Today’s post continues a yearlong series on mistakes that are made in the name of culturally responsive teaching.
Don’t Uphold the Status Quo
Crystal M. Watson is an educational leader in Cincinnati. She is passionate about cultivating student belonging, pedagogies rooted in love, and equity in mathematics.
Tiffani Maher is an educational leader in Cincinnati. She is a fierce advocate for equitable resources and instruction for all children.
Culturally responsive teaching, coined by Geneva Gay (2000), is often conflated with culturally reflective teaching, coined by Gloria Ladson-Billings (1995), and even culturally sustaining pedagogy, coined by Django Paris (2012).
In an attempt to sharpen culturally responsive teaching saws, some common mistakes are made that can be and are often irreparable and harmful. While it would be easy to place the blame on teachers as people often do, we caution readers to understand that those that lead professional development and teacher preservice programming must check their own haste in jumping to deliver training before understanding what culturally responsive teaching is.
Practice 1: Holding high expectations for all students
Mistake: Upholding a belief gap
We must first understand what it means to have and how to employ high expectations for all students as you cannot be culturally responsive and skip this tenet. This means excavating self as the framework of scholar Yolanda Sealy Ruiz tells us. We must uncover our own biases and notions that we have about students, their families, and where they come from in order to implement any culturally responsive pedagogies.
Practice 2: Engaging students’ cultural knowledge, experiences, practices, and perspectives
Mistake: Conflating culture with race
Culture and race are not the same, and this must be understood to truly be culturally responsive and develop cultural competence. Educators often think that being culturally responsive is determined by the race of the children. For example, if the majority of students are Black (no matter the difference in cultures and often based on racial biases), we start making rap songs about the alphabet or counting. That is not being culturally responsive. Some examples of culture: youth culture, fashion, language, food, individualistic vs. collective, etc.
It takes time, authentic relationships, planning, and intentional execution to develop cultural competence.
Practice 3: Bridging gaps between home and school practices
Mistake: Forcing a separation of home and school, placing school superior to home
“Their home lives are (fill in the blank).” Or “At school is the only place they are safe” are two sentiments we hear frequently. While these may be true for some children, the assumptions made along with saviorist mentalities restrict students from making true connections between home and school. This mistake begets an “us vs. them” mentality, eroding relationships and trust with students and families.
Practice 4: Seeking to educate the whole child
Mistake: Overreliance on skill teaching
The Learning Policy Institute outlines each part of a child that should be included in whole-child education. Many educators, through push-in curriculum and standards, rely heavily on skill teaching and miss the opportunity and the need to focus on other aspects of teaching children, like developing mindsets, providing rich learning experiences, or cultivating a sense of safety and belonging. It is more than just “Maslow before Bloom.” Not understanding each of these areas and how they should show up in daily practice is a mistake that keeps us from culturally responsive teaching.
Practice 5: Identifying and leveraging students’ strengths to transform education
Mistake: Power over syndrome
Who holds the power in your classroom? Who is centered? Who is seen as the keeper of knowledge? What does your practice say about your beliefs?
A common mistake is simply believing and showing, through actions, that children bring nothing to the classroom and are empty vessels. Avoiding facilitative strategies because “these kids can’t” drives us further from being culturally responsive. Linking back to practice two, intentionally getting to know students is pivotal in being able to identify strengths. Not doing so leads to us positioning ourselves at the center of the classroom. The maker of all the processes and procedures and the “sage on the stage” are too common. No transformation can happen solo—everyone has a part.
Practice 6: Critically questioning normative schooling practices, content, and assessments
Mistake: Upholding status quo
Status quo, rooted in westernized norms, holds us back from culturally responsive teaching. Too often, educators “go with the flow,” allowing harmful practices to continue. Question and challenge and make space for students to do the same in order to reimagine an educational space where practices, content, and assessments are created in community and allowed to be revised.
Reflecting on Ourselves
Kristi Mirich-Glenwright is an instructional coach/coordinator in Los Angeles:
I have observed implementation of culturally responsive practices across a number of classrooms from various school districts in Southern California. When reviewing my observation notes, I noticed several patterns that inform my perspective on “the most common things teachers get wrong about culturally responsive pedagogy.”
I first noticed an interesting preoccupation with literature. We take inventories of classroom libraries and update our shelves to feature multicultural characters and ensure student representation. I believe that this is critical. However, beneath the surface are book-buying fevers—a need to procure every new picture book that we become exposed to by colleagues and consultants. We shop, we acquire, and we prop the texts around our classrooms—external signals to visitors that our libraries are relevant and multicultural.
Our ability to drop dozens of titles into our Amazon carts and obtain them with a single click eliminates opportunity for deep thinking and careful examination. Before setting books out around our classroom, have we actually read them from cover to cover? Have we studied the author’s note? Considered the challenges the characters face? Determined if the text is even culturally authentic?
Our infatuation with libraries and books makes sense. Teachers are naturals at read-alouds and storytelling. However, I have found that preoccupation with something as emotional and enjoyable as literature also means a tendency to linger where we are most comfortable. Literature is an exhilarating entry point into culturally responsive pedagogy. We should not grow so used to the easy feel of our toes in the shallows that we fear venturing into deeper waters.
During informal conversations with teachers about the three tenets of culturally responsive pedagogy, a majority stated that they are focusing on cultural competence. With smiles, they pointed out the changes to their libraries. Some recounted facilitation of discussions about students’ backgrounds and identities. Few had actually crafted goals related to the other two tenets: student learning and critical consciousness.
This is not surprising. The other two tenets are hard. Tending to intellectual growth, how students learn, and their abilities to problem-solve can be complex work. Even more difficult is the third tenet, critical consciousness—teaching students to identify, analyze, and solve real-world problems. This third tenet might be the surest form of engaging students in learning, but it also makes teachers the most uncomfortable.
Updating libraries, writing students’ names into story problems, and creating identity maps feel manageable. They are important shifts within our control, and we know we can do them well. But I look around and sometimes wonder if our desire to feel instructionally successful also confines us to doing what we are certain we can do well.
In focusing on external curricular shifts that can be seen, acknowledged, and applauded, teachers forget to attend to the internal: They forget to attend to themselves. We task students with creating identity maps, but how much have we reflected on our own identities? We ask students to reflect on their behaviors, but do we really sit and consider our own? How frequently do we study our beliefs—where they came from and how they might be influencing our everyday interactions with students?
Knowing ourselves—seeing ourselves exactly as we are—can be extremely uncomfortable. The deep reflection required can mean confronting upsetting truths that threaten the narratives we tell ourselves about the work we do each day. Moreover, knowing ourselves is an operational challenge. We need data—something tangible to reflect on. Often, we need a coach. And perhaps most importantly, we need time to reflect.
Of course, we are short of time and resources. Our system demands such constant evidence of productivity we are compelled to act mechanically and quickly. Rare is the opportunity that we can intentionally reflect on who we are as human beings and how we are showing up to work each day.
But for a moment, and just for our students, I invite you to wonder: If you were your bravest, most deeply aware self, what could it mean for your students? For your school’s cultural competence? For your students’ intellectual growth? And for the future’s critical consciousness?
‘Culturally Responsive Teaching Isn’t About Lowering the Bar’
Keisha Rembert is a lifelong learner, equity advocate, and award-winning educator. She is the author of The Antiracist English Language Arts Classroom, a doctoral student, and an assistant professor/DEI coordinator for teacher preparation at National Louis University. Prior to entering teacher education, Keisha spent more than 15 years teaching middle school English and U.S. history:
The more I talk to teachers, the more I realize that culturally responsive teaching is not what most educators think it is. To truly harness its power, we need to clear the air about what it is NOT.
It is not all about the content
We’ve gotten hung up on what we teach, thinking that adding in some diverse books or mentioning cultural heroes is enough. Don’t get me wrong, inclusive content is imperative, but being culturally responsive is more about how we teach than what we teach. The real magic happens when we tap into how our students learn best. Are we using the knowledge they bring from home? Are we considering how their cultural backgrounds shape the way they process information?
Zaretta Hammond’s work elucidates that culturally responsive teaching is a science. Culture isn’t just about selecting the right book; it fundamentally shapes how our brains learn. It’s about how students engage, critically connect, and examine texts and experiences to acculturate their knowledge. When we understand this, our teaching styles will genuinely connect with every student in the room.
It is not easy work
Culturally responsive teaching isn’t about lowering the bar. It’s not a “dumbed-down” approach for “those kids.” I call this misguided approach “lawnmower teaching,” where we try to mow down every obstacle in the name of being culturally responsive.
But easy doesn’t equal learning. Our students are capable learners who need the right support, not lowered expectations. As Gloria Ladson-Billings points out, seeing students as victims incapable of handling rigorous material is a hallmark of ineffective teaching, no matter how well-intentioned.
Instead, culturally responsive pedagogy maintains high academic standards while providing culturally appropriate scaffolds. It’s about believing in our students’ potential and equipping them with the tools to succeed.
It is not just for racially minoritized students
Another pervasive and damaging misconception is that culturally responsive teaching is only necessary or beneficial for students of color. This couldn’t be further from the truth. In our increasingly interconnected global society, all students need to develop cultural proficiency.
In our increasingly interconnected global society, all students need to develop cultural competence. Culturally responsive teaching helps dismantle the idea that white culture is the default or “normal” culture. This benefits white students by broadening their worldviews and challenging potential biases.
It encourages all students to examine their own cultural backgrounds, gain self-awareness crucial for personal growth, and develop critical humility. By exposing students to diverse viewpoints and ways of knowing, culturally responsive teaching enhances critical-thinking skills across the board.
Thanks to Crystal, Tiffani, Kristi, and Keisha for contributing their thoughts!
Today’s post answered this question:
What do you think are the most common things teachers get wrong about culturally responsive teaching?
Part One in this series featured Zaretta Hammond.
In Part Two, Françoise Thenoux, Jehan Hakim, and Courtney Rose contributed their responses.
Consider contributing a question to be answered in a future post. You can send one to me at lferlazzo@epe.org. When you send it in, let me know if I can use your real name if it’s selected or if you’d prefer remaining anonymous and have a pseudonym in mind.
You can also contact me on Twitter at @Larryferlazzo.
Just a reminder; you can subscribe and receive updates from this blog via email. And if you missed any of the highlights from the first 12 years of this blog, you can see a categorized list here.
