ethnically diverse students
through culturally responsive teaching and for
preparing teachers in preservice education pro-
grams with the knowledge, attitudes, and skills
needed to do this. The ideas presented here are
brief sketches of more thorough explanations
included in my recent book, Culturally Respon-
sive Teaching: Theory, Research, and Practice (2000).
The specific components of this approach to
teaching are based on research findings, theo-
retical claims, practical experiences, and per-
sonal stories of educators researching and work-
ing with underachieving African, Asian, Latino,
and Native American students. These data were
produced by individuals from a wide variety of
disciplinary backgrounds including anthropol-
ogy, sociology, psychology, sociolinguistics, com-
munications, multicultural education, K-college
classroom teaching, and teacher education. Five
essential elements of culturally responsive teach-
ing are examined: developing a knowledge base
about cultural diversity, including ethnic and
cultural diversity content in the curriculum, dem-
onstrating caring and building learning com-
munities, communicating with ethnically diverse
students, and responding to ethnic diversity in
the delivery of instruction. Culturally responsive
teaching is defined as using the cultural charac-
teristics, experiences, and perspectives of ethni-
cally diverse students as conduits for teaching
them more effectively. It is based on the assump-
tion that when academic knowledge and skills

are situated within the lived experiences and
frames of reference of students, they are more
personally meaningful, have higher interest ap-
peal, and are learned more easily and thoroughly
(Gay, 2000). As a result, the academic achieve-
ment of ethnically diverse students will improve
when they are taught through their own cul-
tural and experiential filters (Au & Kawakami,
1994; Foster, 1995; Gay, 2000; Hollins, 1996;
Kleinfeld, 1975; Ladson-Billings, 1994, 1995).
DEVELOPING A CULTURAL
DIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE BASE
Educators generally agree that effective teach-
ing requires mastery of content knowledge and
pedagogical skills. As Howard (1999) so aptly
stated, “We can’t teach what we don’t know.”
This statement applies to knowledge both of
student populations and subject matter. Yet, too
many teachers are inadequately prepared to teach
ethnically diverse students. Some professional
programs still equivocate about including multi-
cultural education despite the growing num-
bers of and disproportionately poor performance
of students of color. Other programs are trying
to decide what is the most appropriate place and
“face” for it. A few are embracing multicultural
education enthusiastically. The equivocation is
106
Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 53, No. 2, March/April 2002
106-116
© 2002 by the American Association of Colleges for Teacher
Education

inconsistent with preparing for culturally respon-
sive teaching, which argues that explicit knowl-
edge about cultural diversity is imperative to
meeting the educational needs of ethnically diverse
students.
Part of this knowledge includes understand-
ing the cultural characteristics and contribu-
tions of different ethnic groups (Hollins, King, &
Hayman, 1994; King, Hollins, & Hayman, 1997;
Pai, 1990; Smith, 1998). Culture encompasses
many things, some of which are more important
for teachers to know than others because they
have direct implications for teaching and learn-
ing. Among these are ethnic groups’ cultural
values, traditions, communication, learning styles,
contributions, and relational patterns. For exam-
ple, teachers need to know (a) which ethnic
groups give priority to communal living and
cooperative problem solving and how these pref-
erences affect educational motivation, aspira-
tion, and task performance; (b) how different
ethnic groups’ protocols of appropriate ways
for children to interact with adults are exhibited
in instructional settings; and (c) the implications
of gender role socialization in different ethnic
groups for implementing equity initiatives in
classroom instruction. This information consti-
tutes the first essential component of the knowl-
edge base of culturally responsive teaching. Some
of the cultural characteristics and contributions
of ethnic groups that teachers need to know are
explained in greater detail by Gold, Grant, and

Rivlin (1977); Shade (1989); Takaki (1993); Banks
and Banks (1995); and Spring (1995).
The knowledge that teachers need to have
about cultural diversity goes beyond mere aware-
ness of, respect for, and general recognition of
the fact that ethnic groups have different values
or express similar values in various ways. Thus,
the second requirement for developing a knowl-
edge base for culturally responsive teaching is
acquiring detailed factual information about the
cultural particularities of specific ethnic groups
(e.g., African, Asian, Latino, and Native Ameri-
can). This is needed to make schooling more
interesting and stimulating for, representative
of, and responsive to ethnically diverse students.
Too many teachers and teacher educators think
that their subjects (particularly math and sci-
ence) and cultural diversity are incompatible, or
that combining them is too much of a concep-
tual and substantive stretch for their subjects to
maintain disciplinary integrity. This is simply
not true. There is a place for cultural diversity in
every subject taught in schools. Furthermore,
culturally responsive teaching deals as much
with using multicultural instructional strate-
gies as with adding multicultural content to the
curriculum. Misconceptions like these stem, in
part, from the fact that many teachers do not
know enough about the contributions that dif-
ferent ethnic groups have made to their subject
areas and are unfamiliar with multicultural edu-
cation. They may be familiar with the achieve-
ments of select, high-profile individuals from
some ethnic groups in some areas, such as Afri-

can American musicians in popular culture or
politicians in city, state, and national govern-
ment. Teachers may know little or nothing about
the contributions of Native Americans and Asian
Americans in the same arenas. Nor do they
know enough about the less publicly visible but
very significant contributions of ethnic groups
in science, technology, medicine, math, theol-
ogy, ecology, peace, law, and economics.
Many teachers also are hard-pressed to have
an informed conversation about leading multi-
cultural education scholars and their major pre-
mises, principles, and proposals. What they think
they know about the field is often based on
superficial or distorted information conveyed
through popular culture, mass media, and crit-
ics. Or their knowledge reflects cursory aca-
demic introductions that provide insufficient
depth of analysis of multicultural education.
These inadequacies can be corrected by teach-
ers’ acquiring more knowledge about the con-
tributions of different ethnic groups to a wide
variety of disciplines and a deeper understand-
ing of multicultural education theory, research,
and scholarship. This is a third important pillar
of the knowledge foundation of culturally respon-
sive teaching. Acquiring this knowledge is not
as difficult as it might at first appear. Ethnic
individuals and groups have been making wor-
thy contributions to the full range of life and cul-
ture in the United States and humankind from
the very beginning. And there is no shortage of
107

quality information available about multicul-
tural education. It just has to be located, learned,
and woven into the preparation programs of
teachers and classroom instruction. This can be
accomplished, in part, by all prospective teach-
ers taking courses on the contributions of ethnic
groups to the content areas that they will teach
and on multicultural education.
DESIGNING CULTURALLY
RELEVANT CURRICULA
In addition to acquiring a knowledge base
about ethnic and cultural diversity, teachers need
to learn how to convert it into culturally respon-
sive curriculum designs and instructional strat-
egies. Three kinds of curricula are routinely
present in the classroom, each of which offers
different opportunities for teaching cultural
diversity. The first is formal plans for instruction
approved by the policy and governing bodies of
educational systems. They are usually anchored
in and complemented by adopted textbooks
and other curriculum guidelines such as the
“standards” issued by national commissions,
state departments of education, professional asso-
ciations, and local school districts. Even though
these curriculum documents have improved over
time in their treatment of ethnic and cultural
diversity, they are still not as good as they need
to be (Wade, 1993). Culturally responsive teach-
ers know how to determine the multicultural
strengths and weaknesses of curriculum designs

and instructional materials and make the changes
necessary to improve their overall quality. These
analyses should focus on the quantity, accuracy,
complexity, placement, purpose, variety, signif-
icance, and authenticity of the narrative texts,
visual illustrations, learning activities, role mod-
els, and authorial sources used in the instruc-
tional materials. There are several recurrent trends
in how formal school curricula deal with ethnic
diversity that culturally responsive teachers need
to correct. Among them are avoiding controver-
sial issues such as racism, historical atrocities,
powerlessness, and hegemony; focusing on the
accomplishments of the same few high-profile
individuals repeatedly and ignoring the actions
of groups; giving proportionally more attention
to African Americans than other groups of color;
decontextualizing women, their issues, and their
actions from their race and ethnicity; ignoring
poverty; and emphasizing factual information
while minimizing other kinds of knowledge (such
as values, attitudes, feelings, experiences, and
ethics). Culturally responsive teaching reverses
these trends by dealing directly with contro-
versy; studying a wide range of ethnic individu-
als and groups; contextualizing issues within
race, class, ethnicity, and gender; and including
multiple kinds of knowledge and perspectives.
It also recognizes that these broad-based analy-
ses are necessary to do instructional justice to
the complexity, vitality, and potentiality of eth-
nic and cultural diversity. One specific way to
begin this curriculum transformation process is
to teach preservice (and inservice) teachers how
to do deep cultural analyses of textbooks and

other instructional materials, revise them for
better representations of culturally diversity, and
provide many opportunities to practice these
skills under guided supervision. Teachers need
to thoroughly understand existing obstacles to
culturally responsive teaching before they can
successfully remove them.
Other instructional plans used frequently in
schools are called the symbolic curriculum (Gay,
1995). They include images, symbols, icons, mot-
toes, awards, celebrations, and other artifacts
that are used to teach students knowledge, skills,
morals, and values. The most common forms of
symbolic curricula are bulletin board decora-
tions; images of heroes and heroines; trade books;
and publicly displayed statements of social eti-
quette, rules and regulations, ethical principles,
and tokens of achievement. Therefore, class-
room and school walls are valuable “advertis-
ing” space, and students learn important les-
sons from what is displayed there. Over time,
they come to expect certain images, value what
is present, and devalue that which is absent.
Culturally responsive teachers are critically con-
scious of the power of the symbolic curriculum
as an instrument of teaching and use it to help
convey important information, values, and actions
about ethnic and cultural diversity. They ensure
that the images displayed in classrooms repre-
sent a wide variety of age, gender, time, place,
social class, and positional diversity within and
108 Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 53, No. 2, March/April
2002

across ethnic groups and that they are accurate
extensions of what is taught through the formal
curriculum. For example, lessons of leadership,
power, and authority taught through images
should include males and females and expres-
sive indicators of these accomplishments from
many different ethnic groups.
A third type of curriculum that is fundamen-
tal to culturally responsive teaching is what
Cortés (1991, 1995, 2000) has called the societal
curriculum. This is the knowledge, ideas, and
impressions about ethnic groups that are por-
trayed in the mass media. Television programs,
newspapers, magazines, and movies are much
more than mere factual information or idle enter-
tainment. They engage in ideological manage-
ment (Spring, 1992) and construct knowledge
(Cortés, 1995) because their content reflects and
conveys particular cultural, social, ethnic, and
political values, knowledge, and advocacies. For
many students, mass media is the only source of
knowledge about ethnic diversity; for others,
what is seen on television is more influential
and memorable than what is learned from books
in classrooms. Unfortunately, much of this “knowl-
edge” is inaccurate and frequently prejudicial.
In a study of ethnic stereotyping in news report-
ing, Campbell (1995) found that these programs
perpetuate “myths about life outside of white
‘mainstream’ America . . . [that] contribute to an
understanding of minority cultures as less sig-
nificant, as marginal” (p. 132). Members of both
minority and majority groups are negatively

affected by these images and representations.
Ethnic distortions in mass media are not limited
to news programs; they are pervasive in other
types of programming as well. The messages
they transmit are too influential for teachers to
ignore. Therefore, culturally responsive teach-
ing includes thorough and critical analyses of
how ethnic groups and experiences are pre-
sented in mass media and popular culture.
Teachers need to understand how media images
of African, Asian, Latino, Native, and European
Americans are manipulated; the effects they have
on different ethnic groups; what formal school
curricula and instruction can do to counteract
their influences; and how to teach students to be
discerning consumers of and resisters to ethnic
information disseminated through the societal
curriculum.
DEMONSTRATING CULTURAL CARING
AND BUILDING A LEARNING COMMUNITY
A third critical component of preparation for
culturally responsive teaching is creating class-
room climates that are conducive to learning for
ethnically diverse students. Pedagogical actions
are as important as (if not more important than)
multicultural curriculum designs in implement-
ing culturally responsive teaching. They are not
simply technical processes of applying any “best
practices” to underachieving students of color,
however. Much more is required. Teachers need
to know how to use cultural scaffolding in teach-
ing these students—that is, using their own cul-
tures and experiences to expand their intellec-

tual horizons and academic achievement. This
begins by demonstrating culturally sensitive car-
ing and building culturally responsive learning
communities. Teachers have to care so much
about ethnically diverse students and their
achievement that they accept nothing less than
high-level success from them and work dili-
gently to accomplish it (Foster, 1997; Kleinfeld,
1974, 1975). This is a very different conception of
caring than the often-cited notion of “gentle
nurturing and altruistic concern,” which can
lead to benign neglect under the guise of letting
students of color make their own way and move
at their own pace.
Culturally responsive caring also places “teach-
ers in an ethical, emotional, and academic part-
nership with ethnically diverse students, a part-
nership that is anchored in respect, honor, integ-
rity, resource sharing, and a deep belief in the
possibility of transcendence” (Gay, 2000, p. 52).
Caring is a moral imperative, a social responsi-
bility, and a pedagogical necessity. It requires
that teachers use “knowledge and strategic think-
ing to decide how to act in the best interests of
others . . . [and] binds individuals to their soci-
ety, to their communities, and to each other”
(Webb, Wilson, Corbett, & Mordecai, 1993, pp. 33-
34). In culturally responsive teaching, the “knowl-
edge” of interest is information about ethnically
diverse groups; the “strategic thinking” is how
this cultural knowledge is used to redesign teach-
109

ing and learning; and the “bounds” are the reci-
procity involved in students working with each
other and with teachers as partners to improve
their achievement. Thus, teachers need to under-
stand that culturally responsive caring is action
oriented in that it demonstrates high expecta-
tions and uses imaginative strategies to ensure
academic success for ethnically diverse students.
Teachers genuinely believe in the intellectual
potential of these students and accept, unequiv-
ocally, their responsibility to facilitate its real-
ization without ignoring, demeaning, or neglect-
ing their ethnic and cultural identities. They
build toward academic success from a basis of
cultural validation and strength.
Building community among diverse learners
is another essential element of culturally respon-
sive teaching. Many students of color grow up
in cultural environments where the welfare of
the group takes precedence over the individual
and where individuals are taught to pool their
resources to solve problems. It is not that indi-
viduals and their needs are neglected; they are
addressed within the context of group function-
ing. When the group succeeds or falters, so do
its individual members. As a result, the group
functions somewhat like a “mutual aid society”
in which all members are responsible for help-
ing each other perform and ensuring that every-
one contributes to the collective task. The posi-
tive benefits of communities of learners and
cooperative efforts on student achievement have
been validated by Escalanté and Dirmann (1990)

in high school mathematics for Latinos; by Sheets
(1995) in high school Spanish language and lit-
erature with low-achieving Latinos; by Fullilove
and Treisman (1990) in 1st-year college calculus
with African, Latino, and Chinese Americans;
and by Tharp and Gallimore (1988) in elemen-
tary reading and language arts with Native
Hawaiian children. These ethics and styles of
working are quite different from the typical
ones used in schools, which give priority to the
individual and working independently. Cul-
turally responsive teachers understand how con-
flicts between different work styles may inter-
fere with academic efforts and outcomes, and
they understand how to design more commu-
nal learning environments.
The process of building culturally responsive
communities of learning is important for teach-
ers to know as well. The emphasis should be on
holistic or integrated learning. Contrary to the
tendency in conventional teaching to make dif-
ferent types of learning (cognitive, physical, emo-
tional) discrete, culturally responsive teaching
deals with them in concert. Personal, moral,
social, political, cultural, and academic knowl-
edge and skills are taught simultaneously. For
example, students are taught their cultural heri-
tages and positive ethnic identity development
along with math, science, reading, critical think-
ing, and social activism. They also are taught
about the heritages, cultures, and contributions
of other ethnic groups as they are learning their
own. Culturally responsive teachers help stu-
dents to understand that knowledge has moral
and political elements and consequences, which

obligate them to take social action to promote
freedom, equality, and justice for everyone. The
positive effects of teaching these knowledges
and skills simultaneously for African, Asian,
Latino, and Native American students are docu-
mented by Ladson-Billings (1994); Foster (1995);
Krater, Zeni, & Cason, (1994); Tharp & Gallimore
(1988); Escalanté and Dirmann (1990); and Sheets
(1995).
CROSS-CULTURAL COMMUNICATIONS
Effective cross-cultural communication is a
fourth pivotal element of preparing for cultur-
ally responsive teaching. Porter and Samovar
(1991) explained that culture influences “what
we talk about; how we talk about it; what we
see, attend to, or ignore; how we think; and what
we think about” (p. 21). Montagu and Watson
(1979) added that communication is the “ground
of meeting and the foundation of community”
(p. vii) among human beings. Without this “meet-
ing” and “community” in the classroom, learn-
ing is difficult to accomplish for some students.
In fact, determining what ethnically diverse stu-
dents know and can do, as well as what they are
capable of knowing and doing, is often a func-
tion of how well teachers can communicate with
them. The intellectual thought of students from
different ethnic groups is culturally encoded
(Cazden, John, & Hymes, 1985) in that its expres-
2002

sive forms and substance are strongly influ-
enced by cultural socialization. Teachers need to
be able to decipher these codes to teach ethni-
cally diverse students more effectively.
As is the case with any cultural component,
characteristics of ethnic communication styles
are core traits of group trends, not descriptions
of the behaviors of individual members of the
group. Whether and how particular individuals
manifest these characteristics vary along con-
tinua of depth, clarity, frequency, purity, pur-
pose, and place. However, expressive variabil-
ity of cultural characteristics among ethnic group
members does not nullify their existence. It is
imperative for teachers to understand these reali-
ties because many of them are hesitant about
dealing with cultural descriptors for fear of ste-
reotyping and overgeneralizing. They compen-
sate for this danger by trying to ignore or deny
the existence of cultural influences on students’
behaviors and their own. The answer is not
denial or evasion but direct confrontation and
thorough, critical knowledge of the interactive
relationships between culture, ethnicity, com-
munication, and learning and between individ-
uals and groups.
Culturally responsive teacher preparation pro-
grams teach how the communication styles of
different ethnic groups reflect cultural values
and shape learning behaviors and how to mod-
ify classroom interactions to better accommo-
date them. They include knowledge about the
linguistic structures of various ethnic communi-

cation styles as well as contextual factors, cul-
tural nuances, discourse features, logic and
rhythm, delivery, vocabulary usage, role rela-
tionships of speakers and listeners, intonation,
gestures, and body movements. Research reported
by Cazden et al. (1985), Kochman (1981), and
Smitherman (1994) indicated that the discourse
features of cultural communications are more
challenging and problematic in teaching ethni-
cally different students than structural linguistic
elements. The cultural markers and nuances
embedded in the communicative behaviors of
highly ethnically affiliated Latino, Native,
Asian, and African Americans are difficult to
recognize, understand, accept, and respond to
without corresponding cultural knowledge of
these ethnic groups.
There are several other more specific compo-
nents of the communication styles of ethnic groups
that should be part of the preparation for and
practice of culturally responsive teaching. One
of these is the protocols of participation in dis-
course. Whereas in mainstream schooling and
culture a passive-receptive style of communica-
tion and participation predominates, many groups
of color use an active-participatory one. In the
first, communication is didactic, with the speaker
playing the active role and the listener being
passive. Students are expected to listen quietly
while teachers talk and to talk only at prescribed
times when granted permission by the teacher.
Their participation is usually solicited by teach-
ers’ asking convergent questions that are posed
to specific individuals and require factual, “right

answer” responses. This pattern is serialized in
that it is repeated from one student to the next
(Goodlad, 1984; Philips, 1983).
In contrast, the communicative styles of most
ethnic groups of color in the United States are
more active, participatory, dialectic, and multi-
modal. Speakers expect listeners to engage with
them as they speak by providing prompts, feed-
back, and commentary. The roles of speaker and
listener are fluid and interchangeable. Among
African Americans, this interactive communi-
cative style is referred to as “call-response” (Baber,
1987; Smitherman, 1977); and for Native Hawai-
ians, it is called “talk-story” (Au, 1993; Au &
Kawakami, 1994). Among European American
females, the somewhat similar practice of “talk-
ing along with the speaker” to show involve-
ment, support, and confirmation is described as
“rapport talk” (Tannen, 1990). These communal
communication styles can be problematic in the
classroom for both teachers and students. Unin-
formed and unappreciative teachers consider
them rude, distractive, and inappropriate and
take actions to squelch them. Students who are
told not to use them may be, in effect, intellectu-
ally silenced. Because they are denied use of
their natural ways of talking, their thinking,
intellectual engagement, and academic efforts
are diminished as well.
111

Another communication technique important
to doing culturally responsive teaching is under-
standing different ethnic groups’ patterns of task
engagement and organizing ideas. In school, stu-
dents are taught to be very direct, precise, deduc-
tive, and linear in communication. That is, they
should be parsimonious in talking and writing,
avoid using lots of embellishment, stay focused
on the task or stick to the point, and build a logi-
cal case from the evidence to the conclusion,
from the parts to the whole. When issues are
debated and information is presented, students
are expected to be objective, dispassionate, and
explicit in reporting carefully sequential facts.
The quality of the discourse is determined by
the clarity of the descriptive information pro-
vided; the absence of unnecessary verbiage, flair,
or drama; and how easily the listener (or reader)
can discern the logic and relationship of the
ideas (Kochman, 1981). Researchers and schol-
ars call this communicative style topic-centered
(Au, 1993; Michaels 1981, 1984). Many African,
Asian, Latino, and Native Americans use a dif-
ferent approach to organizing and transmitting
ideas: one called topic-chaining communication.
It is highly contextual, and much time is devoted
to setting a social stage prior to the performance
of an academic task. This is accomplished by the
speakers’ (or writers’) providing a lot of back-
ground information; being passionately and per-
sonally involved with the content of the dis-
course; using much indirectness (such as innu-
endo, symbolism, and metaphor) to convey ideas;
weaving many different threads or issues into a
single story; and embedding talk with feelings
of intensity, advocacy, evaluation, and aesthet-

ics. There also is the tendency to make the dis-
course conversational (Au, 1993; Fox, 1994;
Kochman, 1981; Smitherman, 1994). The think-
ing of these speakers appears to be circular, and
their communication sounds like storytelling.
To one who is unfamiliar with it, this communi-
cation style “sounds rambling, disjointed, and
as if the speaker never ends a thought before
going on to something else” (Gay, 2000, p. 96).
These (and other) differences in ethnic commu-
nication styles have many implications for cul-
turally responsive teaching. Understanding them
is necessary to avoid violating the cultural val-
ues of ethnically diverse students in instruc-
tional communications; to better decipher their
intellectual abilities, needs, and competencies;
and to teach them style or code-shifting skills so
that they can communicate in different ways
with different people in different settings for
different purposes. Therefore, multicultural com-
munication competency is an important goal and
component of culturally responsive teaching.
CULTURAL CONGRUITY IN
CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION
The final aspect of preparation for culturally
responsive teaching discussed in this article deals
with the actual delivery of instruction to ethni-
cally diverse students. Culture is deeply embed-
ded in any teaching; therefore, teaching ethni-
cally diverse students has to be multiculturalized.
A useful way to think about operationalizing
this idea in the act of teaching is matching instruc-
tional techniques to the learning styles of diverse

students. Or, as the contributing authors to Edu-
cation and Cultural Process (Spindler, 1987) sug-
gested, establishing continuity between the modus
operandi of ethnic groups and school cultures in
teaching and learning. Many possibilities for
establishing these matches, intersections, or
bridges are implied in the previous discussions.
For example, a topic-chaining communication
style is very conducive to a storytelling teaching
style. Cooperative group learning arrangements
and peer coaching fit well with the communal
cultural systems of African, Asian, Native, and
Latino American groups (Gay, 2000; Spring, 1995).
Autobiographical case studies and fiction can
crystallize ethnic identity and affiliation issues
across contextual boundaries (i.e., geographic,
generational, temporal). Motion and movement,
music, frequent variability in tasks and formats,
novelty, and dramatic elements in teaching
improve the academic performance of African
Americans (Allen & Boykin, 1992; Allen & But-
ler, 1996; Boykin, 1982; Guttentag & Ross, 1972;
Hanley, 1998).
Cultural characteristics provide the criteria
for determining how instructional strategies
should be modified for ethnically diverse stu-
dents. Developing skills in this area should begin
with teacher education students confronting the
2002
misconceptions and controversies surrounding

learning styles. Some might be resolved by under-
standing that learning styles are how individu-
als engage in the process of learning, not their
intellectual abilities. Like all cultural phenom-
ena, they are complex, multidimensional, and
dynamic. There is room for individuals to move
around within the characteristics of particular
learning styles, and they can be taught to cross
style parameters. Learning styles do have core
structures, and specific patterns by ethnic groups
are discernible (see, for instance, Shade, 1989).
The internal structure of ethnic learning styles
includes at least eight key components (which
are configured differently for various groups):
preferred content; ways of working through learn-
ing tasks; techniques for organizing and con-
veying ideas and thoughts; physical and social
settings for task performance; structural arrange-
ments of work, study, and performance space;
perceptual stimulation for receiving, process-
ing, and demonstrating comprehension and com-
petence; motivations, incentives, and rewards
for learning; and interpersonal interactional styles.
These dimensions provide different points of
entry and emphasis for matching instruction to
the learning styles of students from various eth-
nic groups. To respond most effectively to them,
teachers need to know how they are configured
for different ethnic groups as well as the patterns
of variance that exist within the configurations.
Another powerful way to establish cultural
congruity in teaching is integrating ethnic and
cultural diversity into the most fundamental
and high-status aspects of the instructional pro-
cess on a habitual basis. An examination of

school curricula and measures of student achieve-
ment indicates that the highest stakes and high-
est status school subjects or skill areas are math,
science, reading, and writing. Teachers should
learn how to multiculturalize these especially,
although all formal and informal aspects of the
educational process also should be changed.
Further analysis of teaching behaviors reveals
that a high percentage of instructional time is
devoted to giving examples, scenarios, and
vignettes to demonstrate how information,
principles, concepts, and skills operate in prac-
tice. These make up the pedagogical bridges that
connect prior knowledge with new knowledge,
the known with the unknown, and abstractions
with lived realities. Teachers need to develop
rich repertoires of multicultural instructional
examples to use in teaching ethnically diverse
students.
This is not something that happens automati-
cally or simply because we want it to. It is a
learned skill that should be taught in teacher
preparation programs. The process begins with
understanding the role and prominence of ex-
amples in the instructional process, knowing
the cultures and experiences of different ethnic
groups, harvesting teaching examples from these
critical sources, and learning how to apply multi-
cultural examples in teaching other knowledge
and skills—for instance, using illustrations of
ethnic architecture, fabric designs, and recipes
in teaching geometric principles, mathematical
operations, and propositional thought. Or us-
ing various samples of ethnic literature in teach-

ing the concept of genre and reading skills such
as comprehension, inferential thinking, vocabu-
lary building, and translation. Research indi-
cates that culturally relevant examples have pos-
itive effects on the academic achievement of eth-
nically diverse students. Boggs, Watson-Gegeo,
and McMillen (1985) and Tharp and Gallimore
(1988) demonstrated these effects for Native Ha-
waiians; Foster (1989), Lee (1993), and Moses
and Cobb (2001) for African Americans; García
(1999) for Latinos and limited-English speakers;
and Lipka and Mohatt (1998) for Native Alas-
kans. Observations made by Lipka and Mohatt
on their research and practice with using cul-
tural examples to teach math and science to
Yup’ik students in Alaska underscored the im-
portance and benefits of these strategies for im-
proving school achievement. They noted that
Important connections between an aboriginal sys-
tem of numbers and measurements and the hunting
and gathering context from which it derived can be
used as a bridge to the decontextualized abstract
system often used in teaching mathematics and sci-
ence, . . . can demystify how mathematics and sci-
ence are derived . . . [and] visualize . . . ways in which
everyday tasks and knowledge can be a basis for
learning in formal schooling. (p. 176).
A wide variety of other techniques for incor-
porating culturally diverse contributions, expe-
113

riences, and perspectives into classroom teaching
can be extracted from the work of these and
other scholars. They are valuable models and
incentives for doing culturally responsive teach-
ing and should be a routine part of teacher prep-
aration programs.
CONCLUSION
The components of the preparation for and
practice of culturally responsive teaching included
in this discussion are not inclusive. There is
much more to know, think, and do. These sug-
gestions are merely samples of the knowledge
and skills needed to prepare teachers to work
more effectively with students who are not part
of the U.S. ethnic, racial, and cultural main-
stream. This preparation requires a more thor-
ough knowledge of the specific cultures of dif-
ferent ethnic groups, how they affect learning
behaviors, and how classroom interactions and
instruction can be changed to embrace these dif-
ferences. Because culture strongly influences the
attitudes, values, and behaviors that students
and teachers bring to the instructional process,
it has to likewise be a major determinant of how
the problems of underachievement are solved.
This mandate for change is both simple and pro-
found. It is simple because it demands for ethni-
cally different students that which is already
being done for many middle-class, European
American students—that is, the right to grapple
with learning challenges from the point of strength
and relevance found in their own cultural frames
of reference. It is profound because, to date, U.S.

education has not been very culturally respon-
sive to ethnically diverse students. Instead, these
students have been expected to divorce them-
selves from their cultures and learn according to
European American cultural norms. This places
them in double jeopardy—having to master the
academic tasks while functioning under cul-
tural conditions unnatural (and often unfamil-
iar) to them. Removing this second burden is a
significant contribution to improving their aca-
demic achievement. This can be done by all
teachers’ being culturally responsive to ethni-
cally diverse students throughout their instruc-
tional processes. But they cannot be reasonably
held accountable for doing so if they are not ade-
quately prepared. Therefore, teacher preparation
programs must be as culturally responsive to
ethnic diversity as K-12 classroom instruction.
REFERENCES
Allen, B. A., & Boykin, A. W. (1992). African-American
children and the educative process: Alleviating cultural
discontinuity through prescriptive pedagogy. School Psy-
chology Review, 21(4), 586-598.
Allen, B. A., & Butler, L. (1996). The effects of music and
movement opportunity on the analogical reasoning per-
formance of African American and White children: A
preliminary study. Journal of Black Psychology, 22(3), 316-
328.
Au, K. H. (1993). Literacy instruction in multicultural settings.
New York: Harcourt-Brace.

Au, K. H., & Kawakami, A. J. (1994). Cultural congruence
in instruction. In E. R. Hollins, J. E. King, & W. C. Hay-
man (Eds.), Teaching diverse populations: Formulating a
knowledge base (pp. 5-23). Albany: State University of
New York Press.
Baber, C. R. (1987). The artistry and artifice of Black com-
munications. In G. Gay & W. L. Baber (Eds.), Expres-
sively Black: The cultural basis of ethnic identity (pp. 75-
108). New York: Praeger.
Banks, J. B., & Banks, C.A.M. (Eds.). (1995). Handbook of
research on multicultural education. New York: Macmillan.
Boggs, S. T., Watson-Gegeo, K., & McMillen, G. (1985).
Speaking, relating, and learning: A study of Hawaiian chil-
dren at home and at school. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Boykin, A. W. (1982). Task variability and the performance
of Black and White schoolchildren: Vervistic explora-
tions. Journal of Black Studies, 12(4), 469-485.
Campbell, C. P. (1995). Race, myth, and the news. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cazden, C. B., John, V. P., & Hymes, D. (Eds.). (1985). Func-
tions of language in the classroom. Prospect Heights, IL:
Waveland.
Cortés, C. E. (1991). Empowerment through media liter-
acy: A multicultural approach. In C. E. Sleeter (Ed.),
Empowerment through multicultural education (pp. 143-
157). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Cortés, C. E. (1995). Knowledge construction and popular
culture: The media as multicultural educator. In J. A.

Banks & C.A.M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on
multicultural education (pp. 169-183). New York: Macmillan.
Cortés, C. E. (2000). Our children are watching: How media
teach about diversity. New York: Teachers College Press.
Escalanté, J., & Dirmann, J. (1990). The Jaime Escalanté
math program. Journal of Negro Education, 59(3), 407-
423.
Foster, M. (1989). It’s cooking now: A performance analysis
of the speech events of a Black teacher in an urban com-
munity college. Language in Society, 18(1), 1-29.
2002
Foster, M. (1995). African American teachers and cultur-
ally relevant pedagogy. In J. A. Banks & C.A.M. Banks
(Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education
(pp. 570-581). New York: Macmillan.
Foster, M. (1997). Black teachers on teaching. New York: New
Press.
Fox, H. (1994). Listening to the world: Cultural issues in aca-
demic writing. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers
of English.
Fullilove, R. E., & Treisman, P. U. (1990). Mathematics
achievement among African American undergraduates
at the University of California, Berkeley: An evaluation
of the Mathematics Workshop Program. Journal of Negro
Education, 59(30), 463-478.

TextbookInformation Governance Concepts, Strategies and Best P.docx

TextbookInformation Governance Concepts, Strategies and Best P.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to TextbookInformation Governance Concepts, Strategies and Best P.docx

Similar to TextbookInformation Governance Concepts, Strategies and Best P.docx (20)

More from arnoldmeredith47041

More from arnoldmeredith47041 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

TextbookInformation Governance Concepts, Strategies and Best P.docx