100Kin10 unites the nation’s top academic institutions, nonprofits, foundations, companies, and government agencies to recruit and retain 100,000 excellent STEM teachers nationwide, while addressing the underlying challenges that have made the shortage so pervasive.

Project Teams are small groups of 100Kin10 partners and invited guests who collaborate on a discrete, time-bound project to address the Grand Challenges underlying the shortage of excellent STEM teachers. The following is a final write up from one such Project Team.

This work was collaboratively developed by:

Emma Banay || ExpandED School || ebanay@expandedschools.org

Nicole Beeman-Cadwallader || National Math and Science Initiative  || nbeeman@nms.org

Maria Cervera || formerly of  KQED

Melanie Hobbs || American Federation of Teachers || mhobbs@aft.org

Cornell Thomas || The Tom Joyner Foundation ||  cornell.thomas@tomjoynerfoundation.org

Almetria Vaba || KQED || avaba@kqed.org

Want to build on this work?

You are free to share (copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format) and adapt (remix, transform, and build upon the material) as long as you give appropriate credit, do not use for commercial purposes, and distribute your contributions under the same license.

Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) >>

Table of Contents

Section 1: Pages 4—6

Executive Summary >>

Section 2: Pages 7—14

Comparing Personally Relevant Pedagogy &

Culturally Relevant Pedagogy >>

Section 3: Pages 15—25

Examples, Exercises & Tools for Personally Relevant

Pedagogy >>

Section 4: Pages 26—45

Appendix >>

We believe it is essential for students and teachers to know themselves and one another as part of a learning community where connection to content, context and personal culture occurs continuously. Personally Relevant Pedagogy is our suggested extension and complement to Culturally Relevant Pedagogy to achieve this goal.

What is this project about?

Our Project Team set out to accomplish three core goals: 1. To define (for ourselves and others) and promote the concept of Personally Relevant Pedagogy, which we position as an extension and outgrowth of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy; 2. To raise awareness about the importance of each individual’s (student’s and teacher’s) developing identity as a critical component in the process of teaching and learning; and 3. To increase professional development providers’ ability to integrate personally relevant strategies and resources into their trainings. 

Who will find this project interesting?

We believe this project will resonate most with teachers (and/or those who prepare or support teachers such as professional development providers) who wish to connect STEM concepts to the knowledge base that each student currently embraces.

How did this connect to one of the “Grand Challenges”?

Teachers need more support in meeting the needs of diverse students in their classrooms. Doing so, particularly in STEM, can promote educational equity and make available future employment opportunities in STEM to those currently and historically underrepresented in those fields.

How did the project approach utilize principles of creating systemic change?

100Kin10 has a hypothesis about what leads to systemic change. They are the Change Elements and they are — coordinated, direct, diverse, emotionally-resonant, knowledge-based, and measurable. This Project Team utilized many of these principles, including being:

Knowledge-based: The team undertook an extensive literature review to understand Culturally Relevant Pedagogy in order to build out our Personally Relevant Pedagogy framework.

Emotionally Resonant: The team participated in direct application of this framework in their own teaching circumstances, and felt the personal resonance of using Personally Relevant Pedagogy principles. Participating Project Team partners had deep discussions about their own identity.  

We imagine a world where students bring their whole selves to school and teachers facilitate them in using their experiences and values, as a vehicle for deep STEM learning. This enables students to be known as individuals, and to know their teachers as individuals, in order to foster authentic and inter-connected learning experiences. This is what we view as Personally Relevant Pedagogy.

Comparing Culturally & Personally Relevant Pedagogy

Personally Relevant Pedagogy is positioned as an extension and outgrowth of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy, rooted in the notion that:

Read the full literature review on Culturally Relevant Pedagogy here >>

Detail: Culturally Relevant Pedagogy

Gloria Ladson-Billings describes Culturally Relevant Pedagogy (CRP) as an instructional practice intent on empowering students to become more intellectually, emotionally, politically, and socially engaged and informed (Ladson-Billings, 1994). Pedagogies that are culturally relevant challenge stigmatizing messaging, embraces diversity, and uses culture to promote a sense of identity, pride and critical consciousness (Esposito & Swain, 2009). In short, culturally responsive teachers display skill at teaching in a cross-cultural or multicultural setting. They enable each student to relate course content to his or her cultural context (Ladson-Billings, 1994). Culturally Relevant Pedagogy promotes a learning environment that supports educational achievement, identity development, and the maintenance of student’s cultural integrity (Milner, 2011).

Detail: Personally Relevant Pedagogy

The following three central tenets of PRP were developed by this Project Team, over the course of many project discussions and build on the written work over the last 15 years of Cornell Thomas from The Tom Joyner Foundation.  These tenets build on the gaps of how Culturally Relevant Pedagogy is exercised in educating students.

Personally Relevant Pedagogy: A Teacher Behavior Model

Below is a graphic representation of the teacher behaviors inherent in these practices.

Personally Relevant Pedagogy: A Student Outcomes Model

Below is a  graphic representations of the related student outcomes in a teaching and learning environment that embraces Personally Relevant Pedagogy. If a teacher practices Intentionality, Identity Development, and Presence, then the student will have associated outcomes of what they should know and be able to do after going through instructional practices related to Personally Relevant Pedagogy. For example, if a teacher practices Presence, then the student outcomes would be more self-acceptance, more self-reliance, etc.

Linking Culturally Relevant & Personally Relevant Pedagogy:

While certainly not exhaustive, this chart provides evidence-based strategies and approaches to advancing the vision of this framework. We believe that both of the strategies outlined below are powerful, and when used in concert, create the kind of teaching and learning environment we seek for all classrooms.

For those seeking to strengthen their understanding and implementation of Personally Relevant Pedagogy, below are several entry-point activities to bring this concept to life and tools/exercises to embed it into your own work. We encourage you to adapt them to your own context and various settings (for example, a professional growth setting).

1. Identity Pyramid
2. Culture Exercise
3. PRP In Real Life: Ms. Farmer’s Classroom & An Exercise

↓

“Although all of my students are African American, I don’t assume certain cultural attributes. While I realize that our society reinforces certain values and norms within groups of people, I try very hard to remember that they are all different individuals with certain distinctions that make them unique. Understanding and valuing all kinds of people can be a good starting point when getting to know your students.  However, it would be an insult to start developing relationships with them in this generalized way and never go any further.” - Ms. Farmer

A. Identity Pyramid

This activity is designed to understand identity as a key principle of advancing Personally Relevant Pedagogy. Participants who complete the exercise will recognize ways that assumptions might be made based on group identities that are not accurate for individuals within that group.
Source: Boyes-Watson, Carolyn, and Pranis, Kay. Circle Forward: Building a Restorative School Community. Saint Paul, MN: Living Justice Press, 2015

Step 1:

In the bottom layer of the pyramid, list words to describe yourself that you think are true for all people.

Step 2:

Identify a group or culture that you feel a part of (ethnicity, male/female, youth, religious affiliation, etc.) and write that group name next to the second level of the pyramid.

List words to describe yourself that are not true for all people but are generally true for the culture or group you identify with.

Step 3:

In the top layer of the pyramid, list words to describe yourself that you think are unique to you as an individual.

Step 4:

Reflect as a group on your answers. Did anything surprise you?

B. Culture as a Teaching Strategy: Exercise

Overview: This exercise is intended as an entry-point to help people think through and change their mindsets. Step one in changing your mindset has to do with how you see culture. The following is a personal reflection exercise to think about individually, and then share out loud with a group. It can be applied to multiple settings and modified to fit your specific contextual needs.

Audience: This is intended for a professional learning context, for example to put educators in the role of the students in a professional development workshop, or for teachers in a professional development context can model what they could do with their students.

Two Definitions to Consider:

1. A culture is a way of life of a group of people — the behaviors, beliefs, values, and symbols that they accept, generally without thinking about them, and they are passed along by communication and imitation from one generation to the next.
2. Culture in its broadest sense is cultivated behavior that is the totality of a person’s learned accumulated experience which is socially transmitted, or more briefly, behavior through social learning.

These definitions of culture represent the two prevailing concepts of this word.  The first of these definitions has a longer history and has as its primary focus identification by group.  This multicultural type perspective often leads to a short list of do’s and don’ts for teachers to utilize, based on a set of preconceived lifestyles within the identified group.  This perception of lifestyle leads to teaching strategies designed to connect this cultural group to the content to be taught.

Questions to Teachers:

1. How does this concept of culture inform your teaching strategies?
2. How does this concept of culture inform your work to establish the teaching and learning environment?

The second definition has as its primary focus identification by individual. The perspectives emerging from this concept of culture suggest that each student is an unique individual with their own set of evolving behaviors, values, beliefs, etc., with each significant experience. This perspective of culture often causes teachers to take time to know each of their students as individuals to inform their teaching strategies.  Teaching strategies then focus on, for example during guided practice, connecting each student’s mode of learning and existing base of knowledge to the content being taught and learned.  Helping to empower students to make these kind of connections for themselves also becomes an excellent teaching strategy.

Questions to Teachers:

1. How does this concept of culture inform your teaching strategies?
2. How does this concept of culture inform your work to establish the teaching and learning environment?

Both definitions of culture attempt to identify the behaviors, values, beliefs, etc. that bring meaning to the word.  However, one is based on group identification and the other on individual identity.

The question then is: Which definition of culture maximizes teaching strategies when attempting to connect content (the lesson being taught) to context (a student’s current base of knowledge).

C. PRP In Real Life: Ms. Farmer’s Classroom & An Exercise

Below is a conversation with Ms. Farmer, a long-time school teacher, about her approach in the classroom. She inherently uses many principles of Personally Relevant Pedagogy, as is called out at the end of the discussion. A set of questions and an exercises follows for you to reflect on Ms. Farmer’s approach, and how you might integrate PRP into your classroom.

Ms. Farmer identifies herself as an African American.  She has taught for over twenty years in a large urban school district, in two of the inner city elementary schools.  She has taught third, fourth and fifth grade during her tenure. Below is a conversation with Ms.Farmer about her district’s reading program.

Part 1: Background

[Tell me about your district’s reading program.]

Ms. Farmer: Our reading program is pretty good, but I think it moves much too fast.  The program is supposed to be all-inclusive.  In other words it is supposed to incorporate writing, social studies, grammar, etc.  I think they didn’t do their research in inner city settings.  Don’t get me wrong; the program does help students pass our state mandated test.  The program moves at a pace that does not allow students with opportunities to internalize learning.  It is geared to give them (students) just enough information to pass the test.  Opportunities for students to make personal connections with the material are not provided in this program.  Many teachers do not deviate from the program because administrators put so much pressure on them to make sure students are prepared to pass the state mandated test.  Many teachers call themselves teaching when they follow the program verbatim, step-by-step.  This way of teaching offers no creativity or even consideration for individual differences among the students.  It is also very boring!   We have taken all of the fun out of teaching and learning.

[How do you modify instruction for higher levels of student success?]

Ms. Farmer: Well first of all, the district’s curriculum assumes that all students are coming to school on level (reading grade level).  This is far from reality in many schools.  The curriculum basically addresses concepts one time, and then moves on.  These concepts are addressed in several ways throughout the day, but it moves to new concepts the next day.  For example, the program introduces words most of my students have never heard in their life and there are about fourteen words each time.  The program instructs the teacher to spend twenty minutes to teach them (students) these words.  This process needs to be modified for my students.

[Do you employ culturally relevant pedagogical strategies to modify?]

Ms. Farmer: Yes, but I do much more.  First of all I introduce the word and then it’s a long cycle.  I take forty-five minutes to an hour to think up all kinds of ways that they heard that word being used and then use it in sentences.  Sometimes I select words with similar meaning that they do know and then make the connections to the other word.  This kind of bridging the old with the new really works.  We also go over definitions.  Then I’ll turn around and give it to them.  I say now based on what you know about this definition, look in this sentence somewhere and find clues to what word you think you are talking about.  What I am doing is giving them all these connections to ways they’ve heard the word before.

[So how do you know what they’ve heard before?]

Ms. Farmer: You don’t know what they’ve heard before.  I start by asking them if they’ve heard the word before.  We then have a discussion about the word, how it is often used.  We talk about words with similar definitions that they are more familiar with.  For example, the curriculum introduces the word ornamental.  I would talk with them about a Christmas tree.  We would talk about the balls (their word) that they hang on the tree.  We would elaborate on this idea by talking about many of the other things we often hang on Christmas trees.  I would then introduce the word ornament and make the connections with the things we hang on the Christmas tree.  After further discussion, I extend the word by introducing ornamental.  This process takes some time, much longer than twenty minutes.  However it is so important to build this kind of foundation for learning.  The process does not take as long later in the school year.  As a matter of fact, many of my students begin to use this process on their own, especially when reading books.  The cultural relevance part comes from them.  They use examples from their personal experiences to help them internalize the meaning of words.  Although all of my students are African American, I don’t assume certain cultural attributes. While I realize that our society reinforces certain values and norms within groups of people, I try very hard to remember that they are all different individuals with certain distinctions that make them unique. Understanding and valuing all kinds of people can be a good starting point when getting to know your students.  However, it would be an insult to start developing relationships with them in this generalized way and never go any further.

Part 2: Reading

Ms. Farmer: This program also assumes that your students can read by the fourth grade.  I know that they should be able to read by now.  After all, they have not only passed the previous grades, some have even passed the state mandated test each year.  The curriculum provides stories of about twelve pages in length.  Well, getting through a story of this length at the beginning of the school year takes some time.  We could probably not fall too far behind if we just read the story and followed the directions and activities made available in my teacher’s edition.  However, if you want your students to comprehend what they are reading; if you want them to learn to read with high levels of fluency; if you want them to be able to converse about what they have read in a thoughtful fashion; and if you want them to begin to actually enjoy reading – you must do much more than what is suggested in the curriculum guidelines.  The curriculum guidelines call for the teacher to follow a process that addresses vocabulary, reading and some particular skill sets.  The skills are supposed to reflect what they learned after reading the story.  When students don’t do well, many teachers assume they just can’t do the work.  What I do is review the skills to be learned and keep providing those skills while we read and discuss the story.  Often my students don’t realize that they are learning, during the early part of the semester, because they think we are just having a conversation.  Our conversations help me connect what they know and like to the information I want them to learn.  I see myself as helping my students continually building bridges connecting the old with the new.

What I do is elaborate on the story being read and make some real connections.  One thing that I do is divide, say a twelve-page story, into three parts.  I then give my students an assignment taken from this part of the story and some activities for both in the classroom and at home.

[So, really you’re extending opportunities for learning to be internalized.]

Ms. Farmer: Right, the experiences that these activities provide really help my students learn and remember what they have learned.  Many teachers in this state don’t provide these extended learning experiences because of the timeline provided.  The timelines try to address culturally appropriate strategies, but really just end up perpetuating existing stereotypes.  They are afraid of principals and superintendents who demand that timelines and the mandated curriculum are strictly followed so that testing material is covered.  Instead of providing what many of us call teacher proof curricula, I think many teachers need workshops to help them make connections with their students.  I also think that many administrators around here just want their schools to look good.  We can prepare students to pass these sets of test, but the process doesn’t help them learn or think critically about things.  All they get is enough information to pass the test.  The struggle starts all over again the next year because real learning did not occur, just memorization of personally unimportant stuff that they forget right after the test.

[So you’re talking about surface learning.  Many of these students are not afforded opportunities to internalize the meanings of new information.  They are taught using merely a knowledge-based approach?  While there are some attempts to make connections, the process mostly perpetuates existing stereotypes?]

Ms. Farmer:  Exactly. I’ve seen students who, once they learned to do deductive reasoning, use these skills to even try to get out of trouble after doing something they knew was wrong!

[Tell me about a student who was a major challenge for you this past year, but eventually began doing quality work.]

Ms. Farmer:  Okay, easy.  Wentrel . . . and I think with him the major challenge was that he fooled me.  When he came to my class I didn’t think he knew, or think he was capable of doing as well as he could, primarily because he’d never done it.  Right.  How could you expect him to do it if he’d never done it before?  He honestly believed that I honestly believed he couldn’t.  And it’s not, I’ll be honest, it’s not like this child was going to turn things around overnight.  I was initially just treading water a lot of times.  But I wouldn’t let him, or me, give up.

Wentrel’s mom was probably maybe 35 years old and had six kids with two sets of twins and no husband.  I think she was overwhelmed.  She just didn’t have the time to be a good parent.  It really showed because initially Wentrel was definitely a discipline problem, a major problem!  He also believed that the work was beyond his capabilities.  He thought that he couldn’t do the work, and nobody ever expected him to do it.  And so that was his fight every single day.  That was my fight every single day.

[How did you get Wentrel to do his work?]

Ms. Farmer: I took away the things he liked, for example P.E.  I also did not accept poor work.  At some point Wentrel realized that he could do this work one time instead of missing P.E., having to deal with me one on one and repeating assignments sometimes up to six times.  This didn’t happen overnight, but took about three months.  The neat part about it is, once he finally started seeing that he could complete his work and do it well, it just blew him away.

Some of Wentrel’s best work was his writing.  You could ask him things about complete sentences; nouns and verbs and eventually he could provide correct answers.  Yet, he had no idea that this information had anything to do with reading and writing.  Part of the problem here is that the curriculum does not do a good job of connecting.  For example, the curriculum will teach verbs and complete sentences.  Then it will say now write a composition.  It does not provide a way to get from sentence, to paragraph to composition.

[So, let’s spend some time talking about your process for teaching writing]

Ms. Farmer:  Well, as I said before, I assume nothing, so I have to figure out what they already know.  With a regular class, some are more advanced than others, but I start at the beginning anyway.  This ends up being the first time for some, and review for others.

First, very slowly and systematically I get them to see how letters form words, words form complete thoughts (complete sentences), complete sentences from paragraphs, and paragraphs form compositions.  I show them the big picture before I begin anything.  It is very important that they understand that writing is all about the communication process.  They are trying to speak to the reader, without assuming the reader already knows what they are trying to communicate.  

So, approximately one to two weeks are spent making complete thoughts

(complete sentences).  There are many ways to do this. This is what I most often do.

1.  I give the subject, they supply the predicates (Bloom's Taxonomy: application)
2. I give predicates, they supply subjects
3. I give incomplete sentences, and they explain WHY it is complete or incomplete (Bloom's Taxonomy: Evaluation).

Next, I teach the process of adding details (elaboration) to a main idea sentence (in this step, make sure it’s tied in with reading in EVERY subject area) look for main idea and details in Social Studies,, Science, and even Math. I choose things I know particular students are interested in, use a main idea sentence, and have them to add the details. (However, I simplify and just say,  "Tell me more about it").

Example:  Complete Sentences

We worked very hard at football practice yesterday.  "Now you tell me more about it in four complete sentences.”

This process takes a little longer because more thinking is involved (Bloom's synthesis). It takes longer to make sure all of the sentences are matching the first one, (probably two to three weeks). At this point, students are creating paragraphs, but each one is set up basically in the same order. So, students are virtually doing the same thing over and over with different topics.

Within each of the previous stages certain things are being taught in conjunction

with the basics. Additionally, figurative language such as similes, metaphors, personification, etc., is being taught.  Varied sentences are stressed, so that you don’t bore the reader, such as compound sentences, sentences with series and vivid sentences using adjectives.

These things are not optional. Points are deducted if they are not there because typically only the brighter student will attempt to do them if given a choice. I think this is one reason why I'm considered a harder teacher because they are not optional, and grades are lowered if this stuff is not there, and I make writing one-third of their language arts grade. Very few teachers grade writing formally because they don't seem to understand that they can develop their own rubric. We are not told to figure out what exactly we want to teach in writing and develop a method to determine mastery from start to finish. The district does not give this information, nor do they give any particular writing curriculum from start to finish, even in grade four where mastery is tested.

It is very important to remember that throughout all of this process, different kinds of stories are being read to students, with lots of drama added, pointing out all of the things in the stories that we have learned to do. Different kinds of narratives are written, including fantasies.  Once students can successfully do these things, the rest is just showing them how to apply these skills to each kind of writing.

Example:  Narrative

I explain that there are five main parts to a narrative story, (setting, character, plot, solution and conclusion/foreshadowing), and although the parts are different, the process of producing each is basically the same.

Example: Writing Process

Setting:  One windy, spring afternoon a boy named DeJuan was playing at the park near his house.

Add four details to tell what the boy saw there, smelled, and heard at this park

(main idea/details).   Each completed paragraph must include at least four adjectives, a series sentence, compound sentence and a simile or metaphor (each sentence is worth twenty points).  Paragraphs are graded separately.  I then average all the paragraphs together to determine their final grade.

Character:   basically the same set up as the main idea/details

Plot: basically same as the set up

Solution:  same as the set up

Conclusion/Foreshadowing: only one or two sentences to sum up

Let me reiterate that each type of writing that I teach, classificatory, descriptive, and narrative, has its own components.  However, they all use the same format of main idea/details (elaboration) in my process for teaching writing.

When putting all of this stuff together for the first time in each kind of composition, mastery will take about six weeks.

Part 3: Concluding Thoughts

The decision to interview Ms. Farmer was made due to her success as a teacher in a large urban school district.  She has taught for over twenty years, all in inner-city elementary schools.  Her students not only score exceptionally high on state mandated test, they become outstanding students in middle and high school.  Many of her former students have successfully graduated with undergraduate and graduate college degrees.  Ms. Farmer’s students believe in themselves.  Each year parents would try to find ways to get their children enrolled in Ms. Farmer’s class.  Ms. Farmer demonstrated each year that there can be high levels of success in urban school settings.  She retired last year.

There were several key aspects of teaching and learning expressed during this interview.  These key aspects incorporate culturally relevant pedagogical practices in ways that respect the individuality of each student.  She embraced concepts expressed in the literature regarding culturally relevant pedagogical practices and took additional steps to personalize the teaching and learning process for each student.  The teaching and learning environment in this classroom incorporated personally relevant pedagogical practices.  A focus on personally relevant pedagogical practices help us avoid the generalizations that often emerge when culture in defined using group perspectives.

• Instead of assuming certain cultural traits of her African American students, Ms. Farmer took the time to get to know them individually.  She would then use this knowledge to connect what they know, like and understand, to the information she knew they needed to learn.  
• Ms. Farmer enhanced each student’s sense of self by respecting the base of knowledge they currently possessed and incorporated connection strategies to ensure their academic and social success.  
• She employed innovative instructional practices, creating new methods that moved beyond standard examples often found in curriculum guides.  This process is not teacher focused, nor based on some set of standardized principles.  
• Rather, personally relevant pedagogical practices:

• Are student focused.  
• Individualizes a teachers’ work with his or her students.  
• Call for teachers to take standardized teaching methods and reinvent them in ways that enhances the academic success of each student.  
• Challenge students in ways that empower them to take ownership of their learning.  
• Will help each of us become a better educator.

Part 4: Questions to Ponder

• What do you think about Ms. Farmer’s methods for teaching reading?
• What are your thoughts about this discussion as it relates to Personally Relevant Pedagogy?
• What concepts of Personally Relevant Pedagogy will you take from Ms. Farmer to use in your own teaching?
• What, in your opinion, is the most important aspect of teaching and learning shared in this interview?

Appendix A 

Culturally Relevant Pedagogy | A Literature Review

Culturally Relevant Pedagogy, Identity, Presence, and Intentionality:

A Brief Review of Literature

Author: Anthony Walker, Spring 2018

Introduction

In its original format, a European based, narrowly constructed culture satisfied the purpose and needs of the colonial social structure and eased the possibility for control by a singular dominant culture (Young, 2009).  In a similar fashion, the education system was designed to include a constricted scope of curricula and outcomes for a student populace from privilege backgrounds (Larson & Murtadha, 2003). In turn, this design has resulted in curricula, pedagogies, and assessment techniques constructed under the premise that whiteness and middle socioeconomic standing is the norm to which learning is assessed (Schmeichel, 2012).

Although designed to reinforce the status quo, education is, as Hersh and Merrow (2006) indicated, a cornerstone of democracy. However, the idea that educational institutions are a primary driver of a well-informed and engaged society has been challenged over the years (Elia, 2017). In such, the problem facing the U.S. education system is finding ways to ensure that all students, especially students from minoritized social identities, are successful (Brown-Jeffy & Cooper, 2011). For too long, education has emphasized a systemic approach focused on maximizing efficiency and standardizing teaching and assessment (Darling-Hammond, 2010) while viewing students whose cultural identity differs from the dominant anglo-European norm as deficient or at a disadvantage (Schmeichel, 2012). In turn, the majority of curricula and pedagogies fail to acknowledge the role that culture and identity play in both teaching and learning.

Data indicate racial diversity continues to increase in the U.S. (Kaba, 2010; Parrado, 2011; Wilson, 2005).  As society continues to become more diverse so too does the education system. These shifts have implications for schools and practitioners (Howard, 2003). However, there continues to be a lack of equity when it comes to what education is and is not.  How do educational leaders and practitioners uphold the principles and potential of education to empower individuals to become critical thinkers, ethical leaders, and advocates for equity and justice? Although not a cure all solution, Culturally Relevant Pedagogy (CRP) offers one solution-focused approach for practitioners to integrate into their teaching, research, and service.

Culturally Relevant Pedagogy

Gloria Ladson-Billings, the scholar considered the person responsible for conceptualizing Culturally Relevant Pedagogy (Milner, 2011) described CRP as an instructional practice intent on empowering students become more intellectually, emotionally, politically, and socially engaged and informed (Ladson-Billings, 1995a). The staple of CRP’s emphasis on empowerment rests in its three central tenets that “(a) students must experience academic success; (b) students must develop and/or maintain cultural competence; and (c) students must develop a critical consciousness through which they challenge the status quo of their current social orders” (Ladson-Billings, 1995b, p. 160). In turn, CRP fosters an environment intentionally designed to counter traditional deficit models of teaching and practice in which students’ personal experiences and life lessons are often viewed as detrimental to their ability to be successful in the classroom and beyond (Schmeichel, 2012). Instead of silencing or discrediting the students’ lived experiences, CRP practitioners utilize personal narratives and home cultures as a platform for teaching and learning (Esposito & Swain, 2009). Further, as Groulx and Silva (2010) highlighted, CRP intentionally links academic curricula with students’ experiences and backgrounds to foster equity in classroom teaching and learning.

Ultimately, the goal of CRP is to increase the engagement and success of students from culturally diverse and minoritized backgrounds (Howard, 2003). In doing so, CRP emphasizes a model of empowerment, engagement, and justice. Pedagogies that are culturally relevant challenge stigmatizing messaging, embrace diversity, and use culture to promote a sense of identity, pride, and critical consciousness (Esposito & Swain, 2009) rather than minoritize students and their experiences. Irvine (2010) described CRP as a term describing what quality and impactful teaching looks like in the classroom. Also, Gay (2000) noted that CRP interjects cultural knowledge, lived experiences, and the student voice to validate and affirm a student’s lived experiences and to create relevancy in the classroom.

Academic Success

        The first tenet of CRP is academic success. Originally, Ladson-Billings (2014) referred to academic success as “intellectual growth that students experience as a result of classroom instruction and learning experiences” (p. 75). However, as education has evolved, so too has the normative meaning of academic achievement. Acknowledged by Ladson-Billings (2006),

I never dreamed that I would regret using this term. What I had in mind has nothing to do with the oppressive atmosphere of standardized tests; the wholesale retention of groups of students; scripted curricula; and the intimidation of students, teachers, and parents. Rather, what I envisioned is more accurately described as “student learning” – what it is that students actually know and are able to do as a result of pedagogical interactions with skilled teachers (p. 34)

In culturally relevant teaching, success in the classroom is all about student learning (Milner, 2011). Teachers who engage in culturally relevant teaching and pedagogies scaffold and clarify curricula, use student’s experiences as strengths and starting points for instruction, foster supportive and cooperative learning environments, set high expectations for all students, and hold themselves personally responsible for their student’s success (Morrison, Robins, & Rose, 2008). Teachers who are invested in the philosophy and practice of CRP believe that all students, regardless of their background, are capable to academic excellence (Hyland, 2009).

Cultural Competence

        The second principle of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy is cultural competence. For Ladson-Billings (2006), cultural competence includes facilitating learning processes that empower students to see and honor their personal values and experiences while becoming more aware and informed about how to successfully access and navigate cultural contexts. CRP emphasizes the importance of fostering learning environments that situate practitioners, students, and others within the curriculum to examine how the world works, how to function within it, and how to have a positive impact on their respective communities (Milner, 2011). Morrison, Robins, and Rose (2008) described teaching cultural competence as supporting students’ development of a “positive cultural identity” (p. 434).

        Being a culturally competent educator entails having the ability and skills to teach students from cultural backgrounds different from their own (National Education Association, 2017). For many, such a concept may reflect “just good teaching” (Ladson-Billings, 2006). However, given that educational practice reflects values and cultural tenets of Eurocentric value (Lowery, 2013) and traditionally education has viewed students from non-dominant cultures as deficient or disadvantaged rather than different (Schmeichel, 2012). It is within such a framework that the need for cultural competence, for practitioners and students, is highlighted. Because, as Aronson and Laughter (2016) noted, the classroom should be a space where students learn about and take pride in their own, and others’ cultures. CRP argues that such learning should promote academic success without discrediting one’s culture, lived experiences, or sense of self (Howard, 2003).

Sociopolitical Consciousness

The third and final tenet of CRP is sociopolitical consciousness. Sociopolitical consciousness refers to extending the classroom beyond the confines of the classroom to link academic curricula with real-world contexts (Ladson-Billings, 2014). Engaging students with teaching and pedagogies that are culturally relevant empowers them to become aware of the nature of, and how society works (Milner, 2011). Sociopolitical consciousness promotes critical awareness that students can use to examine, deconstruct, and interrupt the status quo and inequities (Morrison, et al, 2008).

CRP empowers student’s critical consciousness (Morrison, et al., 2008) by recognizing the linkages between culture, learning, and valuing student’s cultural capital as a contributor to learning and success (Howard, 2003). In order for students to become conscious learners who are prepared to engage, examine, and navigate sociopolitical cultures, teachers must integrate pedagogies that support the critique of social norms, practice, and behaviors (Schmeichel, 2012). It is through this willingness and commitment from teachers that CRP translates the theory of practice into critical discourse designed to unmask systems of oppression and pursue a more just society (Aronson & Laughter, 2016).  

CRP is a pedagogy of engagement and empowerment. At its core, CRP is grounded in the belief that learning is a social process mediated through personal experiences, cultural identities, and norms (Irvine, 2010). Emphasis is placed on the value of voice and the cultural experiences each brings with them to the classroom (Howard, 2003). By integrating the central tenets of academic success, cultural competence, and sociopolitical consciousness (Ladson-Billings, 1995b), CRP promotes a learning environment that supports educational achievement, identity development, and the maintenance of student’s cultural integrity (Milner, 2011). The next section provides a brief overview of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy in practice.

Culturally Relevant Pedagogy and Practice

CRP is a pedagogy of opposition to the status quo (Aronson & Laughter, 2016). By design, CRP promotes practice that fights against the deprivation of public education while specifically supporting the needs of students from culturally minoritized backgrounds (p. 164). Focused intentionally on challenging norms of privilege and standardized modes of operations, Ladson-Billings situated CRP at the core of discussions about what needs to be changed in educational practice (Schmeichel, 2012). This is important because Culturally Relevant Pedagogy can be a driver to challenge social injustice at micro and macro levels (Esposito & Swain, 2009) and serve as what Paris (2012) described as the foundation for a curriculum to engage pre-service teachers in critically aware and conscious practice (as cited by Durden & Truscott, 2013). However, the starting point for CRP to reach its potential is the rejection of deficit models of thinking toward students from culturally diverse backgrounds and identities (Howard, 2003) and the requirement of practitioners to translate the canons of CRP into action and practice.

CRP is a pedagogy of intentional action and goals. Ultimately, the quality and impact of a pedagogy of cultural relevance rests in the relevancy of the practitioner. Good intentions are not good enough when working to interject CRP into the culture of a school/institution. For example, a well-meaning, yet uninformed teacher may equate CRP with a martyr-based lens and fuse ethnic holidays, nuances of popular culture, or colloquial speech into their curriculum and/or language (Irvine, 2010). Although their intentions may be good, this is not Culturally Relevant Pedagogy or culturally responsive teaching. Instead, they are reflections of the dominant norms and further entrench Eurocentric values into teaching and learning. CRP is a critical pedagogy. It transforms good intentions into intentionality and intentionally good practice. As Schmeichel (2012) averred, integrating Culturally Relevant Pedagogy into practice requires practitioners to be critical, prepared, and willing to deconstruct systemic inequities to empower students and learning. In order to accomplish such a challenging task, practitioners must bring inclusive pedagogies and an investment in being aware of, and correcting, biases that may negatively impact students from minoritized backgrounds from being successful (Brown-Jeffy & Cooper, 2011).

CRP requires practitioners be aware of their personal identity, the biases they bring with them to work, and the potential impact their practice has on students. While common attributes of practitioners who engage in culturally relevant teaching include an ethic of care, cultural competence, critique of cultural norms and practice, and take personal responsibility for the success of their students (Esposito & Swain, 2009), the importance of personal identity awareness should not be underestimated. While referencing Tomlinson, (Lowery (2013) noted the imperativeness of practitioners understanding their culture and the multiple attributes of their identity because it affects what they learn, how they learn, and thus how and what they teach.

To be effective and sustainable, schools and practitioners must authentically believe that all students can succeed and excel (Paris, 2012). This call requires practitioners to be courageous and to acknowledge that educational practices and philosophies that permeate schools have failed to appropriately or effectively educate students from backgrounds outside the dominant culture (Howard, 2003). Pedagogues and instructional strategies that are culturally relevant rely upon rationale that not only acknowledges the differences in experiences and realities between students from minoritized versus dominant socialized identities but are also intentional in efforts to utilize their different experiences as resources to empower students from systemically disenfranchised backgrounds to be as successful and engaged as their peers from privileged backgrounds (Schmeichel, 2012). For CRP, those processes and practices include the following:

• A belief that education is a space to promote social justice and the classroom is a place for social change (Aronson & Laughter, 2015)
• All students are capable learners (Ladson-Billings, 1995a)
• Students’ personal cultures and experiences are an asset and helps students make sense of the world (Milner, 2011)
• Practitioners engaging in personal critical reflection exploring their identity, positionality, and impact on students and learning (Howard, 2003)

The United States has never been more diverse than it is now (Gause, 2017). Likewise, today’s classrooms continue to diversify and reflect the trends of ever changing and diversifying society (Howard, 2003). What does that mean for education and educational practitioners? How do educational practitioners fulfill the responsibility of education to both students and society? Research highlights that culturally relevant pedagogies are one piece to the puzzle. For, as Ladson-Billings (2006) noted, it does not benefit our democracy to have an uneducated or undereducated people within it (p. 176).

Research and Findings

Esposito and Swain (2009) conducted a qualitative research studying seven (7) teachers in urban educational settings. Each teacher was identified as using culturally relevant pedagogies in their teaching and curriculum to integrate social justice into their classroom. Findings highlighted that by incorporating principles of culturally relevant pedagogies into the curriculum, teachers helped students use critical thinking to identify and unpack issues of social injustice and its impact on their lives.  

Hyland (2009) used a hybrid methodology of action research to investigate culturally relevant pedagogy in the classroom.  The study participant was a novice teacher who identified as White and whose students primarily identified as African American. Findings highlighted the importance of cultural competency and effectively engaging with students’ home and community cultures. Results of the study also underscored the need to enhance pre-service teaching programs to emphasize the importance of, and ability to, utilize culturally relevant pedagogies into the classroom. As noted by the researcher, the case demonstrated that teacher training is not enough. A call for enhancing and extending opportunities to engage pre-service and novice level teachers in relevant and meaningful experiences need to be included in professional development experiences to allow educators to learn about pedagogies and skills to enhance their knowledge-based and ability to teach students from minoritized cultural backgrounds and identities.

Milner (2011) studied the implementation of culturally relevant pedagogy in a diverse and urban classroom setting. Specifically, the study examined the role of cultural congruence and cultural competence on fostering a supportive and engaging learning environment. Findings of the study indicated positive correlations between a teacher’s building cultural competence to increase their ability to integrate culturally relevant pedagogy into practice. Results also indicated connections between increasing practitioner’s cultural competence to augment student’s positive sense of self, deepen students knowledge of their cultural identity, and to increase the practitioner’s awareness of personal identity as well as the multiple identities of their students.  

Morrison, et al. (2008) conducted a synthesis of research on culturally relevant pedagogy and classroom implementation. Collectively, the researchers examined 45 research studies on culturally relevant pedagogy in the classroom that were conducted between 1995 and 2008. Results of the study included a synthesis of the three tenets of CRP (academic achievement; cultural competence; sociopolitical consciousness) and identified 12 themes linked to implementing CRP in the classroom. Those themes were: modelling, scaffolding, and clarification of the challenging curriculum; using students’ strengths as instructional starting points; investing and taking personal responsibility for students’ success; creating and nurturing cooperative environments; high behavioral expectations; reshaping the prescribed curriculum; building on students’ funds of knowledge; encouraging relationships between school and communities; critical literacy; engaging students in social justice work; making explicit the power dynamics of mainstream society; and sharing power in the classroom. While results did allude to the potential complexity of integrating CRP in settings that are multi-cultural, researchers also highlighted that incorporating CRP into practice is necessary if educators want to be equitable in their ability to teach all students.

Identity

Identity is a constant presence in a person’s life (Jones, Kim, & Skendall, 2012). Attributes and definitions of identity are fluid. For Campbell, (2010), identity refers to how individuals view themselves. Jehangir (2009) described identity as an examination of oneself, of others, and the continuous analysis of social and historical contexts that shape a person’s sense of self and others. Hill and Thomas (2000) furthered the discussion and described identity as how one defines themselves within the contexts of social constructs, affiliations, and group memberships.

Erickson’s work charted the path for researchers to explore processes and concepts of identity, identity development, and how individuals make sense of their sense of self and place within social contexts (Jones, Kim, & Skendall, 2012). Early investigations of identity explored the concept from a psychological context (Gillett-Karam, 2016a) and framed examinations within a homogeneous set of cultural variables (Story & Walker, 2016). Researchers also conceptualized their research within a context that identity was fairly fixed by the end of adolescence (p. 137). However, over time investigations transitioned to become a mainstay in social science research (Gillett-Karam, 2016a). Although concepts of identity continue to be explored, what identity is and consists of remains ambiguous (Jones, Kim, & Skendall, 2012). However, while definitions vary, a correlating attribute of many discussions and research is that identity development is a process that is informed through a common set of attributes such as social norms, constructs, and interactions (Resnicow & Ross-Gaddy, 1997).

Why is it important for educators to be aware of what identity is and how it’s formed? First, identities are reflections of cultural backgrounds (Turniansky, Tuval, Mansur, Barak, & Gidron, 2009). For students from minoritized cultural backgrounds, their educational experiences often tell stories that devalues them, discredits their efforts, deletes their history, and mutes their voices (ASHE, 2003a). In turn, students from dominant socialized cultures are supported as they see themselves in curriculum, media, and are represented throughout their educational journey (pp. 92-93). Knowing this, it is imperative for practitioners to know and remember that students are different (ASHE, 2003b). Rather than reinforcing the status quo and further subjugating students from historically oppressed backgrounds, culturally relevant practitioners integrate a critical lens (Schmeichel, 2012) to acknowledge and challenge the forces that allow educational inequities to continue (p. 227). As Kaufman (2014) indicated, the stakes are high. Therefore, it is necessary that practitioners recognize and embrace their role in engaging students in environments that include identity development in teaching and learning (p. 38).

In addition to embracing their role in empowering students to become aware of the how and why processes linked to identity development, it is important for culturally relevant practitioners to incorporate culture and identity into curricula. As Creswell (2009) highlighted, we all have a story to tell. Further, life happens in a series of narratives (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000). Therefore, it makes sense that students stories, culture, and sense of identity are integrated into their educational experiences. However, as noted by CRP scholars such as Ladson-Billings (2014), Slattery (2006), Howard (2003), and others, traditional modes of teaching, curriculum, and assessment have served students from diverse background inequitably. When linking pedagogical design with instructional strategies and identity, practitioners must remember, as Alexander’s (2008) discussed, narratives are always framed within the perspective of the dominant culture and it is important for educators to be knowledgeable of how dominant ideologies influence their assessment, engagement, and responses to stories and to the storyteller.

Although an individual’s sense of identity shares a common set of qualifiers (Resnicow & Ross-Gaddy, effective1997), identity development is a unique and individual process that is based on choices that align or lack congruence between old and new learning and beliefs (ASHE, 2003b). In such, one’s sense of identity is fluid – a process – and changes as social roles, groups, and trends change (Campbell, 2010). Further, it isn’t until the knowledge of various traits become acquainted with motivation and emotions that the processes of identity take shape and become meaningful (Corenblum & Armstrong, 2012).

Student identities are complex and cannot be linked to any particular group attribute (Gillett-Karam, 2016b). In an era of standardized curriculum and assessment, education is focused on what students are learning (Kaufman, 2014). Although important, what is missing from the current state of educational practice is attention to who students are becoming (p. 39). Practitioners who engage in culturally relevant pedagogies and practice focus on the whole student. As Ladson-Billings (1995a) noted, culturally relevant practitioners take student development personal and intertwine an emphasis on student’s cultural identity into curriculum to cultivate learning. Rather than follow today’s standardized curriculum to a tee, culturally relevant practitioners ask themselves what they are doing to impact student development and learning (Ladson-Billings, 2006). Such practice embodies a more comprehensive and engaged approach to educational practice. For culturally relevant practice to be implemented, practitioners must be informed about identity and the processes that guide a student’s sense of self. Noted by Brown-Jeffy and Cooper (2011), practitioners must be aware of their students sense of identity, their own personal identity, and how those multiple identities intersect with and impact students.

For Ladson-Billings (2006), it is not enough for practitioners to think about their students. In order to be culturally relevant and successful, practitioners need to be mindful of how they think about their students (p. 164). For practitioners, this includes being mindful of their personal identity (Brown-Jeffy & Cooper, 2011). Such awareness is important because as ASHE (2003b) purported, it is necessary for educators to be aware of their own culture first before they are in a position to be aware of the multiple identities and cultures of their students. Further, for educators, who they are as a person cannot, and should not, be excluded from their professional practice and identity (Turniansky, et al. 2009). Instead, educators should embrace and utilize their cultural identity and experiences as a strength to inform their professional practice (p. 46). Similarly, a student’s identity – their story and lived experiences – should be considered an asset to the learning environment (Ladson-Billings, 1995b). By valuing cultural identities and personal narratives, practitioners are in positions to foster learning environments designed to promote a positive identity while crediting students culture in the classroom (Esposito & Swain, 2009). Linking CRP with practice that emphasizes processes of identity development primes educators to ask themselves if who they are contributes to the success or underachievement of students, especially of students from different cultural backgrounds (Howard, 2003). By integrating a critical lens to evaluate pedagogies, curriculum, and identity, practitioners are better prepared to fulfill their responsibility to students (ASHE, 2003b) and empower students to engage and promote a culture of learning and success (p. 3).

Identity and Presence

        Ideals, definitions, and attributes of presence are permeable and transferrable depending on discipline, context, and lens of thinking (Hufford, 2014). For the purpose of this discussion, presence will focus on identity (i.e. who I am; who I am becoming), thinking and learning, and morality (i.e. right versus wrong; good versus bad). The importance of practitioners knowing about presence is amplified when educational content and context are developed within a framework emphasizing identity development, awareness of thought processing, and morality.

Why is it important for educational practitioners to be aware and knowledgeable of presence? As Hufford (2014) noted, the integration of presence into pedagogical design and practice affords opportunities for education to become critical, empowering, and transformative.  In their research on pedagogy, practice, and presence Britzmon and Pitt (2001) noted that teachers who lack an awareness of biases (known or unknown) lack an awareness of how their personal lenses – their ways of thinking and knowing – impact their practice. Katz (2006) furthered the discussion by highlighting that a person who lacks an awareness of who they were, are, and are becoming is not in a position to effect change. For educators, the integration of presence into practice requires what Hufford (2014) described as “a meeting, but not a merging, of identities” (p. 12). The integration of a meeting versus a merging of identities fosters a sense of authentic and personalized engagement between practitioners and students. Further, as Walker (2014) reported, knowledge of self plays a critical role in augmenting learning and reflexive thinking, which can serve as an impetus for furthering one’s awareness of personal biases.  

An increased understanding of self-awareness enhances a person’s awareness of their emotions - their inter and intrapersonal skills - and internalized attributes of their identity (Gardner, 2006). In turn, as Rosenberg (2010) reported, a greater sense of self increases one’s sense of certainty about their feelings, decision-making, behaviors. For practitioners, the more they embrace presence as a critical component to both pedagogies and curriculum, the more they enhance their ability to engage, educate, and empower students. As Hufford (2014) noted,

A classroom in which presence is sought and welcomed values an inclusive, dialectical cacophony of voices. Intellectual, even emotional, cacophony – open challenges, questions, strongly opposing views, and dynamic interchanges may take up classroom decorum, but may also be a prelude to intellectual reflection and personal growth (p. 14).

Teacher education programs are faced with a demanding challenge to prepare competent and highly motivated teaches and professionally competent teacher education graduates. (Tang, Cheng, & Cheng, 2014). What this looks like and includes requires a different way of thinking and doing than in previous years. Presence – being aware of sense of self and others – is more important now than ever before. For practitioners, this means becoming aware of biases and prejudices that impact student learning and success. However, as Richards, Brown, and Forde (2007) highlighted, teachers are often resistant to the idea that they might have prejudicial feelings or value-driven thought processes towards certain students and/or groups. A core attribute of presence is awareness of self and the socialization processes that impact one’s sense of becoming. Highlighted by Tang, Cheng, & Cheng (2014), an awareness of self includes a mindfulness of one’s philosophies of teaching and learning and what those look like and result in in the classroom. For teachers who embrace the idea and importance of presence in pedagogy; become aware of their biases and prejudices; and work intentionally to incorporate an equitable approach to their practice, they help to cultivate environments of trust, empathy, and success (Richards, Brown, & Forde, 2007).

Identity and Intentionality

To be intentional is to be purposeful and strategic (Lowery (2013) p.36). Intentionality furthers the discussion and inserts an emphasis on acts of being intentional. According to Lowery (2013), intentionality is “the reflective act of rigorously conscious attention that an observer employs to purposefully apprehend the essential meaning of that which is observed” (p. 40). For the purpose of this paper, intentionality is described as the actions an individual takes to increase their awareness and understanding of their identity, space, and place within society.

Why is intentionality important for educational practitioners and how can integrating intentionality into practice augment both teaching and learning? First, as noted by Lowery (2013), intentionality requires action. In order for practitioners to engage in intentionality, one action that is required is that act of being reflexive. Grenier (2016) described self-reflexivity as seeking to increase one’s awareness about positions, roles, and space and how personal activities impact each. Nagata (2004) furthered the discussion by linking attributes of presence with identity and awareness. For Nagata, self-reflexivity includes “having an ongoing conversation with one’s self about what one is experiencing as one is experiencing it. To be self-reflexive is to engage in this meta-level of feeling and thought while being in the moment” (pp. 140-141).

By integrating attributes of reflexivity into curriculum, practitioners may foster learning environments focused on examining how personal identity, position, and role impact the context and outcomes of learning (Grenier, 2016).   For educational practitioners, such practice embodies values of accountability, an awareness of biases, and a recognition that ideals of knowledge – what is right and wrong – are socially constructed, potentially changing, and varied from person to person (Sinacore, Blaisure, Justin, Healy, & Brawer, 1999). To be intentional is to embrace values of personal awareness and accountability. As Sinacore, et al (1999) highlighted, teachers demonstrate intentionality when they acknowledge and discuss how their personal experiences and learning influence their perspectives, decision-making processes, and teaching. Intentional, reflexive practitioners have the courage to be present in the moment and to open themselves up to the community (Hufford, 2014). It is recognizing that at times, one is the knower and at other times, they are the learner (Sinacore, et al., 1999). Intentionality fosters space to integrate personal experiences, voice, and learning into teaching and learning. For Nagata (2004), such practice promotes self-expression and the construction, deconstruction, and possibly reconstruction of knowledge. It is to “engage the world of ideas, concepts, and feelings, both cognitive and affective, and to find ways to articulate one’s place in that world” (p. 40). Collectively, by integrating intentionality into practice and curriculum, practitioners foster a culture of empowerment, identity development, and critical thinking. Educational spaces that embrace intentionality are ones that focus on learning about one’s whole self (Nagata, 2004); personalize teaching and learning (Sinacore, et al., 1999); and challenge hegemony through critical questioning, learning about self and others, and being present (Hufford, 2014).

Conclusion

        Critically oriented and culturally relevant pedagogies have the potential to foster critical thinking, identity development, and equity. As Lowery, Gautam, Walker, and Mays (2013) purported, such pedagogies and practice are necessary to create space for values of justice and equity to develop. The purpose of this papers was to highlight tools and a framework for educational practice that has the potential to transform teaching and learning. In doing so, the need to incorporate culturally relevant pedagogies and practice into today’s classrooms was highlighted.

The landscape of classrooms in the U.S. are changing. They are becoming more and more diverse (Kaba, 2010; Parrado, 2011; Wilson, 2005). What does this mean for the education and the practitioners working within the system? In order to fulfill its responsibility to students, communities, and society at large, educational practice must keep up with the changing trends and diversification of society. CRP offers one way to promote equity (Esposito & Swain, 2009) and promote critical thinking and consciousness among practitioners (Paris, 2012). Being critical in design and implementation, CRP helps transform practitioners from having good intentions to being intentional, and as a result, being good.

By linking CRP with curricula focused on identity, presence, and intentionality, practitioners promote learning that is engaging, empowering, and personal. And, in doing so, practitioners foster learning spaces that promote a growing sense of self and of others (Howard, 2003; Brown-Jeffy and Cooper, 2011) and promote ideals of presence and democracy (Hufford, 2014), social justice (Aronson & Laughter, 2015), and equitable, holistic student success (Ladson-Billings, 2014). The stakes are high (Kaufman, 2014). The time for CRP to become a framing principle of educational practice is now. By not doing so will continue to have negative impacts on teaching, learning and ultimately, as Ladson-Billings (2006) highlighted, our democracy as a whole.

References

Alexander, B. K. (2008). Performance ethnography: The reenacting and inciting of culture. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (3rd ed., pp. 75-112).  Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Aronson, B., & Laughter, J. (2016). The theory and practice of culturally relevant education: A synthesis of research across content areas. Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 163-206.

ASHE (2003a). Integration of identity development theory into practice. ASHE Higher Education Report, 29(6), 79-99.

ASHE (2003b). Why should higher education be concerned with the identity development of diverse students. ASHE Higher Education Report, 29(6), 1-8.

Britzman, D. P., & Pitt, A. J. (1996). Pedagogy and transference: Casting the past of learning into the presence of teaching. Theory into Practice, 35(2), 117-123.

Brown-Jeffy, S. & Cooper, J. E. (2011). Toward a conceptual framework of culturally relevant pedagogy: An overview of the conceptual and theoretical literature. Teacher Education Quarterly, 38(1), 65-84.

Campbell, D. E. (2010). Choosing democracy: A practical guide to multicultural education (4th ed).  Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research.  San Francisco, CA: Josey Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Corenblum, B., & Armstrong, H. D. (2012). Racial ethnic identity development in children in a racial-ethnic minority group.  Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 44(2), 124-137.

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.).  Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat work and education: How America’s commitment to equity will determine our future. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Elia, J. P. (2017). U.S. public higher education in peril: The disastrous impacts of corporation. In C. P. Gause (Ed.). Leadership, equity, and social justice in American higher education: A reader (pp. 9-20). New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Esposito, J., & Swain, A. N. (2009). Pathways to social justice: Urban teachers’ uses of culturally relevant pedagogy as a conduit for teaching for social justice. Perspective on Urban Education, 6(1), 38-48.

Gardner, H. (2006). Multiple intelligences. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Gause, C. P. (2017). Leadership, equity, and social justice in American higher education: Are we making progress. In C. P. Gause (Ed.). Leadership, equity, and social justice in American higher education: A reader (pp. 5-8). New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Gay, G. (2000). Culturally Responsive Teaching: Theory, Research, and Practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Gillett-Karam, R. (2016a). Moving from student development to student success. New Directions for Community Colleges, 174, 9-21.

Gillett-Karam, R. (2016b). Student affairs: Moving from theories and theorists to practice and practitioners. New Directions for Community Colleges, 174, 85-91.

Grenier, F. (2016). How can reflexivity inform critical pedagogies: Insights from the theory versus practice debate. International Studies Perspectives, 17, 154-172.

Groulx, J. G., & Silva, C. (2010). Evaluating the development of culturally relevant teaching. Multicultural Perspectives, 12(1), 3-9.

Hersh, M., & Merrow, J. (2005). Declining by degrees: Higher education at risk.  New York: Palgrave McMillan.

Hill, M. R., & Thomas, V. (2000). Strategies for racial identity development narratives of black and white women in interracial partner relationships. Family Relations, 49(2), 193-200.

Howard, T. C. (2003). Culturally relevant pedagogy: Ingredients for critical teacher reflection. Theory into Practice, 42(3), 195-202.

Hufford, D. (2014). Presence in the classroom. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 140, 11-21.

Hyland, N. E. (2009). One white teacher’s struggle for culturally relevant pedagogy: The problem of the community. The New Educator, 5, 95-112.

Irvine, J. J. (2010). Culturally relevant pedagogy. Education Digest, 75(8), 57-61.

Jehangir, R. R. (2009). Cultivating voice: First generation students seek full academic citizenship in multicultural learning communities.  Innovative Higher Education, 34(1), 33–49.

Jones, S. R., Kim, Y. C., & Skendall, K. C. (2012). Re-framing authenticity: Considering multiple social identity using autoethnographic and intersectional approaches. The Journal of Higher Education, 83(5), 698-723.

Kaba, A. J. (2010). Educational attainment, population increase and the progress of African Americans.  The Journal of Pan African Studies, 3(9), 106-127.

Katz, C. E. (2006). The presence of the others is a presence that teaches: Levinas, Pragmatism, and pedagogy. Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy, 14(1/2), 91-108.

Kaufman, P. (2014). The sociology of college student’s identity formation. New Directions for Higher Education, 166, 35-42.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995a). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995b). But that’s just good teaching: The case for culturally relevant pedagogy. Theory into Practice, 34(3), 159-165.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). Yes, but how do we do it: Practicing culturally relevant pedagogy. In J. G. Landsman & C. W. Lewis (Eds.), White teachers diverse classrooms: Creating inclusive schools, building on student’s diversity, and providing true educational equity (pp. 33-46). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2014). Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0: a.k.a. the remix. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 74-84.

Larson, C., & Murtadha, K. (2003). Leadership for social justice. In J. Murphy (Ed.), The educational leadership challenge: Redefining leadership for the 21st century (pp. 134-161). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Lowery, C. L. (2013). Phenomenology of scholarly practice: A philosophical inquiry into cultural relevance. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (UMI 3578053).

Lowery, C. L., Gautam, C. N., Walker, A., & Mays, C. D. (2015). The scholar-practitioner and Democratic Professional Practice in Education (DPPE): An ethic of care, collaboration, criticality, and commitment. In P. Tenuto (Ed.), Renewed Accountability for Access and Excellence: Applying a Model for Democratic Professional Practice in Education.

Milner, H. R. (2011). Culturally relevant pedagogy in a diverse urban classroom. Urban Review, 43(1), 66-89.

Morrison, K. A., Robbins, H. H., & Rose, D. G. (2008). Operationalizing culturally relevant pedagogy: A synthesis of classroom-based research. Equity & Excellence in Education, 41(4), 433-452.

Nagata, A. L. (2004). Promoting self-reflexivity in intercultural education. Journal of Intercultural Communication, 8, 139-167.

National Education Association (2017). Why cultural competence. Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/home/39783.htm 

Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology and practice. Educational Researcher, 41, 93-97.

Parrado, E. A. (2011). How high is Hispanic/Mexican fertility in the United States? Immigration and tempo considerations.  Demography, 48(3), 1059-1080.

Resnicow, K., & Ross-Gaddy, D. (1997). Development of a racial identity scale for low income African Americans.  Journal of Black Studies, 28(2), 239-254.

Richards, H. V., Brown, A. F., & Forde, T. B. (2007). Addressing diversity in schools: Culturally responsive pedagogy. Council for Exceptional Children, 39(3), 64-68.

Rosenberg, L. R. (2010). Transforming leadership: Reflective practice and the enhancement of happiness. Reflective Practice, 11(1), 9-18.

Schmeichel, M. (2012). Good teaching: An examination of culturally relevant pedagogy as an equity practice. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(2), 211-231.

Sinacore, A. L., Blaisure, K. R., Justin, M., Healy, P., & Brawer, S. (1999). Promoting reflexivity in the classroom. Teaching of Psychology, 26(4), 267-270.

Slattery, P. (2006). Curriculum development in the postmodern era (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Story, J., & Walker, I., (2016). The impacts of diasporas: markers of identity. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 39(2), 135-141.

Tang, S. Y. F., Cheng, M. M. H., & Cheng, A. Y. N. (2014). Shifts in teaching motivation and sense of self-as-teacher in initial teacher education. Educational Review, 66(4), 465-481.

Thomas, C. (2018). Empowering Pathways: Connecting Content with Context. Independently Published.

Thomas, C. (2014).  Inclusive Teaching: Presence in the Classroom. Wiley Publishing.

Thomas, C. (2013). Transgressing Culture Lines. Kendall Hunt Publishing.

Thomas, C., Hernandez, C., Walker, A., & Lowery, C. (2015). Un-American Acts. Springer.

Thomas, C., Lowery, C., & Walker, A. (2017). Quantum Realities: Educational Truth Telling in an Era of Alternative Facts. Kendall Hunt Publishing.

Thomas, C., Lowery, C., & Walker, A. (2016). Un-Democratic Acts: New Departures for Dialogues in Society and Schools. Sense Publishers.

Turniansky, B., Tuval, S., Mansur, R., Barak, J., & Gidron, A. (2009). From the inside out: Learning to understand and appreciate multiple voices through telling identities. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 118, 39-47.

Walker, A. (2014). Identity, status, and culture: Examining barriers of success for students from low socioeconomic backgrounds. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 140, 23-30.

Wilson, F. H. (2005). Recent changes in the African American population within the United States and the question of the color line at the beginning of the 21st century.  Journal of African American Studies, 9(3), 15-32.

Young, A. V. (2009). Honorary whiteness.  Asian Ethnicity, 10(2), 177-185.