University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Examining the practices of teachers who teach historically marginalized students through an enactment of ideology, asset pedagogies, and funds of knowledge

(USC Thesis Other)

Examining the practices of teachers who teach historically marginalized students through an enactment of ideology, asset pedagogies, and funds of knowledge

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running Head: TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 1

EXAMINING THE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS WHO TEACH HISTORICALLY
MARGINALIZED STUDENTS THROUGH AN ENACTMENT OF IDEOLOGY, ASSET
PEDAGOGIES, AND FUNDS OF KNOWLEDGE

By

Mary Catherine Stevens

____________________________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2016

TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 2
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to my students, whose passion for knowledge and desire for
change made me realize that I needed to be a better equipped educator, one who is better
positioned to help you achieve. You deserve educators who are just as passionate as you are, and
who can help you enact the change you wish to see.

TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 3
Acknowledgements
I recall the moment in which I realized that as an educator, I needed to do more. My
students were researching topics they were passionate about, issues they felt they needed to bring
attention to in order to create change. Their enthusiasm for learning and desire to create changes
was infectious. They made me realize that in order to best provide them with the opportunities
they deserve, I must develop more as an educator. That’s when my USC Rossier journey began.
The road to my EdD was not easy. This labor of love would not have been possible
without the contributions and love of many. I would like to thank the key players, without whom
this undertaking would not have been possible.
First and foremost, the transformation of this dissertation from an abstract thought to a
fully realized and completed study would not have been possible without the super powers of my
dissertation committee chair, Wonder Woman herself, Dr. Julie Slayton, JD, PhD. I have never
been so challenged by anyone on so many levels-personally, mentally, and intellectually-as I
have been by you. I have grown so much as a person and as an educator through your guidance
and support. You not only guided me through the academic process, but you helped me to sort
through my professional and personal conflicts. Your passion for education and the betterment
of the system for those who continue to be marginalized is inspiring. I will be forever grateful
for the time and energy that you devoted to my study and me. Thank you for everything you
have taught me; for your guidance, support, and mentorship. When I grow up, I want to be just
like you.
To Dr. Artineh Samkian, PhD, the second member of my committee, thank you. You
were instrumental in helping me find and narrow my dissertation topic. You provided our
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 4
thematic group with your valuable insights and support. Thank you for being available when we
needed another voice.
Thank you also to Dr. Jenifer Crawford, PhD, the third member of my committee. Your
encouragement to think deeper and further than what was in front of me has allowed me to be
more critical of the factors that affect my students’ learning. Thank you for your insights and
your support through this process.
To my awesome family. Mom, Sister-Sister, and Big Brother, thank you. You have
always given me your unconditional support regardless of what I endeavored. Thank you for
always encouraging me to be my best self, in any situation. Your tireless efforts to create better
lives for our family is now evident in our successes. I am so thankful to have such an awesome,
supportive family. I love you, all. Thank you so much for instilling these values in me.
Finally, to my husband, Craig, a multitude of thank yous. This year has not been the
easiest, but it has been one of the absolute best because of you. Our first year of marriage was
encumbered by this dissertation and I am so grateful for your patience through this process. I
would not have been able to do this without your tireless support. You have held our lives
together through 5am workouts, long-school days, and endless nights. Through it all you have
never ceased to make me laugh. Thank you for your understanding of my endeavor to make the
world of education better. Thank you for your support of my work with my students. Thank you
for the pre-workouts, protein shakes, breakfasts, lunches, and dinners. Thank you for your
diligence and love. I love you to the edges of the multiverse and back.

TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 5
Abstract
Asset ideology, culturally relevant and asset pedagogies, and Funds of Knowledge (FoK)
are three essential components of the practices of effective teachers of historically marginalized
students. To understand how these components merge to bring meaning to instruction, this study
addressed the following research question: How does the instruction of reputably effective high
school teachers of historically marginalized students reflect the intersection of their beliefs and
their practices? This multi-case study examined the interactions, decisions, instructional
practices, and curricula of two high-school English teachers and one of each of their 10
th
grade
classes. Both teachers taught for an academic outreach program that serves students from
marginalized backgrounds. The data for this qualitative study included teacher interviews,
classroom observations, and teacher created documents. The findings from this study revealed
that although both teachers were well-intentioned and exhibited beliefs in the capabilities of their
students, their inability to confront the cultural disparities between their White backgrounds and
those of their Latino students resulted in their ill-position to deliver the culturally rich and
relevant instruction the students needed. In order to be able to provide meaningful and robust
learning opportunities for historically marginalized students, teachers must examine their own
ideologies for potentially harmful mindsets, develop competence in the cultural contexts of their
students, and cultivate and utilize FoK to deliver instruction that is culturally rich and relevant.

TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 6
Table of Contents
Dedication 2
Acknowledgements 3
Abstract 5
Chapter One: Introduction 8
Background of the Problem 10
Statement of the Problem 12
Purpose of the Study 13
Significance of the Study 13
Organization of the Study 14
Chapter Two: Literature Review 16
Teacher Ideologies 18
Empirical Literature on the Role of Teacher Ideology on Student Learning
Opportunity 23
Culturally Relevant and Asset Pedagogies 32
Culturally Responsive Pedagogy 32
The Theory of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy 38
Culturally Relevant Pedagogy in the Classroom 41
Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy 53
Funds of Knowledge 59
Theories of Funds of Knowledge 60
Empirical Literature on Funds of Knowledge 61
Conceptual Framework 78
Effective Teachers and Ideologies 79
Asset Pedagogies 81
Funds of Knowledge 82
Conclusion 83
Chapter Three: Methods 85
Research Design 85
Sample and Population 86
Participant Selection 86
Instrumentation and Data Collection Procedures 89
Interview 90
Observation 90
Documents and Artifacts 91
Data Analysis Procedures 92
Ethics 93
Limitations and Delimitations 95
Limitations 95
Delimitations 95
Credibility and Trustworthiness 96
Conclusion 98
Chapter Four: Findings 100
Case Study #1: Rachael Jones, Bond High School 101
Ideology 106
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 7
Funds of Knowledge 118
Asset Pedagogies 122
Case Study #2: Carly Logan, Ford High School 132
Ideology 137
Funds of Knowledge 147
Asset Pedagogy 150
Cross Case Analysis 157
Belief in the Academic Capabilities of their Students 158
Conceptions and Mindsets of Culture 160
Classroom Environments of Empathy and Inclusion 162
Cultivation and Utilization of Funds of Knowledge 164
Culturally Responsive and Relevant Pedagogy 166
Chapter Five: Discussions, Implications, and Future Research 171
Summary of Findings 172
Implications and Recommendations 175
Practice 176
Policy 180
Research 183
References 185
Appendices
Appendix A: Pre-Observation Teacher Ideology and Pedagogy Interview Protocol 189
Appendix B: Post Observation Teacher Practice Interview Protocol, Mrs. Jones 192
Appendix C: Post Observation Teacher Practice Interview Protocol, Ms. Logan 194
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 8
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
The achievement gap between African American and Latino minorities and Whites
continues to be a prevalent issue in the United States educational system (Gándara, 2010). The
term “achievement gap” in education refers to the disparities in academic performance between
groups of students and occurs when one group of students outperforms another group and the
difference in average scores for the two groups is statistically significant (NAEP, 2014). Various
factors contributing to this problem include the lack of academic access and resources provided
to many Latino and African American students with low socioeconomic status, high teacher
turnover rates at schools with large minority student populations, federal and state educational
policies that focus on standardization, and low or poor teacher quality (Hollins & Torres
Guzman, 2005). Federal and state initiatives, such as Race to the Top (RTTT), have been
undertaken to improve academic outcomes and close these achievement gaps (US Department of
Education, 2009), yet the gaps persist. The RTTT initiative has gone so far as to target teacher
effectiveness with regards to student outcomes (US Department of Education, 2009). It seeks to
evaluate teacher effectiveness using multiple measures, including standardized test scores, to
ensure that students are receiving instruction from highly qualified teachers (US Department of
Education, 2009).
Though initiatives such as RTTT seek to close the achievement gap by ensuring students
are taught by highly qualified teachers, research shows that there are not enough highly qualified
teachers available to teach in areas with the most need (Hollins & Torres Guzman, 2005). These
high need areas typically house students of color, low-income students, English language
learners, and students in rural and urban settings, students who have been historically
underserved by the US educational system (Hollins & Torres Guzman, 2005). As minority
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 9
populations in the US continue to grow, so will the number of historically underserved students
(NCES, 2009). Some solutions that seek to address the need for highly effective teachers,
particularly for high need areas have included aggressive recruitment of new teachers (NEA,
2015), which poses another issue for students’ access to highly qualified teachers. Teacher
education programs yield mostly White teachers who are more likely to have cultural
disconnects with historically underserved and marginalized students (Sleeter, 2001).
The reason these cultural disconnects between White teachers and their students is
important is because researchers have long asserted that culture plays a significant role in
learning (Brown et al., 1989). This has been shown to be particularly true in the education of
students who are historically underserved and marginalized (Hand, 2006). Many educational
researchers say that cultural disconnects between White teachers and minority students have
resulted in teachers’ adoption of deficit ideologies stemming from cultural incongruities, hence
the adoption of a pedagogy of poverty (Gay, 2010; Haberman, 1991). In order to overcome
harmful deficit mindsets, teachers must understand the links between race, culture, and learning,
and use that knowledge in their practice in classrooms with historically underserved and
marginalized students (Hand, 2006). The purpose of this study was to examine the practices of
teachers with reputations for being effective in working with historically marginalized students.
Specifically, this study sought to understand how effective teachers employed asset ideologies,
enacted asset pedagogies, and drew on students’ funds of knowledge in their instruction, and
how these collectively translated into meaningful learning opportunities for their students.
In the remainder of this chapter, I discuss the background of the problem, the statement
of the problem, the purpose of this study, and the significance of this study.

TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 10
Background of the Problem
The achievement gap between African American and Latino minorities and their White
and Asian counterparts is evidenced by the history of discrepant standardized test scores (US
Department of Education, 2009). African American and Latino students have historically and
substantially lagged behind White and Asian students in reading, math, and science (Good,
Arondson, & Inzlicht, 2003; Hollins & Torres Guzman, 2005). It is unlikely that this gap will
decline at any time in the foreseeable future as population growth is greatest among groups for
which academic achievement and attainment is traditionally lowest (AGI, 2015). For example,
between 1987 and 2007, the Latino public school population grew from 11% to 21% of all US
students (NCES, 2009). By 2021, the US Census Bureau predicts that one of four students in the
US will be Latino. In states such as Texas and California, the Latino school-age population is
approaching nearly one-half of all students (Gándara, 2010). Latinos comprise the least educated
of all major ethnic groups in the U.S. (Gándara, 2010). Historical failure to make any progress
over three decades suggests that efforts to close the achievement gap have been unsuccessful.
Some of the contributing factors to Latino and African American students’ low academic
performance include the fact that they are less likely than their White and Asian peers to grow up
with economic advantage and access to experienced and qualified teachers (Wiener, 2007).
According to the US Census Bureau, the average household income in 2013 the US was $51,000.
The average income of a Latino family in the US in 2013 was $41,000 (Pew Research Center,
2015) while the average income of an African American family in 2013 was $35,000 (USCB,
2013). These socially and historically marginalized children are also more likely to be denied
access to high quality teachers. High-poverty and ethnic minority students are twice as likely to
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 11
be assigned novice teachers as their low-poverty majority counterparts (Akiba et al., 2007;
Hollins & Torres Guzman, 2005; Wiener, 2007).
Educational research has documented that classroom teachers are the single most
determinant factor of student success and that historically marginalized students can make great
academic strides when taught by high-quality teachers. Hollins and Torres Guzman (2005) argue
that teacher quality is the single most important influence on school success and students’
achievement, surpassing socioeconomic status, family background, school context, and all other
factors that influence achievement (p. 478).
The growing population of students from historically marginalized groups creates a
higher demand for teachers who are able to serve culturally diverse communities (Gay, 2010;
Sleeter, 2001). Most of the teachers who respond to the call are those from White, middle-class
backgrounds who are radically different in both aspiration and actuality from the ethnically and
racially diverse students, families and communities in which they serve (Gay, 2010). Hollins and
Torres Guzman (2005) assert that teacher candidates who are being trained to enter the
profession and work with culturally diverse student populations usually have limited experience
with those from cultures other than their own and tend to hold negative attitudes and beliefs
about those different from themselves. Consequently, the negative beliefs about the cultures
found in their classrooms lead to deficit thinking, or what Haberman (1991) calls pedagogy of
poverty.
Haberman (1991) describes pedagogy of poverty as a manifestation of deficit thinking
into practice. Teachers who abide by pedagogy of poverty continually marginalize their students
by viewing them as having inadequate capabilities. They view students’ families as socially
deficient. They enact low expectations of students. They fear minorities and believe that at-risk
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 12
students are best served through power and control (Haberman, 1991). Deficit thinking and
pedagogy of poverty place no value on the culture, talents, and capabilities of the students, hence
they yield non-thinking and unemployable youngsters who lack basic skills and represent
societal tragedy (Haberman, 1991).
Closing the achievement gap requires equipping teachers to work with historically
marginalized students by instilling in them the ability to overcome deficit thinking and adopt an
ideological orientation that benefits their culturally diverse students. Teachers must be able to
contextualize practices and employ methods and materials that support the academic
achievement of students from diverse and minority groups (Hollins & Torres Guzman, 2005).
They must also be sensitive to the ways that negative expectations result in deficit orientations
that prove harmful to students, especially those from marginalized backgrounds (Pradl, 2002).
Statement of the Problem
Learning experiences for historically marginalized students have lacked meaning and
relevance because of teachers who subscribe to pedagogy of poverty (Haberman, 1991). Such
teachers fail to leverage their students’ assets in a practice that engages them in rigorous and
relevant learning experiences. Previous research on asset ideologies and pedagogies suggests
instructional approaches for teachers to use with historically marginalized students. Further
research is required in order to understand the complexities of the practices of those teachers
who have been deemed “effective” in working with historically marginalized populations,
particularly those who work within programs whose purpose is to serve those students. As the
needs of their students are complex, their practices must be able to support those needs in order
to be truly effective.

TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 13
Purpose of the Study
While the connection between teacher effectiveness, ideologies, and the enactment of
culturally relevant and sustaining pedagogy and funds of knowledge has been implied, there is
little research that describes the characteristics of those teachers’ practice. This study was
designed to look at the curriculum decisions and use, instructional practices, and student and
teacher interactions of teachers who had a reputation of success with historically marginalized
students. The research question I answered was:
• How does the instruction of reputably effective high school teachers of historically
marginalized students reflect the intersection of their beliefs and their practices?
Significance of the Study
This study is important because it provided insight into the practices of teachers who
have been deemed effective in teaching historically marginalized students. The descriptions will
be useful for all classrooms as they are not limited to a particular content area. It may also
identify criteria that can be used by those who make curriculum decisions when considering what
curricula are more likely to create meaningful learning experiences. Although the literature on
culturally relevant and asset pedagogy are vast, much of it describes what students do, not what
teachers do when they are enacting asset pedagogies. Further, as the connections between
teacher ideologies, asset pedagogies, and funds of knowledge have been implied, there is little
research that articulates how these three components together lead to the success of teachers who
teach historically marginalized students. Therefore, this study is significant because it provides
insight into the complexity required of the practices of teachers of historically marginalized
students. In attempting to provide a description of effective teaching practices based on evolving
theories, this study connected the different theories of culturally relevant and asset pedagogies
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 14
with funds of knowledge, enacted through teacher ideologies. In this study, I sought to
understand how teachers who had been deemed effective in working with historically
marginalized students realized those connections. I sought to document the aspects of the
teachers’ practices as they had a reputation for effectiveness. Instead, the complexities required
of the effective teaching of historically marginalized students resulted in data that lacked
definitiveness. Where some aspects of their practice aligned with my expectations, other aspects
did not. Just as their students’ needs were complex, so were their practices in attempting to meet
those needs.
Organization of the Study
This dissertation is organized into five chapters. The first chapter provided an
introduction and background to the problem. It presented the context of historically
marginalized students and the factors that have led to, and continue to marginalize them. The
purpose and significance of the study was to examine the teaching practices of highly effective
teachers of historically marginalized students.
Chapter two provides a literature review and conceptual framework that was used to
inform the study. First, the study examines the literature related to teacher ideologies and the
facets that result in effective teaching. Next, I present culturally relevant pedagogy and its
various iterations, which include culturally responsive pedagogy, humanizing pedagogy, and
culturally sustaining pedagogy. Finally, I offer literature on the concept of funds of knowledge
and its utility in teaching.
Chapter three presents the design of the research and outlines the methods I used for data
collection and analysis. A description of the samples and units of analysis is also included. It
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 15
concludes with considerations of limitations, delimitations, credibility, ethics, and
trustworthiness.
Chapter four discusses the findings of the study. It presents the themes that emerged
from each case. It concludes with a cross case analysis, where the practices of both cases are
discussed through the lens of the contextual framework.
Chapter five summarizes the findings and discusses the implications for the study. It also
provides recommendations regarding practice, policy, and further research

TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 16
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
This study examined the perceptions of high school teachers who had been identified as
effective in teaching students from historically marginalized populations and asked the following
question: How does the instruction of effective high school teachers of historically marginalized
students reflect the intersection of their beliefs and their practices? In order to answer this
question, I drew on three bodies of literature: teacher ideology, culturally relevant and asset
pedagogies, and funds of knowledge.
First, the literature related to teacher ideology was relevant to my question because a
teacher’s actions in the classroom are the product of her conscious and unconscious beliefs about
the abilities of her students (Bartolomé, 2004). Teachers who believe that their students are
capable of achieving will choose pedagogies that support students’ ability to engage in
meaningful learning (Bartolomé, 2004; Milner, 2010). Bartolomé (2004) and others (Duncan-
Andrade, 2007; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Milner, 2010) have found that effective teachers
demonstrate an authentic belief in their students’ capabilities to be successful in and out of the
educational context.
Second, the theories of asset pedagogies were relevant to my research question because
teachers who have been found to be effective in fostering the learning of students from
historically marginalized populations demonstrate practices that are grounded in the theories that
fall under this umbrella concept. Gloria Ladson-Billings (1995) introduced the theory of
culturally responsive pedagogy, arguing that successful teachers of African American children
engaged in a set of practices and held a set of beliefs that enabled them to create powerful
learning opportunities for their children. Additionally, Gay (2002) added her iteration of
culturally responsive instruction and the characteristics used to identify it. Camangian, (2013)
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 17
adds his theory of humanizing pedagogy as the way teachers enabled their dispossessed students
to confront oppression, affirm humanity, and use literacy as a tool to transform their realities and
undermine oppression. More recently, Paris (2012) extended Ladson-Billings’ theory from
culturally relevant to culturally sustaining pedagogy (CSP), incorporating other marginalized
populations, multilingualism, and multiculturalism. The goal of CSP is to expand on the tenets
of CRP, and sustain linguistic, literate, and cultural pluralism (Ladson-Billings, 2014; Paris,
2012; Paris & Alim, 2014).
Finally, the funds of knowledge literature informed my ability to answer my research
question because it provides teachers with another means through which they can contextualize
their practice in working with students from historically marginalized backgrounds. The concept
of “Funds of Knowledge” (FoK) was first derived from the evolution of cultures (Moll et al.,
1992). According to Moll et al. (1992), culture is a process, not a normative state, and the
emphasis is placed on lived contexts and community practices of the students. Secondly, FoK
deconstructs the prevailing idea that working-class households lack worthwhile knowledge and
experiences (Barton & Tan, 2008; Moje et al., 2004; Moll et al., 1992). FoK focuses on the
sustainability of cultures present in urban classrooms. It validates essential historical and
cultural bodies of knowledge that aid in the individual and household well-being of marginalized
students (Moll et al., 1992). Teachers who cultivate and utilize FoK are more effective in
engaging students in their practice and provide value and relevance to their learning experiences.
This chapter explores the literature that provides insight into characteristics of effective
teachers who work with historically marginalized populations. I begin with teacher ideologies
and moves to review the progression from and relationship between culturally relevant and
sustaining pedagogies. I then turn to funds of knowledge. I conclude with my conceptual
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 18
framework that will serve as the basis for my approach to sampling, data collection, and analysis.
Teacher Ideologies

It was important to examine teachers’ ideologies in order to determine the potential
consequence they would have for their students, especially for linguistic-minority and/or
historically marginalized students. An examination of a teacher’s ideologies provided insight
into determining what shaped her approach to fostering learning opportunities for her students.
The following literature discusses teacher ideologies and their influence on the learning
opportunities afforded to historically marginalized students. I begin by presenting theory on
teacher ideology and then turn my attention to qualitative empirical work that demonstrates the
ways in which ideology have been shown to influence students’ learning opportunities.
Theories of the Role of Teacher Ideology on Student Learning Opportunities
The theories on teacher ideologies explained mindsets and beliefs that teachers of
historically marginalized students must adopt and hold. Teaching historically marginalized
students requires an examination of ideologies in order to avoid adopting harmful deficit
thinking and approaches. In the section below, I will discuss two theories that address the
mindsets necessary to effectively teach students from historically marginalized populations. I
chose these two theories because Bartolomé is often cited on this topic and Milner offers a way
of concretely describing the ideologies that most often appear in teachers working with
historically marginalized students.
Bartolomé (2004) defines ideology as a framework of thought constructed and held by
members of society to justify or rationalize an existing social order (p. 97). A person’s ideology
is derived from her past experiences and is constructed by social conditions. Bartolomé argues
that there is a widespread ideological belief (framework of thought constructed and held by
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 19
members of society) that minorities are responsible for their own disadvantages and that this
ideological belief is deeply rooted in American society. She says that a lack of critical reflection
on the political, social, and economic realities in the United States has resulted in an unconscious
belief that minorities have the same opportunities as White Americans. Without this reflection
and awareness, people fail to consider the oppressive realities that continue to marginalize
historically marginalized populations. Moreover, the failure of teacher education programs to
address this issue has resulted in a teacher workforce that unconsciously holds beliefs and
attitudes that reflect the dominant ideology that has been and continues to be harmful to students
(Bartolomé, 2004). Without critically examining their own belief systems, teachers are not able
to confront their underlying negative ideological orientations and therefore maintain the status
quo, which is of a great detriment to their students.
The majority of the teacher workforce in the United States is comprised of White,
middle-class women, thus signaling an immense disparity with the dramatically increasing low-
income, non-White, and linguistic-minority population (Bartolomé, 2004). In light of this
disproportion, it is imperative that teachers examine their ideological orientations so as not to
perpetuate the dominant, harmful, deficit approaches that permeate education. Given that
teachers’ ideologies are shaped by their past and their environments and that their ideologies
have a direct influence on the success of their students, Bartolomé (2004) suggests that teachers
must develop political and ideological clarity in order to ensure their students’ academic success.
Developing political clarity requires an examination and realization of a consciousness regarding
the sociopolitical and economic realities that affect their lives, and their capacity to change those
conditions. Further, it requires an understanding of the relationships between political,
economic, and social factors of the academic performance in the classroom. Ideological clarity,
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 20
on the other hand, requires an individual to struggle to arrive at her own explanations for the
existing socioeconomic and political hierarchy (Bartolomé, 2004). An understanding of both
principles allows teachers to reflect on their own beliefs and how they align with that of the
dominant society, and how they might affect those disparities.
As teacher ideologies concern belief systems, mindsets, and practices, Milner (2010) puts
forward what he calls an “opportunity gaps framework” in which he identified ideologies or
mindsets that teachers need to hold in order to support students. He identifies these mindsets as:
rejection of color blindness, ability and skill to understand, work through, and transcend cultural
conflicts, ability to understand how meritocracy operates, ability to recognize and shift low
expectations and deficit mindsets, and rejection of context-neutral mindsets and practices. He
argues that teachers must ensure that they operate with these mindsets and actively work to
displace alternative mindsets from their belief systems. By doing this, he argues that the
opportunity gap that exists for historically marginalized students can be overcome. I discuss each
mindset in turn.
With respect to color blindness, Milner (2010) offers that teachers often adopt a color-
blind mindset as a way to defy racism, when in fact it perpetuates dominant privilege and racial
identification (Milner, 2010). This mindset only expands the educational opportunity gap.
Milner suggest that color-blind teachers lack the knowledge, sensitivity, and empathy that is
necessary to effectively teach racially diverse students, especially those who have been
marginalized by education. Particular color-blind mindsets that are harmful to students include
teachers’ fears of being considered racist, politically incorrect, or that that they believe race has
no relevance in the classroom at all. Moreover, he argues that the failure to recognize color in
education leads to a lack of awareness of its disparities. Rejecting color-blindness means
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 21
recognizing persistent issues in education such as the overrepresentation of historically
marginalized students in special education, or their underrepresentation in gifted education
(Milner, 2010). Teachers who reject color-blindness are aware of the inequities in educational
opportunities and have empathy for the realities their students of color face.
The second mindset Milner addresses is related to cultural conflicts. Having knowledge
and willingness in how to address and diffuse cultural conflicts is another way to close the
opportunity gap in education. He defines cultural conflicts in the classroom as discrepancies
between the cultural practices of the teacher and those of the students. These conflicts are
derived from the teacher’s struggle for power over the students, who often oppose being
controlled. The teacher’s methods for obtaining and maintaining power are often inconsistent
with the students’ cultural norms, therefore creating a contentious relationship. What the teacher
constitutes as acceptable behavior may differ from that of the students’ culture. A way to
combat these discrepancies is for the teacher to teach their students the structure of power.
When students are aware of the power structure in the classroom, they are more apt to adopt
acceptable behaviors. Further, an awareness of power structures will help student to understand
and challenge oppressive powers that marginalize them. Students must be taught to be critical of
power structures in order to navigate cultural systems and to also counter the oppressive
practices that contribute to the educational opportunity gap (Milner, 2010).
The third mindset Milner identifies is the myth of meritocracy (Milner, 2010). He asserts
that many educators are subscribers to the belief that all people have the same opportunities for
success, which can be cultivated through hard work and talent. They are not aware of the
socioeconomic realities that disadvantage many students from achieving what their middle-class
counterparts can easily access. In reality, access is not equitable. Many students are faced with
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 22
socioeconomic challenges that are beyond their control. In order to create equitable
opportunities, educators must have an awareness of these discrepancies and move beyond a
merit-based mindset. They must teach their students to understand the inequities in order for
them to circumvent poverty and transform their lives (Milner, 2010).
The fourth mindset Milner (2010) identifies for analyzing opportunity gaps are the low
expectations and deficit mindsets that educators adopt when working with historically
marginalized students. Deficit mindsets blame students for the educational system’s
shortcomings. When educators view their historically marginalized students as socially and
intellectually inferior, they lower their expectations and create learning environments that lack
rigor and relevance. Educators feel as if they are doing the students an injustice by having high
expectations. Instead, teachers must employ students’ cultural capital to design challenging
learning experiences where students can thrive.
Context neutral mindset is the fifth lens Milner (2010) proposes for analyzing the
opportunity gap (Milner, 2010). When educators adopt context neutral mindsets, they fail to
recognize the realities of their teaching community. This is especially detrimental considering
the disproportionate number of new teachers entering urban and high-poverty schools,
particularly those who teach outside of their field of expertise. Awareness of contextual factors
allows educators to address student needs and how social context shapes opportunity (Milner,
2010). A multicultural education is necessary for the intellectual, academic, and social success
of not just students of color, but of all students. Students in more privileged settings will
eventually be faced with issues of diversity. All students must be able to function effectively in
diverse settings and structures of power. As Milner (2010) states, “Responsive teaching requires
that educators know more then their subject matter; they must understand the differences,
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 23
complexities, and nuances inherent in what it means to teach in urban, suburban, and rural
environments (p. 41).
Empirical Literature on the Role of Teacher Ideology on Student Learning Opportunities
In addition to the theory of teacher ideology there is a growing empirical literature base
that examines the ways in which teachers’ ideologies are expressed through their words and
actions. In the following section, I discuss two different studies of educators whose successes in
the classroom could be attributed to the various ways in which they employed asset ideologies in
their classrooms. I offer these two studies as they are representative of the work demonstrating
the role of teacher ideology in the learning opportunities afforded to historically marginalized
students. First, Bartolomé (2004) studied four teachers whose practices demonstrated their
advocacy for their students, which essentially lead to the students’ success. Next, I will present
Milner and Tenore’s (2010) study of two teachers, one African American and one White, and
their successful approaches to teaching marginalized students.
Bartolomé (2004) conducted a study in which she examined four educators who
understood the influence of asset ideologies on the way they taught their students from
historically marginalized backgrounds. She wanted to see how some teachers were able to
realize that teaching was not an apolitical undertaking, developed critical understanding of how
asymmetrical power relations played out in schools, and devised strategies on their students’
behalf for short-circuiting potential inequalities they might experience (p. 101). She sampled
educators who had exemplary reputations based on the descriptions provided by administrators
and colleagues. They were known to have a critical awareness of the dominant oppressive
practices that continued to marginalize their students. They also had a strong sense of advocacy
and a commitment to creating and sustaining equitable conditions for their students (Bartolomé,
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 24
2004). The educators were Dr. Peabody, a White, female principal; Mr. Tijerina, a Chicano
history teacher; Mrs. Cortland, a White English teacher; and Mr. Broadbent, a White math
teacher. The educators all worked for Riverview High School (RHS), a celebrated school in
southern California, 18 miles from the Mexican border. RHS’s cultural makeup was 70 percent
Mexican/Latino and 8 percent Filipino American. Sixty-two percent of RHS students were from
homes where English was a second language. The majority of the students also qualified for free
or reduced lunch services (Bartolomé, 2004). Bartolomé, along with another colleague,
conducted a qualitative study in which the participants were asked open-ended questions to elicit
responses regarding their personal experiences and beliefs in teaching low-SES, non-White, and
linguistic minority students, and the factors related to educating them (Bartolomé, 2004, p. 102).
The findings consisted of four different components. The first was that the educators all
believed that the school’s environment of care and equity for historically marginalized students
was responsible for their academic success. The teachers at the school were critical of dominant
ideologies and rejected deficit views of their students. They did not subscribe to the mainstream
White, middle-class culture or the notion of meritocracy. They all had varying degrees of
personally marginalizing experiences. Finally, they all advocated for their students’ success by
helping them navigate the school culture so as not to be disadvantaged (Bartolomé, 2004).
Interview data from the four educators revealed that they all believed that the myth of
meritocracy was just that, a myth. They did not believe that hard work and talent were all that
was necessary to get ahead. Instead, they believed that racism and economic restrictions
disadvantaged their students and that pure merit and ability did not provide the same
opportunities as their White, middle-class counterparts. Those who were more financially able
were also those who had greater opportunities. The educators recognized the importance in
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 25
acknowledging the limits imposed on their students because of their social and economic
realities (Bartolomé, 2004).
The second ideological component found through interviews was the educators’ rejection
of deficit views of their students. They were aware of pervasive negative views of low-income
minority students and made efforts to reverse them in their practice. They realized the need to
examine their own ideologies and confront their own deficit beliefs and tendencies in order to
empower their students to do the same. Both Mr. Broadbent and Mr. Tijerina emphasized the
need to see the value in the students’ cultures in order to enable them to see themselves in a
positive light. The educators believed that the disadvantages faced by their students were due to
economic deprivation and not their deficiencies (Bartolomé, 2004).
The educators in this study opposed the belief that the dominant White culture was what
the students should emulate. Instead, they believed that students should be taught to value their
own culture and celebrate their traditions and customs. According to them, White, mainstream
youth displayed a sense on ingratitude and entitlement, unlike the students at RHS who were
more respectful and accepting of diversity. They went as far to say that middle-class White
culture would benefit from incorporating Mexican values of respect and humility. Through their
study, they found that culture was also something that should be subject to examination by both
educators and students.
The third finding was in regards to the empathy the educators had for their students based
on their own marginalized experiences. Bartolomé (2004) considered them “border crossers,”
individuals who were willing and able to develop empathy with the cultural “Other” and
authentically view them as equals, while being aware of the “Other’s” subordinated social status
(p. 109). The educators had their own experiences crossing borders based on their ethnicity or
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 26
socioeconomic status. As they were profoundly affected by their experiences, they recognized
the need to take action to equalize relations of power and erase deeply embedded misconceptions
about low-income, working class minorities. They served as advocates for their students in the
struggle to negotiate social stratification and help to elevate them (Bartolomé, 2004).
The final finding in the study was the educators’ sense of professional responsibility to
mentor and show their students the way to a better life (Bartolomé, 2004, p. 112). They
accomplished this by becoming “cultural brokers” (Bartolomé, 2004), helping students to
navigate school and mainstream cultures. The educators spoke of the importance of their roles as
mentors, imparting knowledge of not just the school, but also the world. The educators believed
in providing their students with the cultural capital that was readily available to their privileged
counterparts. They discussed the need for their students to see themselves in the context of a
better life, which will lead to their success.
Bartolomé’s (2004) study of the ideology of four educators provided four components
that led to their students’ success: a denouncing of meritocracy, a rejection of deficit views,
being “border crossers,” and “cultural brokers.” Political and ideological clarity provided the
awareness the teachers needed in order to recognize the unjust social and economic inequalities
and practices that marginalized their low-income, working-class families.
Milner and Tenore (2010) conducted a study of two teachers with varying ideologies with
regards to classroom management in diverse classrooms. Both teachers exhibited culturally
relevant classroom environments. This study expanded on Milner’s (2006) previous work in
which he expressed concerns regarding the cultural incongruities between teachers and students
and the implications of those differences. Milner and Tenore’s (2006) study of two teachers
from an urban and diverse middle school attempted to extend the construct, culturally responsive
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 27
classroom management, considering the ethnic background of the teachers and students in the
study a well as the context (p. 561). They focused on the teachers’ conceptions, philosophies,
and ideologies around culturally responsive classroom practices. Through this study, Milner and
Tenore (2010) sought to realize the nature of teacher’s culturally responsive classroom
management practices, conceptions of their students and their thinking regarding managing
learning opportunities available in the classroom, and how were they able to understand the
complexities of their students and develop classroom management ideologies and practices that
met the needs of all their students (p. 576).
The study was conducted at Bridge Middle School (BMS), an urban school in a large city
in the southeastern region of the United States. BMS was considered a Title I school meaning
that it received additional federal funds to provide students with instructional and related
resources. The school served approximately 354 students, of which 59.8% were African
American, 5.6% were Hispanic American, 31.6% were White, 0.3% American Indian, and 2.8%
Asian American. The free and reduced lunch rate was approximately 79%. BMS was selected
for the study, as it was known in the district as one of the more reputable schools in the area.
The participants in the study were two teachers nominated by the principal: Mr. Hall and
Mr. Jackson. Mr. Hall was a White science teacher with three years of experience at BMS. Mr.
Jackson was an African American mathematics and science teacher with seven years of
experience as a certified teacher, but had previously worked as an assistant or substitute teacher
in the district for 10 years. The two teachers represented important diversity in teaching
experience, ethnic and racial backgrounds, showing that teachers from any ethnic and racial
background can and are successful teachers of African American and other racially and
ethnically diverse students (Milner & Tenore, 2010, p. 576). The teachers were interviewed two
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 28
to three times individually, and each interview lasted one to two hours. The teachers were also
observed half a day, once per week. One teacher was observed over the course of one academic
year, and the other for two.
Milner and Tenore (2010) found four recurrent themes that captured Mr. Hall’s culturally
responsive classroom management: equity in practice: never give up; building and sustaining
relationships; dealing with the (for)ever presence of race; and family affair (p. 576). Within Mr.
Hall’s classroom, Milner and Tenore (2010) realized that Mr. Hall understood the difference
between equity in equality, where equality in education meant the same for all and equity meant
what was necessary to succeed. Mr. Hall practiced equitable approaches in building solid and
sustainable relationships with each of his students. He was known for providing students with
multiple opportunities to be successful and his students recognized that he wanted and expected
them to do their best work. Mr. Hall’s curricular, instructional, and management decisions
indicated how much he valued his students. Milner and Tenore (2010) realized the ingrained
principle of equity in Mr. Hall’s culturally responsive management practices.
Through interviews, Milner and Tenore (2010) learned that Mr. Hall credited his
students’ participation, success, and engagement to his building and maintaining solid
relationships with his students. Mr. Hall went beyond the limits of the classroom in order to
build meaningful relationships with students so as to connect with who they were in the
classroom. He explained to the researchers that the students were less likely to learn or engage
in learning opportunities if their teacher did not know them genuinely as students (Milner &
Tenore, 2010).
A quality that Milner and Tenore (2010) admired in Mr. Hall was his understanding of
the importance of race in his classroom management and teaching. As he was a White teacher in
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 29
a predominantly African American school, the researchers noted that the difference in races
might have resulted in disconnections to success in the classroom. Mr. Hall recalled an instance
when he was called a racist by some of his students. He addressed the issue by sharing his
personal story with them; growing up poor in a rural area and not knowing what money looked
like until he had his own job as a teenager. Through Mr. Hall the researchers learned that
situations of struggle helped students connect with Mr. Hall and see him as a real person. In
acknowledging the race issue, Mr. Hall built relationships with his students that were critical to
culturally responsive classroom management (Milner & Tenore, 2010).
The fourth recurrent theme that Milner and Tenore (2010) found in Mr. Hall’s culturally
responsive classroom management practice is a family and community affair. Mr. Hall
recognized the multiple roles he sometimes played for his students: mother, father, brother,
uncle, etc. He asserted to the researchers that teachers had to model appropriate behavior at all
times as students saw them as role models. As family members cared for each other and did not
let each other fail, the familial approach Mr. Hall exhibited allowed him to see the potential in
his students. Further, Mr. Hall developed and sustained family and community relationships in
the school community as he also developed meaningful relationships with other teachers (Milner
& Tenore, 2010).
Milner and Tenore’s (2010) study on Mr. Jackson’s culturally responsive classroom
management focused on three recurrent themes: targeting power among students, immersion in
students’ world, and the role of teachers’ racial and ethnic background in classroom management
and teaching. Mr. Jackson recognized the power structures among the students at BMS and used
them to develop learning and engagement in his classroom. He worked to develop alliances with
the popular students and get them engaged so that others would follow. With respect to this
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 30
strategy, he stressed the importance of consistency in working with the most to the least popular
students. He was aware of students’ perceptions when handing out consequences hence he
maintained a “fair, firm, and consistent” approach to culturally responsive classroom
management (Milner & Tenore, 2010).
The aspect of Mr. Jackson’s culturally responsive classroom management approach that
Milner and Tenore (2010) most admired was his immersion in the students’ world. Mr. Jackson
exhibited a deep level of interest in, knowledge about, and connections to the life experiences of
his students (Milner & Tenore, 2010, p. 588). He worked hard to remain current in what was
happening with the middle school students. His culturally responsive classroom management
was reflected in how he connected with his students and built relationships. He stressed the
importance of understanding the students’ interests, as their learning will be hindered without it
(Milner & Tenore, 2010).
Finally, Milner and Tenore (2010) realized the importance and unimportance of same
race and ethnicity in Mr. Jackson’s culturally responsive classroom management. Through
interviews, the researchers learned that Mr. Jackson believed race did play a factor in building
relationships with the students. It was an initial advantage for Mr. Jackson as an African
American male teacher in a diverse urban classroom. He shared with the researchers that shared
ethnicity might be important to classroom management and instruction at first, but it did not
necessarily mean it was sustainable. He believed that a teacher from any ethnic background
could be successful with a diverse group as long as they were consistent and fair (Milner &
Tenore, 2010).
The primary goal of this study was to extend the notion of culturally responsive
classroom management considering the ethnic background of the teachers and students (Milner
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 31
& Tenore, 2010). The principles that emerged from the study were as follows: understanding of
equity and equality, understanding power structures among students, immersion into students’
life worlds, understanding of self in relation to others, granting students entry into their worlds,
and conceiving school as a community with family members (Milner & Tenore, 2010, p. 591).
Mr. Hall and Mr. Jackson exemplified culturally responsive classroom managers through their
awareness of students’ cognitive, social, academic, and political needs. They exhibited the
mindset to manage and engage the students, regardless of the subject matter being taught (Milner
& Tenore, 2010).
The literature has shown that effective teachers demonstrate positive ideologies that
promote student success. They take ownership of their work and their students, exhibiting
empathy and care in encouraging their students’ success. They combat deficit ideologies and
wholeheartedly believe in their students’ capabilities. They exhibit a critical awareness of their
students’ realities and empower them to correct injustices that marginalize them. Finally, they
are advocates for their students, equipping them with tools that will allow them to understand the
world and create a more just future for themselves.
The literature and studies done on teacher ideologies, particularly in working with low-
income, historically marginalized, minority students in urban areas stressed the importance of the
educators’ awareness of identities and inequalities. The theorists and researchers presented
above asserted that students must see the relevance of schooling within their realities. Within the
literature on teacher ideologies, the relevance is created through the educators’ examination of
their beliefs in student capabilities, which is then enacted in practice. As evident in the literature,
a teacher’s ideology, not her/his race or ethnicity, is the determining factor in effectively
teaching racially and ethnically diverse students. The literature is limited as it examines the
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 32
mindsets of teachers, but not the pedagogies with which they enact these mindsets. Within the
next section, culturally relevant and asset pedagogies, teacher ideologies combine with practice
to deliver instruction that students are able to apply in their realities.
Culturally Relevant and Asset Pedagogies
The literature on culturally relevant pedagogy is broad and expansive. From its
theoretical inception, there have been numerous iterations of the theory including, but not limited
to culturally relevant, culturally responsive, sustaining, humanizing, and social justice pedagogy.
These variations stem from studies conducted by various researchers (e.g., Duncan-Andrade,
2007; Camangian, 2013; Gay, 2002; Ladson-Billings, 1995, 2014; Paris, 2012, Paris & Alim,
2014), all revolving around effective teaching practices with historically marginalized student
populations. This section will discuss literature that is grounded in and stems from different
theoretical concepts from various authors who are all located around the core idea of culturally
relevant and culturally responsive pedagogy. I have chosen CRP as the focus of the literature as
it serves as the foundation from which all other iterations emerged.
Culturally Responsive Pedagogy
Geneva Gay identifies five essential elements of culturally responsive teaching:
developing a knowledge base about cultural diversity, including ethnic and cultural diversity
content in the curriculum, demonstrating caring and building learning communities,
communicating with ethnically diverse students, and responding to ethnic diversity in the
delivery of instruction (Gay, 2002, p. 106). Culturally responsive teaching, she defines, is using
the cultural characteristics, perspectives, and experiences of ethnically diverse students as
conduits for more effective teaching (Gay, 2002).
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 33
The first essential element of culturally responsive teaching is developing a culturally
diverse knowledge base in addition to content mastery and pedagogical skills. Gay argues that it
is imperative to have explicit knowledge about cultural diversity to meet the needs of ethnically
diverse students (Gay, 2002). Knowledge of the characteristics of the cultures present in the
classroom is imperative in recognizing the societal contributions of various cultures. Teachers
must have an awareness of various cultures’ emphases on gender roles, collaboration,
educational motivation, and child-to-adult interaction.
In addition to learning about the values of specific ethnic groups, it is also vital to
develop a diverse knowledge base of detailed factual information about their cultural
particularities (Gay, 2002). This knowledge is important in representing cultural diversity in the
curriculum. Gay (2002) suggests that teachers and students often have the misconception that a
specific ethnic group’s accomplishments and contributions are limited to its high-profile
individuals. In addition, she indicates that knowledge of the significant contributions that
specific ethnic groups have made in the fields of math, science, technology, theology, and
economics, to name a few, adds interest and significance to the curriculum, as it is then viewed
through a multicultural lens (Gay, 2002).
As teachers develop their knowledge about ethnic and cultural diversity, they must apply
that knowledge into designing curriculum that is culturally responsive. Within the three types of
curriculum employed in classroom–formal, symbolic, and societal–there are opportunities for
culturally responsive teachers to enact culturally responsive strategies (Gay, 2002).
Formal plans for instruction are those mandated by school districts, professional
associations, state departments, and national commissions. These include textbooks, and other
guidelines such as “standards” (Gay, 2002). Although improvements have been made in
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 34
incorporating cultural responsiveness in those curricula, there are still great strides that need to
be made. Culturally responsive teachers are able to determine the multicultural value of said
curricula and modify them to improve its quality and serve the needs of their students. Instead of
avoiding controversial issues such as social injustices, culturally responsive teachers deal directly
with the controversies. They encourage students to study them critically, provide varying
viewpoints and perspectives, and contextualize them within race, class, ethnicity, and gender
(Gay, 2002). As social injustices and marginalization stand as roadblocks for students’ success,
successful culturally responsive teachers are able to remove those, and other deterrents from
advancement.
Symbolic curriculum utilizes images, symbols, icons, mottoes, awards, celebrations, and
other artifacts to teach knowledge, skills, morals, and values (Gay, 2002, p. 108). The visuals
emphasize of significant cultural symbols. The symbols are highly influential to students,
serving as a constant reminder of what society values. Found on walls of the schools and
classrooms, symbolic curriculum is what students come to expect to see on those walls (Gay,
2002). Culturally responsive teachers are critical of symbolic curriculum. They use symbols to
help convey knowledge and appreciation of various cultures, ensuring inclusion and accurate
depictions of all ethnic groups.
Societal curriculum is comprised of the knowledge, ideas, and impressions of ethnic
groups, as portrayed in mass media (Gay, 2002). For many students, societal curriculum is their
only source of knowledge about cultural diversity and other ethnic groups. Movies, television,
and social media are more influential and memorable than typical curricular content.
Unfortunately, this type of exposure to ethnic groups from the content of the curriculum is often
inaccurate and abundant with false information. The depictions are stereotypical and frequently
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 35
prejudicial (Gay, 2002). This false exposure results in further marginalization of the depicted
ethnic groups. Culturally responsive teachers counter these assumptions through critical
examinations of how ethnic groups and experiences are depicted in mass media (Gay, 2002). In
realizing the distortions of the depictions and perceptions of various ethnic groups, students are
enabled to reverse their assumptions, becoming more discerning toward information
disseminated through societal curriculum (Gay, 2002).
Another critical component of culturally responsive teaching is the ability to create
classroom climates that encourage learning. Cultural scaffolding is the use of the students’ own
cultures and experiences to expand their intellectual horizons and academic achievement.
Exhibiting culturally sensitive caring and building culturally responsive learning communities
enable students to work diligently to attain high levels of success (Gay, 2002).
Cultural responsive caring stems from a partnership with students based on ethics,
emotions, and academics, and anchored in respect, honor, and integrity (Gay, 2000). For
culturally responsive teachers, this caring is a moral imperative, a social responsibility, and a
pedagogical necessity (Gay, 2002, p. 109). It allows teachers to establish authentic relationships
with their students, through a genuine belief in their intellectual potential. The students are able
to realize this potential without demeaning their ethnic and cultural identities. They work
towards academic success through the validation of their culture (Gay, 2002).
Another essential element of culturally responsive teaching is the ability to build and
nurture a community of diverse learners–a “mutual aid society” where all members are held
accountable for accomplishing collective tasks (Gay, 2002). Whereas traditional school settings
focus more on independent work, culturally responsive classrooms foster communal learning.
Culturally responsive teachers simultaneously teach personal, moral, social, political, cultural
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 36
and academic knowledge and skills. Students understand that knowledge also involves political
and moral elements that when realized, obligate them to advocate for social justice (Gay, 2002).
Vital to developing a sense of community in the classroom is understanding and
employing effective cross-cultural communication. Effective communication with students
allows teachers to determine their students’ funds of knowledge and capabilities. This is
imperative in order to effectively teach students of diverse cultures. Cross-cultural
communication involves an understanding of the students’ language–the linguistic structures of
diverse communication styles, including discourse features, nuances, logic, intonation, gestures,
and speaker/listener relationships. Various cultures employ a range of protocols of participation
in discourse that are contrary to those required from students in traditional classrooms. Denials
of natural ways of thinking, talking, and intellectual engagement diminish students’ motivation
toward academic efforts (Gay, 2002).
Patterns of task engagement and organization of ideas is another important aspect of
culturally responsive teaching. Where typical classrooms require students to present information
in a linear, precise and deductive way, many cultures naturally convey ideas in a highly
contextualized way. Instead of being direct and linear, ethnic communication styles involve
passion, emotion, and personal investment. An understanding of these various ways of
communicating is important so as not to violate cultural values of ethnically diverse students
(Gay, 2002).
The final aspect of culturally responsive teaching is the delivery of instruction in a way
that is culturally congruent. Teaching ethnically diverse students has to be multiculturalized,
matching techniques to the learning styles of the students (Gay, 2002). As some cultures are
highly collaborative, so should the approach to teaching the students from those cultures.
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 37
Examinations of cultural characteristics provide criteria for how teachers should approach
instructional strategies for ethnically diverse students.
Gay (2002) outlines the eight key components of the internal structures of ethnic learning
styles. These are: preferred content; ways of working through learning tasks; techniques for
organizing and conveying ideas and thoughts; physical and social settings for task performance;
structural arrangements of work, study, and performance space; perceptual stimulation for
receiving, processing, and demonstrating comprehension and competence; motivations,
incentives, and rewards for learning; and interpersonal interactional styles. Recognizing and
addressing these structures establishes cultural congruity necessary in multicultural classrooms.
Gay (2002) points to research that proves the addition of realistic, relevant scaffolding–scenarios,
examples, and vignettes–have positive effects on the academic achievement of ethnically diverse
students.
The notion of multicultural education as it has been enacted in the United States has
separated students from diverse ethnic backgrounds from the cultural norms natural to them and
instead adapt to European American cultural norms (Gay, 2002). Multicultural education seeks
to incorporate culture into curriculum, yet maintain expectations consistent with middle-class
norms (Gay, 2002). As culture is a strong influence on the attitudes, behaviors, and values of
ethnically diverse students, teachers must be knowledgeable in incorporating culture into their
instruction. Culturally responsive teaching provides ethnically diverse students access to
education in a way that values their backgrounds, creating relevance, and promoting academic
success.

TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 38
The Theory of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy
Gloria Ladson-Billings introduces the concept of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy (CRP)
saying:
A theoretical model that not only addresses student achievement but also helps students
to accept and affirm their cultural identity while developing critical perspectives that
challenge inequities that schools (and other institutions) perpetuate. (p. 469)
The underlying structures of a successful culturally relevant teachers falls under three
domains: cultural competence, sociopolitical consciousness, and student achievement. Cultural
competence is how students are taught to appreciate and celebrate their cultures while gaining
knowledge and fluency of others. Sociopolitical consciousness allows for solving real world
problems using school knowledge and skills to identify and analyze them. Academic success
stems from the melding of both cultural competence and sociopolitical consciousness. Academic
success is the intellectual growth that students experience as a result of critically examining
society and culture (Ladson-Billings, 1995, 2014).
Culturally relevant teachers must first have a sense of cultural competence. Students
enter the classroom with the burden of sociocultural expectations. Personally, they must
conform to their peers’ expectations, which are not always aligned with academic success.
Those who are successful are ostracized, becoming social isolates (Ladson-Billings, 1995). The
dilemma falls in how students must navigate between personal and academic discourses that
often conflict. “Youth culture,” or culture for that matter, is not static; it is fluid, continually
evolving as different ethnic cultures continue to interact, creating various discourses (Ladson-
Billings, 2014). A teacher’s cultural competence lies in the way that she enables the students to
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 39
navigate between discourses, where the students are able to use their extra-curricular strengths
and apply them to academics.
Culturally relevant teachers must also demonstrate sociopolitical consciousness. In
working with marginalized students, teachers must have ability to take learning beyond the
confines of the classroom. Examining social inequities in order to recognize, understand, and
critique them enables students to contextualize their learning within their own realities, even
recognizing the injustices present in their own community (Ladson-Billings, 1995, 2014).
Sociopolitical consciousness encourages activism, requiring participation not just from the
students, but from the teacher as well.
As culturally relevant teachers build the students’ awareness of the world around them,
the students become more inclined to be successful academically. Developing an understanding
of their community, society, and the world provides them with more contexts for interpretation.
The knowledge that the students generate not only allows for higher standardized test scores, but
also for a more sophisticated levels of reading, writing, speaking, computing, and problem
solving. The teacher’s firm belief in her students’ capabilities serves as the foundation for their
academic success (Ladson-Billings, 1995, 2014).
A teacher’s beliefs and ideologies comprise the core of culturally relevant pedagogy.
Ladson-Billings (1995) posits three broad propositions regarding aspects of philosophies that
effective teachers of historically marginalized students have. These include: conceptions of
selves, relations with others, and conceptions of knowledge.
Successful teachers of historically marginalized students have positive conceptions of
themselves and their students. Despite the stigmas of deficit pedagogies attached to working
with low-income, historically marginalized communities, these teachers refuse to allow their
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 40
students to fail. The students are, “cajoled, nagged, pestered, and bribed to work at a high
intellectual level” (Ladson-Billings, 1995, p. 479). The teachers see their work as a way to give
back to the community, immersing themselves in it and using it as a basis for their curriculum.
These teachers are risk-takers, viewing their pedagogy as an art that is constantly revolving, with
a basis in the students’ communities.
Classroom practices of culturally relevant teachers demonstrate cooperative and
collaborative learning environments that encourage positive social relations. These teachers
develop relationships with and between students, fostering a sense of community rather than
competition. In developing the deep relationships and connections with the students, there exists
a comfort level that allows students to grow. The students take responsibility for their own
learning, and empower their peers to do the same (Ladson-Billings, 1995, 2014).
Finally, culturally relevant teachers have conceptions of knowledge that are constantly
evolving. These teachers understand that they must view knowledge critically, often modifying
their instruction to best serve their students. They also encourage their students to adopt their
own critical stance of their own learning. They understand that knowledge is not static, and that
they need to further their own learning, just as their students must (Ladson-Billings, 1995).
Through cultural competence and sociopolitical consciousness, students gain intellectual
growth from classroom instruction and learning experiences designed by the teacher employing
culturally relevant pedagogy (Ladson-Billings, 1995, 2014). The secret to the success of CRP is
linking learning with a deep understanding, and appreciation of culture (Ladson-Billings, 2014).
Students ground culture within their own realities. Without an understanding and appreciation of
their culture, teachers will not be able to assist their students in seeing the relevancy in
academics.
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 41
Culturally Relevant Pedagogy in the Classroom
Much of the theoretical work on culturally relevant pedagogy emerged from empirical
work conducted by the theorists (e.g., Ladson-Billings, 1995). In this section I offer empirical
work that either lead to the theories described above or followed the theoretical work described
above, seeking to discover what the theories looked like in real classrooms (e.g., Duncan-
Andrade, 2007 and Camangian, 2013).
Ladson-Billings (1995) examined the pedagogies of teachers who were effective in
teaching African American students who had been underserved in public schools. She conducted
a qualitative study, working with a group of eight reputable teachers of low-income, African
American elementary school students in Northern California. She addressed her bias in choosing
her sample as she had a vested interest in the African American community, but explained that in
doing so, she sought for a theoretical grounding that acknowledged her position, but also
problematized it (Ladson-Billings, 1995). The teachers were selected through the process of
community nomination, where mothers of African American students collaborated and developed
their own criteria for excellent teachers who they then suggested for the study. These criteria
included teachers treating students with respect, students’ attitudes toward their schoolwork, and
the students’ attitudes toward themselves and others. These suggestions were also cross-checked
with principals and other teachers in the same district who had their own criteria for excellence:
classroom management, student achievement, and personal observations of teaching practice.
From both lists, nine teachers emerged, though one declined to participate. All of the
participating teachers were female, five were African American, and three were White (Ladson-
Billings, 1995).
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 42
Ladson-Billings’ study examined the participating teachers’ pedagogies, and in turn, their
students’ achievements. It consisted of four phases: one-on-one ethnographic interviews,
personal observations, videotaping, and a group effort among the teachers to observe and discuss
the practices as evidenced by their videotaped lesson. The first phase, an ethnographic
interview, involved a discussion of the teachers’ backgrounds, philosophies of teaching,
classroom management approaches, ideas about curriculum, and parent/community involvement.
The second phase required the teachers to give Ladson-Billings permission to visit their
classrooms at random. She did so over the course of two years, about three times a week. On
these visits she took field notes, audiotaped lessons, and debriefed with the teachers afterward.
The third phase overlapped with the second, where she sometimes videotaped her classroom
visits.
Finally, the fourth phase required the participating teachers’ collaboration. In two-three
hour sessions, the teachers provided analysis and interpretation of each other’s videotaped
lessons. Within this phase of study, formulations about CRP that emerged in the primary
interviews were confirmed through teaching practices. She determined that culturally relevant
teaching required an ability to develop students academically, a willingness to support and
nurture competence, and the development of a sociopolitical or critical consciousness (Ladson-
Billings, 1995, p. 483).
Through her study of culturally relevant pedagogy, Ladson-Billings found that effective
teachers had strong beliefs of their students’ academic capabilities, despite the socioeconomic
circumstances of the school and community. The teachers fostered an atmosphere of mutual
respect and collaboration in their classrooms where students empowered each other. The
curriculum connected to the students’ realities–the value of their culture and the systems of
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 43
oppression that undermine social justice. Teachers who adopted culturally relevant pedagogy
collectively grounded their practice in the belief that all students can be educated (Ladson-
Billings, 1995).
Building off of culturally relevant pedagogy, Duncan-Andrade (2007) set out to
determine the pedagogical strategies of effective teachers in urban districts. He also sought to
document the social and academic impact the teachers had on students. He wanted to know what
teachers who succeeded were doing in their classrooms. He examined teachers under his
paradigm of Gangstas, Wankstas, and Ridas; labels based on hip-hop terminology. Gangstas
were the teachers who harbored deep resentment for their students, most parents, and their jobs.
He argued that they were ineffective teachers and unfortunately present in almost all schools
where students were suffering. He asserted that Wankstas were the majority of teachers–those
who always spoke of their intent, but never followed through. These teachers meant well, but
did not have the proper support to carry out their well intentions, hence their loss of faith in their
work and their drive. Ridas, on the other hand, were those who could be relied on even during
times of great distress. The term originated from the expression “ride or die,” meaning they
would rather die than fail others. He suggested that though they were present in schools where
students were suffering, they were not the norm. Duncan-Andrade asserted that these teachers
were consistently successful and deeply dedicated to their work. They challenged students and
received notable effort and achievement from their students (2007, p. 623).
Duncan-Andrade conducted a three-year qualitative study in which he observed the
practice of, and formally interviewed four exceptional urban educators, the “Ridas” (Duncan-
Andrade, 2007). The Ridas were elementary and secondary teachers from South Central Los
Angeles. They earned their distinction through their participation in critical inquiry groups
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 44
where they emerged as excellent teachers. They were chosen for the study through
recommendations of administrators and other colleagues. The Ridas also employed social justice
pedagogy in that they were aware of structural inequalities and oppression and were agents for
social change (Duncan-Andrade, 2007). The Ridas were Steven Lapu, Lisa Cross, Erika Truth,
and Andre Veracruz. Steven Lapu was a Filipino man whose youth experiences mirrored the
social and economic challenges that his students faced. His past gang affiliation resulted in his
expulsion from high school. He obtained his education through a program for ex-gang members.
Lisa Cross was a White woman from an upper middle-class family. She entered teaching with
the intent to disrupt racial and social inequality in education. Erika Truth was an African
American, single-mother who grew up in a crime-ridden neighborhood. She entered the
classroom with a commitment to social change in African American and Latino communities.
Finally, Andre Veracruz was a son of Filipino immigrants. He grew up in a diverse community
in Southern California with recent Mexican immigrants, Filipinos, and Chicanos. His passion for
graffiti art caused him to be marginalized as a teenager, but has since become a point of common
interest with his students. Through an examination of the Ridas’ teaching practice, Duncan-
Andrade posited five pillars of effective teaching: duty, preparation, Socratic sensibility, and
trust.
The first pillar of effective teaching practice Duncan-Andrade (2007) posited is a
critically conscious purpose. Duncan-Andrade (2007) defines cultural consciousness as the
educators’ belief that they are teaching young people who are destined to change the world. He
found that the Ridas believed that the disenfranchised students had the most to lose and thereby
were more willing to take the risks necessary to seek social justice. The Ridas indicated that the
students who had the courage to change the world were the ones who struggled through school
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 45
and were willing to test boundaries. The educators believed that those characteristics of people
who would become change agents. Through interviews, Duncan-Andrade (2007) also found that
Ridas fostered the risk taking mindset through rigorous lessons relevant to the conditions of the
students’ lives. They encouraged students to think critically and seek justice for the inequalities
they encountered (Duncan-Andrade, 2007).
The second pillar of effective teaching Duncan-Andrade posited (2007) was the sense of
duty to students and community. Duncan-Andrade (2007) found that Ridas demonstrated a
commitment to the community, as they saw themselves a part of it. They expressed a genuine
concern for their students and saw them as people. They sought to build relationships with
families and other members of the community. They were willing to work with challenging
students. Finally, they indicated that they accepted teaching as their way of life and not just a job
(Duncan-Andrade, 2007).
The third pillar of effective teaching was preparation. Duncan-Andrade (2007) found
that Ridas’ lessons demonstrated their excitement, passion, and belief in the curriculum. The
students, in turn, adopted the enthusiasm apparent in the lesson. Through interviews, Duncan-
Andrade (2007) found that Ridas were particularly critical of their curriculum and constantly
revised it for improvement. They also claimed to seek professional development opportunities
and solicited assistance from colleague to continually improve their practice. Duncan-Andrade
attributed their commitment to their preparation to their sense of duty (2007).
Duncan-Andrade (2007) characterized is fourth pillar as Socratic sensibility. Socratic
sensibility is the understanding that the examined life is painful, but the unexamined life is not
worth living (Duncan-Andrade, 2009). Through formal interviews, Duncan-Andrade (2007)
concluded that Ridas embodied Socratic sensibilities by striking a delicate balance between
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 46
confidences in their ability as teachers and frequent self-critique. They proclaim that they sought
for and welcomed critical feedback in order to improve their practice. They also sought
continual understanding in how best to serve their urban students and how to help them to
confront the harsh realities of their communities. Ridas embraced the need to grow as
compassionate educators (Duncan-Andrade, 2007).
According to Duncan-Andrade (2007), the fifth pillar of effective teaching that emerged
from his analysis was trust. Duncan-Andrade (2007) found that Ridas sought to develop trusting
relationships with their students through their personal investments in their students’ lives. They
earned their students’ trust through their transparency with their teaching practices–grading,
classroom management, pedagogy, and expectations. Ridas refused to allow their students to
fail. They hold the students to high expectations and provided the necessary supports to help
them succeed. Reciprocal trust is developed through a classroom culture where care and
investment is evident (Duncan-Andrade, 2007).
As Duncan-Andrade (2007) stated, “Great teaching will always be about relationships
and programs do not build relationships, people do” (p. 636). Through formal interviews, the
Ridas demonstrated ideologies with genuine belief in their students’ abilities to change the
world. They felt responsible for helping enact that change by empowering their students any
way they are able. They continually criticize their work and strive to be better educators in order
to best serve their students in urban schools. Their beliefs in social justice and equity are what
drove them to be effective educators (Duncan-Andrade, 2007).
Milner (2010) conducted a case study to examine how a White teacher, Mr. Hall,
developed cultural competence in working with diverse urban students, using the culturally
relevant pedagogy framework. Developing cultural capital meant helping students recognize and
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 47
honor they own cultural beliefs and practices while acquiring access to the wider culture, why
they were likely to have a chance of improving their socioeconomic status and making informed
decisions about the lives they wished to lead (Milner, 2010, p. 72). Through this study, Milner
(2010) asked how Mr. Hall was able to build cultural competence in ways that allowed him to
more effectively teach his students and in what way does he develop relationships with his
students inside and outside the classroom to build cultural competence (p. 67).
As described earlier in this chapter, Milner (2010) conducted the study at Bridge Middle
School (BMS), an urban school in a large city in the southeastern region of the United States.
BMS is considered a Title I school meaning that it receives additional federal funds to provide
students with instructional and related resources. The school served approximately 354 students,
of which 59.8% were African American, 5.6% were Hispanic American, 31.6% were White,
0.3% American Indian, and 2.8% Asian American. The free and reduced lunch rate was
approximately 79%. BMS was selected for the study, as it was known in the district as one of
the more reputable schools in the area.
Milner (2010) studied the culturally relevant practice of Mr. Hall. Mr. Hall was a White
male science teacher with three years teaching experience at BMS at the time of the study.
Within a few years of teaching, Mr. Hall was nominated and selected by his colleagues as
Teacher of the Year at BMS, a testament to the quality of his teaching. For the study, Milner
(2010) conducted observations of Mr. Hall in the cultural contexts of his work; classroom,
library, cafeteria, and other school-related activities such as the Honor Roll assembly. Milner
(2010) also conducted semi-structured, tape-recorded interviews for one to two hours. There
were also many informal interviews.
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 48
Through the study of Mr. Hall, Milner (2010) realized three recurrent themes that
encapsulated Mr. Hall’s mindset. Mr. Hall was able to sustain meaningful and authentic
relationships with his students, he recognized the multiple layers of identity among his students,
and her perceived teaching as a communal affair. Milner (2010) argued that the practices he
observed were shaped by the reality that Mr. Hall’s mindset, his thinking, and his belief systems
shaped his ability to build cultural competence (p. 76).
An important feature of Mr. Hall’s building of cultural competence was his
understanding of the importance of building and maintaining relationships with his students. The
needs of each student were of utmost importance to Mr. Hall’s approach to relationship building.
He was known for giving students multiple opportunities success. He went beyond the limits of
the classroom in order to build meaningful relationships with students so as to connect with who
they are in the classroom. Mr. Hall explained to the researchers that the students were less likely
to learn or engage in learning opportunities if their teacher did not know them as genuinely as
students (Milner, 2010).
The importance of recognizing identity and confronting race was reflected in Milner’s
(2010) study of Mr. Hall’s building of cultural competence. As Mr. Hall previously expressed to
Milner (2010), students were less likely to engage in learning if they felt their teacher did not
know them. Mr. Hall believed in facilitating ways in which the students gained an understanding
of him. He utilized personal narratives to build cultural competence regarding his students and
also for students to learn about him. He shared facets of his personal identity with his students
so that perhaps they might reciprocate and share with him. Mr. Hall felt that his identity
exposure was critical in developing and sustaining positive relationships with the students. He
also felt that it was necessary to recognize the multilayered nature of student’ identities as they
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 49
negotiate the complexities of adolescence. In addressing identities, Mr. Hall and his students
confronted race-related issues collectively in order to create an environment that was authentic,
responsive, and relevant to the students. Through his building of cultural competence, Mr. Hall
came to understand that not acknowledging the prevalence and pervasiveness of race could result
in incongruence, disconnections, and barriers to success in the classroom (Milner, 2010, p. 83).
Milner (2010) recognized the communal commitment Mr. Hall exhibited in his building
cultural competence. Mr. Hall emphasized the need for teachers to assume various roles for
students in the learning environment, particularly that of a role model. He believed in the
communal roles that successful teachers play and embraced the idea that his students were like
family. Milner (2010) noted that Mr. Hall developed this mindset in order to connect with his
students and ultimately for curricular congruence, pedagogical congruence, and cultural
congruence (p. 85).
Camangian (2013) drew upon culturally relevant pedagogy in his examination of what he
calls humanizing pedagogy. Like its predecessor, humanizing pedagogy was based on students’
lived experiences and cultural ways of knowing in a process that it socially transformative (p.
427). Camangian offered that humanizing pedagogy was the way teachers enabled their
dispossessed students to confront oppression, affirm humanity, and use literacy as a tool to
transform their realities and undermine oppression (Camangian, 2013). He used the term
“dispossessed” to describe communities that have been stripped socially and economically
though exploitative practices of dominant society. Humanizing pedagogy built upon the critical
consciousness Ladson-Billings (1995) asserted and required that teachers helped students
understand that their learning was not only useful in the academic sense, but also within a larger
social purpose (Camangian, 2013).
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 50
Camangian (2013) conducted a teacher inquiry and critical participatory action research
to see the enactment and subsequent effects of humanizing pedagogy in one of his classes. The
study took place at Slauson High School (SHS), a school in Southern Los Angeles (SLA). SHS
is housed in an area with known racial tensions between the Black and Brown communities. The
dehumanization of SHS students was a result of said tensions. SHS was an underperforming
school by state standards, ranking in the lowest percentile of the Academic Performance Index.
Students at SHS were disengaged from schooling due partly to the teachers’ low expectations.
Camangian (2007) chose a focal class of high school seniors for his study. The class had
14 boys and 17 girls. Twenty-seven of the students in the class were African American and the
other four were Brown. His study required daily data collection over a 10-month period. Data
was in the form of field notes, student work and other artifacts, classroom videos, and student
interviews (p. 430). For this particular piece of literature, he chose three focal students based on
their demonstration of ideological transformative growth, their ability to transition between lived
experience, social theory, academics, and everyday life. The focal students also fit “at-risk”
profiles, based on their low, sub 1.5 cumulative grade point average (Camangian, 2013, p. 430).
Camangian’s (2013) findings suggested ways in which the elements of humanizing
pedagogy could engage students effectively in humanizing education; (a) agitate politically, (b)
arouse critical curiosity, and (c) inspire self and socially transformative behavior creates
environments of learning. The use of these three strategies signified a humanizing pedagogical
process that provided meaningful learning experiences. Students were provided the tools they
needed in order to recognize and disrupt dehumanization and engage on their own humanization
journey (p. 431).
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 51
Agitation was a way to engage students through humanizing pedagogy. Agitation was
achieved when students engaged in content that connected to or reflected social issues in their
everyday lives. Agitation involved mixed emotions and cognitive dissonance. It also captured
the passion, frustration, and anger that dispossessed youth exhibited within their dispossessed
communities.
Camangian (2013) demonstrated agitation when he asked his students to critically reflect
on their identities. What resulted from that was a discourse in which students held each other
accountable to the needs of their community. They challenged each other to understand the
consequences of their behavior, examined notions of power along racial lines, and called for
fundamental social change (p. 433). The dialogue that the students shared was prompted by their
opportunity to reflect on issues of immediate relevance to them. This could not be accomplished
without a classroom culture that nurtured the ability for both the teacher and students to confront
the realities of their struggles (Camangian, 2013).
The next step in the humanizing pedagogy process that he identified in his classroom was
to arouse. Arouse involved providing guidance to students as they learned more about their state
of being agitated. Arousing students’ critical intellectualism required the teacher to connect
learning to the students’ experiential knowledge and encouraging them to conduct studies to the
benefit of their communities (Camangian, 2013). Academic content that reflected their
dispossession allowed them to better realize philosophies that validate their oppression.
Camangian (2013) aroused his students through thought provoking texts that construct
philosophies for social change. The focal students read, analyzed, and created presentations on
texts that challenged their views on slavery, White supremacy, and standards of beauty. Through
critical analysis, the students were aroused to speak out about the injustices that contribute to
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 52
their dispossession. One student addressed the promotion of monoraciality within the African
American community in achieving standards of beauty. Another student realized the
implications of White supremacy on the fractured identities of African American people in US
history. In interviews, the students admitted to their appreciation of writing for a reason, and not
for a grade. The more relevant the curriculum was made to respond to the students and
communities’ humanizing needs, the more students were interested in practicing traditional
academic literacies (Camangian, 2013, p. 442).
The final step in the humanizing pedagogy process was to inspire. Inspiring required the
ability to problematize reality, liberate voice, and possess the ability to foster hope in otherwise
hopeless conditions (Camangian, 2013). Inspiring required that teachers and students had the
ability to realize and identify the ways that dominant thought pervaded their reality. Students
and teachers also had to be able to make social commentaries that made apparent the
perspectives that oppressed people could connect to. Camangian argued that the ability to
inspire, on the part of both teacher and student, was a skill in humanizing education. It disrupted
dehumanization as it exists in reality.
Camangian (2013) inspired his focal students to take pride in their culminating
presentations. In order to accomplish that, he reiterated the students’ humanizing learning goals
to make apparent the relationship between oppression and education, and encouraged them to
make connections between their humanizing approaches to academic learning. As a result, the
students appealed to their audience’s pride as a dispossessed community. They inspired their
community to act against the oppression they experience and become aware of the factors that
continue to dispossess them. Through inspiration, Camangian observed that by putting students
in positions that engage in critical dialogue, study in the interests of their communities, and be
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 53
assessed on the compassion and leadership necessary to reframe ideologies used to marginalize
their communities, the students who experienced dehumanization could be enabled to do the
work of humanization. Inspiration was a political gesture to express the shared understanding of
the burdens of the listener’s plight (Camangian, 2013).
For the historically dispossessed, Camangian argues that humanizing pedagogy is a
culturally relevant and critical education (2013). It aims to teach students to appreciate
themselves, people, and see humanizing education as a way to attain social justice. It
emphasizes the critical literacy skills need to be able to push the political boundaries of
schooling to account for humanizing learning.
Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy
In her most recent iteration, Ladson-Billings (2014) expands her theory of culturally
relevant pedagogy, into culturally sustaining pedagogy. She recalled her study of the eight
successful teachers of AA students and the pedagogical practices that made them effective. In
exploring the underlying structure of those teachers’ work, Ladson-Billings reiterated the three
major domains that she found led to their effectiveness: academic success, cultural competence,
and sociopolitical consciousness (Ladson-Billings, 2014).
According to Ladson-Billings (2014), culture is changing in ways that require a more
dynamic view than what was initially stated in her previous study (1995). She suggests that
culture has been thought of as a term to describe ethnic or religious groups, and youth culture as
something indefinite as it lacks recognizable characteristics. Culture constantly evolves, while
students continue to learn about static histories, customs, and ways of being (Ladson-Billings,
2014). She used the experience of the Hmong to explain this concept. She offered that there is a
Hmong community that is originally from Laos and that has lived in the upper Midwest of the
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 54
United States three generations. The first generation was born and raised in Laos, the second
was born in Laos but raised in transition before settling in the United States, and the third was
born and raised in the United States. The third generation identify as Americans, while
understanding their Hmong roots. Their experience of Hmong culture varies from that of their
elders. The teachers of these students must recognize the various layers of their cultural
experience (Ladson-Billings, 2014).
Dissatisfaction with the static nature of CRP propelled Ladson-Billings to examine her
pedagogical stance. She recognizes the necessity to revisit, or “remix,” her theory. She
acknowledges the need to address the changing and evolving needs of dynamic systems–in this
case, it would be pedagogy (Ladson-Billings, 2014). The remix involved recognizing the
evolution of CRP into a fresher version that would meet the needs of 21
st
century learners, one
that required teachers to examine the sociocultural implications of static and limited notions of
culture. The remixed version of CRP is culturally sustaining pedagogy, offered by Paris (2012).
Culturally sustaining pedagogy (CSP) was constructed using CRP as its foundation. CSP
exemplifies the practice of encouraging students to assume a critical stance on the political and
social factors that impact their lives and communities. It builds on CRP, layering ways that it
shifts, changes, adapts, recycles, and recreates instructional spaces to ensure that consistently
marginalized students are in a place or normativity (Ladson-Billings, 2014, p. 76).
Ladson-Billings attributes the evolution of cultural relevance into one of culturally
sustaining with Paris and Alim’s work (2014). CSP expands on CRP to incorporate the
multiplicities of identities and cultures that help formulate youth culture (Ladson-Billings, 2014,
p. 82). Where Ladson-Billings’ work focused on African American students, CSP considers the
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 55
global identities of all students. CSP also brings into consideration the cultural hybridity and
fluidity emerging in schools and classrooms (Ladson-Billings, 2014).
Django Paris offers CSP as an alternative to CRP. CSP seeks to perpetuate and foster–to
sustain–the linguistic, literate, and cultural pluralism as part of the democratic process of
schooling (Paris, 2012, p. 93). Paris questioned if the terms “relevant” and “responsive” are
sufficient in describing the goals of educators in teaching and learning in a pluralistic society.
He challenges the terms “relevant” and “responsive” as they do not address the increasingly
multiethnic and multilingual society. Relevance and responsiveness do not guarantee that the
goals of an educational program seek to sustain and support multilingualism and
multiculturalism. They do not explicitly enough support the linguistic and cultural dexterity and
plurality necessary for success and access in our demographically changing U.S. and global
schools and communities (Paris, 2012, p. 95).
Paris (2012) offers the term culturally sustaining pedagogy (CSP) as one that embodies
the research and practice in resource pedagogies and values the multiethnic and multilingual
present and future. Resource pedagogies resist deficit thinking through repositioning linguistic,
cultural, and literate practices of poor communities as a resource to honor, explore, and extend in
accessing Dominant American English (DAE) language and literacy skills, and other White
middle-class cultural norms (Paris, 2012, p. 94). CSP requires that pedagogies are more than just
responsive of or relevant to the cultural experiences of youth, but that they sustain and support
multilingualism and multiculturalism in practice and perspective. CSP seeks to promote cultural
pluralism where the within-group cultural practices and common group practices exist and thrive
together (Paris, 2012). The ever-changing nature of cultural practices is at the heart of culturally
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 56
sustaining pedagogy. Paris emphasizes the need to view both the traditional and new versions of
ethnic and linguistic differences, particularly in the interaction of youth.
Paris (2012) maintains that the purpose of schooling in a pluralistic society is to combat
the loss of culture and linguistics that have had devastating effect on the access and achievement
of communities of color. Through CSP, he seeks to sustain cultural pluralism that honors and
extends the languages, literacies, and practices of students and communities in the context of
social justice. Paris (2012) offers that culturally sustaining pedagogy seeks to end the long
struggle against the dehumanizing deficit approaches to education.
The purpose of Paris and Alim’s (2014) work is the envisioning and enacting of resource
pedagogies that are centered on the rich linguistic, literate, and cultural practices of youth and
communities of color. They question what pedagogies may look like without being centered on
DAE, what it would mean to be liberated from its educational expectations, and what would
education look like if youth of color were not taught how to compete with their White middle-
class peers, but were taught to explore, honor, extend, and problematize their heritage and
community (Paris & Alim, 2014). Their work is focused on reframing issues of access and
equity for students of color. The authors argue that students of color can best navigate the
dominant norms of DAE in schools through pedagogies that center on practices and heritage of
their communities (Paris & Alim, 2014).
Paris and Alim (2014) expand on the social justice aspect of CSP to include its approach
to addressing monolingual/monocultural educational policies across the nation. The current
context of power is based in part on one’s ability to communicate effectively. The “standard”
English monolingual/monocultural population in the United States continues to shrink, and those
without multiple ways of speaking are placing themselves at a disadvantage. As youth of color
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 57
master DAE and their multiple ways of speaking and being, they then place themselves at an
advantage (Paris & Alim, 2014). CSP is a necessary resource pedagogy that seeks to sustain
cultural pluralism in order to support access to power, especially within a constantly changing,
culturally fluid nation.
Another critique Paris and Alim (2014) make of CRP is the sustainability of heritage and
community. In order to commit to educational justice and asset pedagogies, its is crucial that the
ways that young people are enacting race, ethnicity, language, literacy, and cultural practices are
understood in both the traditional and evolving ways (Paris & Alim, 2014). As a way to
overcome the overly simplistic approaches to sustaining heritage, Paris and Alim (2014) offer the
terms heritage practices and community practices. The terms are based on the understanding of
culture as dynamic, shifting, and incorporating both past and present oriented dimensions of
community. The dimensions of culture assume differing salience depending on how the youth
enact race, ethnicity, language, and culture. CSP asserts that teachers need to recognize the
intersections of heritage and community practices. Community practices are the ways in which
youth navigate identities by participating in other cultural practices. While heritage practices are
those particular to their culture. Understanding the intersection between two practices helps
teachers to refrain from imposing static visions of culture upon their students. CSP seeks to
recognize that the interactions between youth of varying cultures are what constitute the complex
and fluid relationships among race, culture, and language. As youths’ fluid identities continue to
emerge, teachers who employ CSP work to sustain them in both the traditional and evolving
ways (Paris & Alim, 2014).
In their final critique, Paris and Alim (2014) maintain that CSP is not only about social
justice, but it has the capacity to raise critical consciousness in working with students to
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 58
negotiate and confront inequitable and prejudicial practices. Paris and Alim examine their own
communities and cultural practices to create spaces in which asset pedagogies can be enacted in
support of the practices of youth and communities of color, while maintaining a critical lens
regarding these practices (Paris & Alim, 2014). Their research and practice of Hip Hop
pedagogy, for instance, must be examined in terms of the problematic elements that have been
overlooked. Paris and Alim (2014) argue that although Hip Hop is grounded in social justice, the
use of Hip Hop pedagogies has the potential to focus on the negative aspects that reify the same
hegemonic expressions of race, gender, and sexuality. Through reflexive analysis, it is possible
to view it under a different lens, one that is not bound to the oppressive nature of hegemonic
discourse or White privilege. Teachers who employ CSP must then interrogate and be critical of
the advantages and disadvantages of the innovative youth practices, such as those found in Hip
Hop pedagogies (Paris & Alim, 2014).
The use of Hip Hop pedagogies within CSP framework requires a revision in order for its
alignment with the social justice aspect of asset pedagogies. CSP is able to support the notion of
Hip Hop pedagogies as it centers explicitly on the practices of youth of color. It works to sustain
the dynamic nature of race, ethnicity, language, and cultural practice (Paris & Alim, 2014).
Through CSP, engaging young people through their culture and their values allows for relevant
learning experiences while also sustaining culture through learning about the impact of their
words and actions. CSP utilizes notions of funds of knowledge, such as Hip Hop, to create
relevant connections between the academic and social cultures in which students reside.
Although CSP utilizes notions of funds of knowledge, it remains a separate idea and does not
recognize funds of knowledge as an aspect of the theory.
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 59
Though the previous bodies of literature explained theories, evolutions, and practice of
culturally relevant pedagogy, I determined that there was still a need for me to explore additional
literature. Since Ladson-Billings (1995) introduced the theory of culturally relevant pedagogy,
there has been a convolution of the term based on other theorists’ assumptions and/or
understanding of the concept, which sometimes led to the incorrect implementation of CRP and
asset pedagogies. Further literature may better align the similar concepts of asset pedagogies,
and deliver a more definite and concrete definition.
The notion of funds of knowledge is further explored in the next section. Similar to asset
pedagogies, Funds of Knowledge also seeks to use students’ cultural capital to create connection
and relevance between their school and home environments. Asset pedagogies were developed
as educational theories, whereas Funds of Knowledge is derived from an anthropologically based
theory. Where asset pedagogies examine teacher practices, Funds of Knowledge examines
students and their households to cultivate cultural capital.
Funds of Knowledge
Funds of Knowledge (FoK) is an anthropologically based theory that seeks to undermine
deficit mindsets and pedagogies that further marginalizes students from poor, working class
families. The literature on funds of knowledge centers on the work of ethnographic researchers
who define and conceptualize the notion of funds of knowledge. This review discusses literature
grounded in funds of knowledge as a theoretical construct and a pedagogical approach. This
body of literature contributed to my research as it provided another means through which
teachers are able to access important, culturally relevant funds that facilitate student learning.
The marginalization of students stems from the deficit views of non-dominant cultures. FoK
seeks to validate their culture and use it as a means for empowerment.
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 60
Theories of Funds of Knowledge
Funds of Knowledge seek to bridge the gap between the academic and home cultures of
students. It seeks to validate the cultural, non-academic knowledge of historically marginalized
students and incorporate it into academic contexts. Since its inception, the anthropologists who
put forth the theory remain the seminal voices in studies.
Moll et al. (1992) developed the concept of Funds of Knowledge (FoK) as one that
challenges the widely perceived notion that working class families are disorganized socially and
deficient cognitively. Historically, students of poor communities are marginalized because of
this pervasive view of their academic capabilities. The assumptions of their deficiencies
stemmed from their inability to develop proficiencies in the pedagogy of the White, middle-class
majority. Moll et al., (1992) sought to develop an innovative approach to teaching that drew
upon the knowledge and skills of the students’ households. FoK emerged as a way for teachers
to cultivate that knowledge from students’ households.
The term “funds of knowledge” refers to the historically accumulated and culturally
developed bodies of knowledge and skills essential to the functioning and well-being of
households (Moll et al., 1992). FoK encompasses the sociopolitical and economic contexts, as
well as the labor history of the families. Within the funds of knowledge of the families lay the
essential strategies that they have historically developed and accumulated in order for their
household to survive and thrive. Teachers who use FoK have a better sense of their students’
realities and families. In capitalizing on the historically accumulated and culturally developed
bodies of knowledge and skills, they are able to create bridges between school and home.
Utilizing FoK not only validates the student’s culture, but also capitalizes on cultural knowledge
to build academic context.
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 61
Empirical Literature on Funds of Knowledge
Since its inception, there have been numerous studies that have sought to find
representations of FoK in diverse classrooms (Barton & Tan, 2013; Moje et al., 2004; Moll et al.,
1992). Below I discuss three studies that sought to cultivate FoK from students to translate into
classroom practice. First, Moll et al. (1992) conducted home visits in order to cultivate funds.
Then Moje et al. (2004) and Barton and Tan (2013) looked into the classrooms to determine how
and whether FoK were elicited from students and used by teachers to foster student learning.
Moll et al. (1992) studied the process of drawing upon funds of knowledge for the
development of classroom practice. The project consisted of three main components. First, Moll
et al. set out to conduct an ethnographic study to examine the origin, use, and distribution of
funds of knowledge in predominantly Mexican, working-class community households in Tucson,
Arizona (1992). Secondly, they set up a study in which teachers from a school (or more than one
school) participated in after-school “labs” or study groups where they collaborated, discussed
research findings, and developed innovations in instruction was conducted. Finally, they
intended to study the way these teachers used what they learned to design their instruction (Moll
et al., 1992).
In the first phase of the study they sought to understand the funds of knowledge present
in the households in the Tucson community (Moll et al., 1992). The initial design of the study
was to conduct home visits between the researchers and the families to cultivate the FoK
available in the students’ homes. Their plan was to use the after-school study groups, or “labs” as
the contexts through which the participating teachers would collaborate with the researchers.
There the teachers were informed, assisted, and supported by the researchers regarding the data
from home visits. The teacher team met every two weeks at alternating sites, rotating between
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 62
the four school sites and the university. Members of the teacher team were four teachers; a
teacher/researcher on leave of absence from the school district and pursuing graduate work in
anthropology; university researchers in education, anthropology, and math education; and
graduate students in education (Moll et al., 1992). Two of the teachers were of Mexican descent
and two of Anglo descent, and all are fluent in Spanish. Limiting the number of teachers was
purposeful in order to maintain the camaraderie of a small group that would work together for an
extended period of time. The four teachers represented four different schools, all within
working-class, predominantly Mexican neighborhoods. Anna Rivera was a bilingual classroom
teacher for over 15 years. At the time of the study, she was teaching a bilingual first-grade class.
Patricia Rendon had been a K-8 teacher since 1969, and at the time of the study, was a
fourth/fifth grade teacher in a bilingual setting. Martha Floyd-Tenery had experience teaching in
various settings for over nine years –elementary, resource, English as a Second Language (ESL),
teaching assistant in Japanese, and English at Anhui University in China. At the time of the
study, she had also completed her doctoral studies in language, reading, and culture. Finally,
Raquel Gonzalez taught kindergarten and was finishing her M.A. in counseling and guidance
(Moll et al., 1992).
After beginning the study, the research team realized there was a disconnect between the
teachers participating in the after-school study groups and the context of the households.
Moreover, the researchers concluded that this disconnect was counter-productive to the study.
Further, on the occasions when the teacher did accompany the anthropologist into the household,
they were afforded easier access than the anthropologist alone. The dialogue between the
household and the teacher were more productive and focused on the learning about the student.
This led to the conclusion that teachers would take the role of the ethnographer in entering the
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 63
households of their students (Moll et al., 1992). Thus, the study took a turn from one of
cultivating FoK through the researchers’ home visits, into a study of the teachers’ relationships
with the households and the transformative nature of the FoK home visits.
The structure of the after-school labs was revised to accommodate the change in the
study. There the teacher team collaborated on analyzing the collected ethnographic data. Inquiry
of household and community ethnography including participant observation, open-ended
interviewing strategies, life-histories, and case studies were conducted. The ethnographic
method allowed the teachers to conceptualize households as dynamic and multi-faceted
environments (Moll et al., 1992). Additionally, the teachers participated in a reflexive process
that allowed them to share insights and information. This was valuable in bringing about their
realizations of the importance of home visits and the transformations in their mindsets. As
reciprocity is an important aspect of FoK, researchers and teachers also practiced that
relationship, where their relationships were collegial and mutually engaged in practice (Moll et
al., 1992).
For the first part of their ethnographic experience, teachers randomly selected two to
three students, aged kindergarten through fifth grade, from their classrooms with which they
would conduct home visits. Each household was visited three times, with interviews lasting an
average of two hours. Interviews with students were also conducted. Given permission, teachers
were instructed to tape-record the conversational interviews (Moll et al., 1992). Following their
home visits, the teachers were asked to write up field notes, which would eventually become the
basis of study-group discussions. Although writing field notes was a long and arduous process,
the teachers saw the value of it as it enabled them to reflect on their visit and gain valuable
insights. Through the reflexive process, teachers admitted to seeing a multifaceted reality that
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 64
would otherwise have been unexploited. Writing substantiated the connection between them and
the household (Moll et al., 1992).
The second ethnographic technique the teachers employed was the writing of a personal
field journal. Though it was optional, those who opted to participate realized the value of
documenting their transformation. Those who did not participate regretted not being able to
pinpoint the moments in which they began to change (Moll el al., 1992).
The third technique employed was the use of questionnaires. Conducting home visits
equipped with questions provided the inquiry-based context of the visit. The questionnaires
queried family histories and networks, labor history, educational history, language use, and child
rearing ideologies (Moll et al., 1992). Open-ended questions also allowed for probing
throughout the interview. The conversational approach to interviewing encouraged connections
with the teacher and elicited narratives from the families (Moll et al., 1992).
At the culmination of the study, teachers identified two transformative principles of FoK.
The first is the shift in the definition of culture within the household. Instead of viewing
households as static receptacles of culture (food, folklore, etc.), teachers adopted a dynamic
perception of culture as rooted in lived contexts and practices of students. Most importantly,
they began to view their students as people, and not a mere entity in their classroom (Moll et al.,
1992). The second transformative effect of FoK debunked the widely accepted deficit
perceptions of poor, minority students. The low academic achievement of marginalized students
had previously been attributed to the notion that they were socially and cognitively deficient.
Through home visits, teachers were not only able to realize the discrepancy between the
pervasive beliefs of deficiency they were also able to uncover the multifaceted realities of their
students’ lives. They became aware of the social networks and survival strategies of the
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 65
households. The insights gained from home visits reflected that of broader regional, social,
economic, and gender-related patterns (Moll et al., 1992).
Teacher transformations were attributed to the orientation that households held valuable
funds of knowledge and the reflexive process and debriefings after the visits were conducted
(Moll et al., 1992). The labs offered a safe environment in which the teachers discussed their
changing ideas of households and the transformations resulting from the observations and
reflections. The reflexive nature of the study groups allowed the teachers to examine their own
underlying beliefs, confronting their practices, leading to their theoretical development. This
was facilitated by the affirmations received during these lab discussions. Within the labs,
anthropological inquiry was not merely a technique but a state of mind (Moll et al., 1992).
Though the study was successful in realizing the importance of home visits and
cultivating funds of knowledge, there were also problems encountered within the project. First,
the time constraints that teachers were placed under became burdensome. In addition to typical
school days, teachers were still required to make home visits, write field notes, and meet in study
groups. Though some of them recognized the value of that process in making connections to
households, there are issues to be had with the connections as well. The confianza established
with the households grew to unexpected extents. Some families began to rely heavily on the
teachers as a confidante and resource in times of crisis. Another concern revolved around the
teachers’ realization of the resources necessary in order to employ the funds of knowledge they
drew into their classroom practice. More time and support was needed to enact theory into
practice. Finally, evaluating the project was a constant issue. The researchers concluded that a
teacher’s transformative process has no time frame. Documenting their intellectual journey
though journals, field notes, interviews, observations, and study groups were all amenable ways
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 66
in which to acquire evidence, but not conclusive to a positive change in how FoK was adopted as
a pedagogy (Moll et al., 1992).
Moje et al. (2004) studied how FoK shaped the literacy experiences of middle school
students. They particularly wanted to study how FoK shaped Discourse—knowing, reading,
writing, and talking. Moje et al. (2004) conducted an ethnographic study of 30 students, 20
females and 10 males, ages 12-15, who lived in a Latino community within the city of Detroit,
Michigan. Ten of the participants volunteered through a recruitment process and the rest were
purposefully selected by the researchers using their level of participation on classroom activity,
types and content of their academic and social writings, interactions with the teacher and with
other students, types of literacy practices in which they participated, and interest in possibly
participating in an after-school literacy project. The participants were all from low-income or
working class homes. They were all bilingual and biliterate in Spanish and English. The
researchers focused on a group of Latino students primarily because of the group’s connection
with a science curriculum project.
Through data comprising of observational field notes, surveys, interviews, and collection
of artifacts, Moje et al. (2004) discovered that everyday FoK and Discourse could be further
separated into other dimensions such as family, community, peer, and popular cultural FoK and
Discourse. These various funds were mediating and being mediated by other funds that youth
drew from or constructed in their everyday lives (Moje et al., 2004). Their findings fell into two
categories. First, they identified specific funds of knowledge that students drew on to make
meaning in their world. Second, they found that the teachers teaching these students failed to
access these funds of knowledge and therefore did not carry them over into their science based
instructional activities. Thus, students were denied the opportunity to use their funds of
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 67
knowledge as a base upon which to build new knowledge, challenge what they thought they
knew as a result of their funds of knowledge, or construct knowledge that challenged what their
teachers deemed as the “official” knowledge in the classroom.
Each of the dimensions of FoK and Discourse that Moje et al. (2004) found had
dimensions of their own. Family FoK and Discourse consisted of parents’ work outside of
home, work in the home, travel, and environment and health funds. Moje et al. (2004) found that
family FoK and Discourse were household funds that were based on the work parents did in and
out of their homes. For instance, through a unit on environmental issues and water quality
curricula, a third of the students were able to relate the material to their fathers’ work as
landscapers or farmers. One student related the topic to how water affected her father’s work as
a landscaper and another spoke of how her father discussed the amount of rain in Detroit.
Students also discussed the effects of water on mescal farming in Mexico, where they realized
the economic importance of protecting the investment of their plants. The researchers also
discovered the students’ awareness of historical and cultural practices that carried economic and
social value, such as mescal farming. FoK emerged as having a transnational or global quality
and the research team was reminded that everyday knowledges are diverse and far ranging, even
when drawn from home experiences (Moje et al., 2004).
Moje et al. (2004) also uncovered work in the home as a science-related and home-based
FoK and Discourse. This included domestic activities such as cooking, cleaning, and engaging
in ethnic and cultural traditions. Examples of this include useful cooking procedures that could
be used to integrate everyday and scientific conceptions of particular phenomena. During an
informal interview, a seventh-grade girl used the frying of tortillas to explain that smoke was
black, contrary to what the teacher claimed. The student used a home-based fund of knowledge
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 68
to challenge a claim made by the teacher. This knowledge, had it been drawn on by the teacher,
would have allowed the teacher to pursue a discussion on combustion. The teacher did not hear
the student’s comment and therefore did not take advantage of (or seek out) the student’s pre-
existing knowledge as a resource upon which to build the students’ collective understanding.
Through interviews with the students, Moje et al. (2004) also uncovered travels across
the country, or to other countries as another example of FoK and Discourses. During a
discussion about water quality in rivers, two students related the topic to water pollution along
the Mississippi and Rio Grande rivers. One student recalled a personal experience traveling over
the Mississippi. Another shared erosion she observed on a family trip to Acapulco where her
mother had her observe a rock over the course of their trip. The dents she initially observed were
made deeper by erosion over the course of a month and a half. Moje et al. (2004) deemed that an
example of everyday observation that was also strongly aligned with academic science. While
Moje et al. (2004) gained insights into what students experienced, the teachers in this study did
not seek out this information to use it in the science lessons provided to students.
Another source of FoK and Discourse, as realized by Moje et al. (2004) were students’
environment and health funds. An interview with a particular student revealed his desire to
become an ecologist because of the poor air quality he experienced in Mexico City, which had
implications on his health. His experience served as a fund of knowledge that supported and
motivated his learning.
Another dimension of FoK and Discourse that Moje et al. (2004) found is Community
FoK and Discourse. The researchers observed that the community ha a dominant fund of
knowledge within its strong ethnic identity, commitment to helping their youth achieve
educational and economic success, and a commitment to social and community activism (Moje
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 69
et al., 2004, p. 55). The community’s activist orientation was evident in the community
members’ development of a two-way bilingual immersion public school of choice that provided
students with access to English-language and literacy learning while maintaining and developing
Spanish language and literacy. Moje et al. (2004) determined that the existence of the school
was attributed to the commitment of its community members to maintaining ethnic identities
while developing hybrid spaces for economic and social success. The researchers also
determined that the social activism found in the community served as funds for scientific literacy
learning. An example of this is the community leaders’ successful protest against building an
elementary school on a toxic waste site. Another was a neighborhood alliance’s survey on the
quality of air as a part of information gathering for a lawsuit. The use of the written text of the
survey connected Discourse of scientific inquiry to that of the Discourse of social activism.
A third dimension of FoK and Discourse that Moje et al. (2004) discovered was Peer FoK
and Discourse. The researchers arrived at this conclusion through data analysis and realized that
peers played an important role in how youth know how to “do” school and how to read and write
school-based texts (Moje et al., 2004, p. 56). Informal peer activities-the time that youth spent
outside of school together, unmediated by adults, was relevant to the goal of developing third
space (Moje et al., 2004). Through interviews regarding a physics unit on wearing bike helmets,
the researchers determined that the students’ refusal to wear bike helmets signified hybridity
construction through simultaneous resistance to and accommodation with their classroom
activities. “Messing around” was also an activity the researchers deemed as FoK and Discourse
as it was a time that youth spent engaging in popular culture, community, and family funds.
“Messing around” had relevance to scientific and content area literacy, as it required youth to
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 70
make claims and warrant choices in clothing, music, media, etc. Internet searches, for example,
require learning and refining search techniques that best served their interests.
The fourth and final category of FoK and Discourse, according to Moje et al. (2004) was
popular cultural funds of knowledge and Discourse. The researchers found that youth tended to
draw mostly on popular culture when discussing issues related to their science lessons. The most
popular fund of knowledge and Discourse was music. The various types of music that youth
enjoyed represented the text they read and wrote, and their identities that they enacted in various
spaces. One female participant elaborated on her musical choices through an interview,
describing her various musical preferences and explaining the juxtaposition of various musical
texts. The texts provided her with Discourses for displaying, claiming, and building different
identities in various spaces at various times, exhibiting a hybrid identity that drew from many
everyday funds (Moje et al., 2004).
Print magazines and news media were also popular cultural funds (Moje et al., 2004).
These are ways in which youth access information and gain exposure to the world outside of
their community. In the instance of two female participants consulting print news to obtain
information about a musical group’s tour dates, they used the newspaper to obtain information
and to engage in interactions with both popular culture and community events. Their use of
popular cultural media texts supports their identity development within their Latino/a community
and the larger world. Through these findings, Moje et al. (2004) suggest that content literacy
strategies may be refocused in order for youth to employ the skills and strategies they already
have, rather than imposing skills they are assumed to need.
Finally, television and movies as popular culture funds were frequently referred to in the
study (Moje et al., 2004). A male participant aspired to be an engineer and work with computers
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 71
and cars based on a movie he saw. Another participant, a female, showed the researchers jokes
she wrote in a notebook from a Spanish show she saw on the television. These instances
demonstrated how television media shape literate and social practices of youth. According to
Moje et al., amongst the popular cultural categories, news media, television, and movies are the
most connected to science. Students were able to name movies when discussing issues of air and
water quality. They used popular culture funds in television shows such as Jerry Springer when
they were asked to enact a mock talk show on air quality. Based on the dominance of popular
culture texts in their data, the researchers assert that accessing FoK through popular culture funds
may be beneficial (Moje et al., 2004).
In looking at their data, Moje et al. (2004) searched for ways that FoK crossed into school
funds or were activated by teachers and students in the classroom. They found patterns in the
connections youth made between their everyday funds and classroom science learning, the ways
youth used multiple fund of everyday knowledge and Discourse, and the impact of urbanization
and globalization on youths’ funds (Moje et al, 2004, p. 64). While they discovered that students
had rich funds of knowledge that could have been used during their middle school science
experiences, they also found that the students’ teachers did not seek out or use this information in
support of students’ learning about science (Moje et al., 2004). In denying the students’ use of
funds of knowledge in accessing the science curriculum, the teachers missed valuable
opportunities to facilitate students’ learning.
Barton and Tan (2008) also conducted a study on FoK and Discourse. Their research
questions sought to realize the FoK that sixth grade students brought into science class, and how
they leveraged their funds to engage deeper in to science, as well as they ways in which student
FoK impact or transform the discourse and engagement of sixth grade learning community and
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 72
its members (Barton & Tan, 2008). The researchers utilized the methodological approach to
make the link between the use of FoK and learning in science. They theorized that in planning
lessons where the pedagogical strategies of FoK are used, students would be better able to
articulate and draw upon their own FoK in learning science.
Barton and Tan (2008) conducted their study at The Inquiry School (TIS), which was a
low-income, economically challenged neighborhood in a northeastern US city. The school was
comprised of 910 students, 45% of whom were African American, 55% are Hispanic, and 93%
of these students were on the school’s free lunch program. The school had a science focus,
which meant the students had five, 45 minute science periods a week. The school was chosen
because of the collaborative relationship the researchers had with them. The teacher involved in
the study was Mr. M, a sixth grade science teacher with five years of experience teaching urban
students. Mr. M was an advocate of student-empowering pedagogical strategies such as group
discussions, projects, student presentations, and role-play. He is also known for his no-nonsense
teaching and strong management skills (Barton & Tan, 2008, p. 54). Mr. M was well respected
by his teaching colleagues because of his classroom management and relationships with students.
The researchers and Mr. M selected four girls with a range of interests and success in
science, and observed participation levels. One boy, a low performing but very social student,
also volunteered to participate in the study. The participating students, researchers, and Mr. M
participated in hour-long curriculum planning conversations to discuss how to incorporate
cultural knowledge into the unit. Focus group interviews were also conducted with the students
to obtain their feedback and opinions on how the lesson went. Weekly meetings were also held
with Mr. M to discuss student responses. At the end of the unit, Mr. M’s feedback was solicited
through a formal interview (Barton & Tan, 2008).
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 73
Barton and Tan (2008) used and expanded on Moje et al.’s (2004) characterizations of
student FoK. Their categories of FoK were also family, community, peer, and popular cultural
funds and Discourses. Within family FoK, Barton and Tan (2008) identified four subcategories:
family and ethnic traditions, matriarchal leadership, shared responsibility, and material capital.
Family and ethic tradition FoK were cultivated during a plant lesson in which students created a
class salad made from various plant parts. Mr. M asked the students to interview family
members for salad recipes as a way to make more explicit connection to their lives. While talk
of home recipes were not of scientific nature, Mr. M was able to use the students’ examples to
build content. Students categorized salad ingredients according to the parts of plants. Through
this lesson, the researchers realized the deeper connections that students made to the salad
lessons through family histories and traditions. The funds of cooking and sharing were relevant
to how students learned about and valued plants, but the discussions are also grounded in the
histories of their families (Barton & Tan, 2008).
Another subcategory of family FoK that Barton and Tan (2008) identified was
matriarchal leadership. This subcategory emerged as the students brought up cooking
responsibilities and expertise of their mothers. The students were asked to obtain recipes from
their family members to create appetizers. As many students reached out to their mothers for
recipes, they exhibited knowledge of where their resources lay in home funds, and the
connections between science and their home lives (Barton & Tan, 2008).
Barton and Tan (2008) also identified shared responsibility as a subcategory of family
FoK. Shared responsibility for child-care was a relevant topic that emerged as the students
discussed food decisions. Some students received nutritional advice from older family members
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 74
while some gave them to younger family members. This was a common practice in their
community (Barton & Tan, 2008).
Material capital is the fourth subcategory under family FoK (Barton & Tan, 2008).
Material capital was apparent in the appetizer activity with the substantial amount of preparation
materials that students brought from home. Families demonstrated abundant resources in
bringing in a plethora of food in support of the students’ endeavors to create healthy appetizers.
The researchers concluded that a wealth of food-related information exists in the family FoK and
Discourse of the students. Although food is not traditionally considered “educational material,”
the funds do equip students with pertinent information regarding food and nutrition (Barton &
Tan, 2008).
Community FoK and Discourse was represented in two different subcategories; peer
challenges, habits, and priorities and fast food (Barton & Tan, 2008). Peer challenges, habits,
and priorities was evident in how students expressed community FoK and Discourse with
regards to the priorities of their peers and how it was related to the school and community. The
students presented the researchers with stories of “gross” cafeteria food that they refuse eat,
despite not being fed breakfast at home. One student shared that students sometimes ate chips
for breakfast. The students were aware of the factors that resulted in the poor nutrition habits of
their peers. Community FoK and Discourse was evident in how the student enacted an
appetizer-sharing lesson that addressed poor nutritional choices for breakfast. The pair of
students who presented justified their food choices so as to address nutrition and appeal. They
chose to serve their peers a good breakfast and appealed to their tastes. Here, the researchers
argued, science became a tool in the way that it served as a means for providing food for peers in
addition to a learning experience (Barton & Tan, 2008).
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 75
Fast food was another subcategory that Barton and Tan (2008) discovered within
community FoK and Discourse. Students were highly observant of fast-food restaurants, corner
grocery stores, and delis that they frequented. During the lesson in which the students compared
McDonalds with Kentucky Fried Chicken based on the nutrition facts that was provided to them,
many of them showed awareness of newer, healthier options on the menu from either restaurant.
Students also accessed economic funds when discussing the appeal of the McDonald’s “dollar
menu,” which was highly relevant as 93% of them were on the free lunch program. Further, they
showed an understanding of sales tactics used by grocery stores with regards to the prominently
displayed candy variety. Barton and Tan (2008) realized that although understanding the
benefits of healthier snacks was not applicable science, the nutrition-related context was. For
students, the practice of good nutrition demanded that they incorporate community FoK and
Discourse in their food decisions (Barton & Tan, 2008).
Peer FoK and Discourse was the third tenet of Barton and Tan’s (2008) study. In it were
three subcategories realized by the researchers: studenting, solidarity, and talents and interest
(Barton & Tan, 2008). “Studenting” was evident in the way that students helped their peers
through sharing resources and/or explaining Mr. M’s instructions. Students who gained
understanding before their peers then helped their peers using examples provided to them.
Solidarity was evident in the way students became each other’s allies during class discussions.
In one instance, a student confessed her poor snack choice to the class’ disapproval. Two other
students also shared their confessions, building a support system for their peer. Barton and Tan
(2008) discovered that peer FoK boosted and reframed the marginalized student’s identity from
one who makes poor choices to one with tough decisions. Talents and interests culminated
Barton and Tan’s (2008) discussion on peer FoK. For the nutrition unit, Mr. M encouraged his
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 76
students to be creative in producing the written pieces for the nutrition unit. The students were
able to draw from their funds of talents and interests when they students were able to choose to
make a nutritional guide booklet that included science facts such as sources of essential vitamins
and minerals (Barton & Tan, 2008).
Popular culture FoK and Discourse was the fourth and final tenet of Barton and Tan’s
(2008) study. The students in Mr. M’s class showed ownership of their popular culture FoK in
the form of music, magazines, news media, television, movies, and the Internet. They were
especially fond of music and television-related resources. Television cooking shows were
particularly useful during the nutrition unit in which a student used the Internet to find a recipe
she had seen on the Food Network channel. Barton and Tan (2008) discovered that students
were secure in drawing from cooking shows on television as the kitchen is a legitimate place
where cooking happens. Further, the researchers assert that learning by doing is more
meaningful than learning by reading. For the students, the association with popular culture was
an important part of their identity (Barton & Tan, 2008).
Barton and Tan (2008) drew upon sociocultural perspective and hybridity theory to
realize how student FoK mattered in engagement in learning. First, they found that expanding
the enculturation process to incorporate reciprocity created new ways of participating in science
class that were legitimate and that fostered new opportunities to engage the subject matter that
promoted both academic achievement and inclusion. When the teacher accessed students’ FoK,
the number of volunteer speakers in class increased. When subject matter positioned students as
experts, they shed inhibitions about sharing out loud. They took pride in their contributions.
Secondly, according to Barton & Tan (2008), the shifting nature of legitimate participation
allows students to leverage the opportunity to use their FoK to talk and act scientifically in ways
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 77
that were less risky. A student who was known to be unproductive was able to engage in the
nutrition unit with clear ideas about his audience and purpose.
Barton and Tan (2008) also witnessed an abundance of FoK and Discourse that the
students possessed that was implicitly connected to the school science funds and Discourse (p.
67). When invoked, the funds enable the students to make personal connections that supported
their experiences outside of school with expectations in school. Drawing from nontraditional
funds and Discourse, students were able to take the role of experts during classroom discussions.
Mr. M contributed school science funds while the students contributed nontraditional funds,
hence the shared authority. Pedagogically, Mr. M’s classroom was turned into a place where the
students were able to co-construct the lessons enacted in class. Planning focused first on
relevance and then content. The lessons changed in importance for the students as their learning
goals moved from achieving a good grade into exploring relevant content. The science tasks and
activities mirrored their everyday lives. The written pieces emphasized nontraditional funds,
such as the nutrition booklet. Barton and Tan (2008) realized that a science unit such as that of
the nutrition unit could transform school science Discourse by increasing the overlap between
that and nontraditional Discourse.
The literature presented discussed how effective teaching can change the trajectory of
student achievement within historically marginalized populations. Effective teaching begins
with an examination of ideologies. Asset ideologies are imperative when working with students
from marginalized populations so as not to contribute to deficit thinking. Asset pedagogies with
its various iterations have helped to conceptualize the practices necessary in order to effectively
employ asset pedagogies in the classroom. Finally, FoK has provided teachers with means by
which they can cultivate FoK from students and apply it to their pedagogy.
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 78
Conceptual Framework
A conceptual framework is the system of concepts, expectations, beliefs, and theories that
support and inform research and is a key part of design (Maxwell, 2012, p. 39). My conceptual
framework informed the basis of my research. It informed my research of the relationships of
the concepts I sought to study. Figure A illustrates the relationships of concepts I wished to
examine. I expected to see that effective teachers of historically marginalized students enact
asset pedagogies in conjunction with utilizing FoK. This was evidenced through the examination
of teachers’ ideologies and asset approaches in teaching students of historically marginalized
populations. The concepts in the figure lie in a triangular arrangement, as those same concepts
found in the literature form interactive relationships that are intertwined. The concepts within
the triangle interact between and amongst each other. These interactions all revolve around the
student, who is the main target of the enactments. The topmost concept is teacher ideologies.
The next is asset pedagogies. The third is Funds of Knowledge. These concepts in the triangles
interact as teachers continually examine ideologies, using the students as the focus of the
examination. The teachers choose to adopt asset ideologies in enacting asset pedagogies and/or
FoK. The three concepts influence each other, and the teacher’s realization of these fluid
relationships influences classroom practice. The enactment of this framework defines the highly
effective teacher who is successful in teaching historically marginalized populations. Hence, a
highly effective teacher of historically marginalized populations continually examines his/her
beliefs, confronting his/her conscious and subconscious mindsets that are likely to interfere with
his/her ability to foster meaningful leaning opportunities for his/her students in addition to asset
approaches in enacting asset pedagogies and drawing on and using students’ FoK to best serve
historically marginalized students (Figure A). These concepts have to be equally present within
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 79
the teacher’s practice. As there are many components, there are also many levels in which these
ideas may be implemented. When a component is missing, the teacher’s ability to provide
meaningful learning opportunities weakens. Below, I first discuss the definition of effective
teachers of historically marginalized populations through an examination of his/her and
ideologies. I then conceptualize how a teacher’s beliefs lead to a use of asset pedagogies such as
CRP and FoK to create meaningful, relevant, and transformative learning experiences for
historically marginalized students. Finally, I conclude with how an enactment of this framework
leads to success in teaching historically marginalized students.

Figure A. Conceptual Framework
Effective Teachers and Ideologies
Drawing on the literature on teacher ideologies, effective teachers of historically
marginalized students are those who recognize, respect, and value students’ diverse
backgrounds; confront their conscious and subconscious mindsets that are likely to interfere
with their ability to foster meaningful leaning opportunities for their students in order to
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 80
genuinely employ asset pedagogies; and exhibit genuine belief in their students’ success,
encouraging them to reflect upon their realities to seek better futures for them and their
communities (Bartolomé, 2004; Milner, 2010). An effective teacher of historically marginalized
students is someone who prioritizes student success in his/her instruction, demonstrates absolute
belief in their capabilities, and empowers them to seek social justice in their academic and
personal undertakings.
Bartolomé (2004) asserts that ideologies are constructed by social conditions, derived
from a person’s past experiences. Given the high likelihood that teachers’ beliefs have been
shaped by the dominant discourse into holding one or more of the mindsets that contribute to the
opportunity gap identified by Milner (2010), adopting asset pedagogy requires that teachers
confront their own biases, whether conscious or subconscious. Awareness of biases allows
teachers to ground their practice in equity (Milner & Tenore, 2010).
Highly effective teachers who employ asset pedagogies have absolute belief in their
students’ capabilities for success in and out of the classroom. They defy widespread beliefs that
students from historically marginalized backgrounds are not capable of attaining standards set by
the dominant middle-class. Instead they accept the value derived from the students’
backgrounds, enacting relevant curriculum that supports and values the students’ culture. They
acknowledge the disadvantages their students face economically, socially, and politically, and
ground their practices in equity. These highly effective teachers encourage students to critically
examine social and economic inequalities and seek possible movements toward solutions for
such inequalities.

TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 81
Asset Pedagogies
Ladson-Billings’ (1995) theory of culturally relevant pedagogy is a powerful notion that
spawned later iterations such as culturally responsive pedagogy (Gay, 2002), culturally
sustaining pedagogy (Paris, 2012), and humanizing pedagogy (Camangian, 2013). Culturally
relevant pedagogy (CRP) is a theory that addresses student achievement through an acceptance
and affirmation of students’ cultural identity, while developing a critical lens that social
inequities propagate (Ladson-Billings, 1995). Research on CRP and its subsequent iterations
indicated that teachers who employ these pedagogies are better able to facilitate learning for their
students. Based on the literature on these asset pedagogies, I maintain that asset pedagogies have
transformative potential in students’ lives. Effective teachers employ strategies that recognize
the students’ cultures and enact pedagogy that not only relates to, but also sustains their cultural
identities, the continuous evolution of their cultures, and, the ability to recognize
misrepresentations of culture, and the potential to utilize knowledge as a tool to combat
educational and social inequities (Gay, 2002; Ladson-Billings, 1995, 2014; Paris, 2012; Paris &
Alim, 2014).
Highly effective teachers who employ culturally relevant pedagogies are knowledgeable
in the cultural practices of their students. This knowledge is a measure of cultural competence.
Teachers acquire this knowledge through studying, recognizing, and celebrating the social
contributions of various cultures. Learning experiences are collaborative experiences between
students and teachers. Their classrooms reflect respectful and reciprocal natures of
collaboration. While it is possible for teachers to foster a sense of collaboration within their
classrooms without the influence of culture, the absence of culture results in learning that is
grounded purely in academics and not in the students’ realities. Instruction, then, lacks meaning
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 82
and relevance. Hence, highly effective teachers deliver student-centered instruction that reflects
the dynamic natures of culture.
Teachers who use culturally responsive, relevant, and sustaining pedagogies seek to
honor the linguistic, cultural, and literate practices of students. They employ multicultural
curricula in ways that examine how cultural contributions have affected society. Additionally,
they also examine how multicultural curricula reflect social inequities that often plague the
students’ communities. Highly effective teachers who employ these pedagogies incite students
to seek social, political, and economic equity. Not only do they demonstrate their own
sociopolitical consciousness through exhibiting an awareness of the injustices that students face
regularly, they also encourage their students to develop a critical stance toward the systems that
contribute to their marginalization. They incorporate these injustices within their curriculum and
design learning experiences that allow students to explore prevalent issues. They not only
encourage their students to perform community service, they require their students to examine
why such a service is needed within the community. Additionally, they encourage students to be
critical of culture and recognize the aspects of it that perpetuate their oppression. The relevance
of the topics they explore resonates with the realities of the students’ lives. Hence, the content is
student driven. Highly effective teachers will use their cultural competency to explore topics of
relevance with the students, in whom they are ideologically invested.
Funds of Knowledge
Funds of knowledge (FoK) is a concept with an anthropological origin, hence it centers
on a study of people. FoK studies the households of students in order to cultivate the rich funds
of knowledge that lies in their social and cultural practices (Gonzalez, 2005; Hogg, 2010; Moll et
al., 1992). I argue that FoK is a transformative practice that capitalizes on culture as a means
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 83
through which education is made accessible for historically marginalized students. Highly
effective teachers cultivate and utilize student FoK as a way to contextualize their practice while
also empowering their students to look past their disadvantaged status. A highly effective
teacher is able to access and use FoK as a vehicle for students to construct knowledge by
bridging their lived realities into academics. A practice founded on FoK allows students to
critically view their social and economic realities in contrast to those of their dominant class
counterparts, to realize the discrepancies in their resources. This in turn allows them to use their
disadvantage as a vehicle to seek social and economic equity.
A highly effective teacher is able to gain an understanding of his or her students’ FoK in
order to contextualize their practice, creating relevant content and learning experiences. They do
so by becoming a part of the students’ communities: conducting home visits, attending
after/outside school activities, and building relationships with their families. Culture is not a
static concept, rather a live entity. The learning experiences found in classrooms of effective
teachers feature dynamic views of culture founded on FoK, with a critical lens toward social and
economic inequities. Highly effective teachers place value on students’ cultures. They use FoK
as a way to connect students’ realities to their practice.
Conclusion
My conceptual framework aligned literature on teacher ideologies; culturally responsive,
relevant, and sustaining pedagogies; and funds of knowledge to examine how highly effective
teachers approach teaching historically marginalized students. I argue that effective teachers
demonstrate asset ideologies with an authentic belief in students’ capabilities for success. Their
personal investment in their students is evident in the respectful and reciprocal relationships
found in their classrooms. Highly effective teachers also exhibit asset ideologies in all aspects of
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 84
their teaching practice. These asset ideologies may manifest themselves through culturally
responsive, relevant, and sustaining pedagogies. Highly effective teachers use their knowledge
of students and cultures to deliver meaningful content. They incite students to critically examine
oppressive forces that undermine their social, economic, and political success. They then use
that knowledge and empower them to create change. FoK is also a concept that utilizes culture
as a means through which meaningful instruction is delivered. FoK places value on students’
lived realities through studies of their households, developing relationships with their families.
The knowledge derived from these relationships serves as capital for the highly effective teacher
as a foundation of their practice. I believe that highly effective teachers continually examine
their ideologies in order to fully understand and address the needs of historically marginalized
students. They address these needs by applying asset approaches to designing and implementing
instruction that is culturally responsive, relevant, and sustaining. They may also draw upon
students’ FoK to make connections between school and household realities. Highly effective
teachers recognize the recursive relationship between ideologies, pedagogies, and the needs of
historically marginalized students. They understand the complexity of their students and their
practices reflect those complexities. The practice of a highly effective teacher of historically
marginalized students must exhibit the combination of asset ideologies, asset pedagogies, and
FoK in order to result robust and relevant instruction. Although there are ways to deliver
instruction without the presence of all components, the absence of one results in a weaker, less
meaningful experience for the students.

TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 85
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS

This chapter will describe the qualitative approach, data collection, and methods that
were used to conduct this study. The purpose of this study was to examine the ways in which
teachers created relevant and empowering learning experiences for historically marginalized
students through ideologies that were consistent with asset pedagogies. Additionally, I examined
how ideologies were revealed in the ways that teachers cultivated and utilized funds of
knowledge in their practices. The following research question was the basis of my study: How
does the instruction of reputably effective high school teachers of historically marginalized
students reflect the intersection of their beliefs and their practices?
Research Design
A case study approach to a qualitative inquiry uncovers the interaction of significant
factors characteristic of a phenomenon. A case study also allows for an in-depth analysis of a
bounded system in which the phenomenon is intrinsically bounded (Merriam, 2009). A multi-
site case study is used when researchers conduct a study using more than one case that share a
common characteristic or condition (Merriam, 2009). I studied the connections between the
ideologies and practices of teachers who enacted asset pedagogies through the cultural values of
their students in order to deliver relevant instruction to students from historically marginalized
populations. The units of analysis for this study were two secondary English teachers from two
different high schools that house an academic outreach program called the Bridge Program.
1

I selected to use a qualitative case study approach for my research design because it
provided me with insight into the alignment of practices of teachers of the Bridge Program with
asset ideologies and asset pedagogies (Merriam, 2009). Using qualitative case study approach
allowed me to get as close to my subjects of interest as possible, partly through direct

1
The Bridge Program is a pseudonym.
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 86
observations and partly by access to subjective factors derived from interviews. My research
topic was also aligned with the special features of a case study. My topic was particularistic,
meaning it focused on a particular phenomenon—a particular kind of teacher in a specific
context. My topic was also descriptive in that it resulted in a “thick,” complete, literal
description of the teachers’ practice through a narrative form. Finally, my topic lent itself to a
qualitative case study that called for rich description into someone’s experiences. This was
heuristic because it increased my understanding of the phenomenon I was studying (Merriam,
2009).
Through this dissertation, I sought to develop a better understanding of the characteristics
of the instruction of highly effective teachers who examined their ideologies, in order to enact
asset pedagogies that valued culture in effectively teaching historically marginalized students.
The relationships between teacher ideology, asset pedagogies, and funds of knowledge are
interactive and influential to each other. As illustrated through my conceptual framework,
effective teaching of historically marginalized students requires teachers to hold asset ideologies
in order to enact pedagogies that value and sustain students’ cultures.
Sample and Population
Participant Selection
The multi-site, multi-case study for my dissertation examined a teacher of the Bridge
Program at two different high schools to realize the consistencies and possible inconsistencies
between their approaches and practices to teaching historically marginalized students. Since my
focus was on effective teachers within the Bridge Program, I used purposeful sampling
(Merriam, 2009) to find Bridge teachers who were reputable in enacting the Bridge model. I
asked the Bridge statewide office for their recommendations based on their observations of
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 87
teacher trainers’ practices. I also asked other Bridge teachers for their recommendations as to
who they believe to be effective Bridge teacher trainers based on their interactions and
collaborations at Bridge professional development conferences, and the criteria I had established.
I located six teachers who easily met the criteria I had established for the study, interviewed each
briefly, and arrived at information-rich cases (Merriam, 2009). I then sent written requests to
those teachers who have been recommended by more than one source. From the six
recommendations I received, I randomly choose two as the units of my analysis. Teachers within
the Bridge Program had been trained within a specialized curriculum and as such, demonstrated
a unique set of attributes (Pradl, 2002). My participant selection process was guided by the
following criteria:
Criterion 1. The first criterion was that teachers taught in high schools that housed the
Bridge Program. Bridge Programs were housed in selected high schools that serve students from
Mexican American/Latino and/or historically underserved minorities, often from
socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds. Bridge students were typically from first
generation Mexican American/Latino and/or historically underserved backgrounds (McGrath &
Galaviz, 1996), and teachers in the Bridge Program served these students. The Bridge Program
was an academic outreach program that was designed to provide academic access and support to
first generation, Mexican American and Latino students, often from working-class, economically
disadvantaged, and marginalized backgrounds (McGrath & Galaviz, 1996). According to
researchers (Cazden, 2002; Cooper, 2002; Gandara, 2002; Gonzalez & Moll, 2002; Laden, 1999;
McGrath & Galaviz, 1996; Mezneck et al, 1989; Pradl, 2002), the Bridge program sought to
support students by providing them with:
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 88
• Counselors who are familiar with and are trained to assist with unique issues that students
from marginalized backgrounds face such as balancing schoolwork with household
responsibilities or financial pressure, as well as guidance counselor services
• Teachers who provide engaging, culturally relevant reading and writing instruction that is
based on Mexican American, Latino, and other multicultural literature, as well as a
classroom atmosphere of cultural acceptance
• Contact with role models from the Mexican American and Latino community
• Opportunities for community engagement and service
• Opportunities to examine culture through art and other means, through field trips and
other excursions
• Access to workshops for college preparation
My dissertation focused on the instructional approaches of highly effective teachers of
marginalized populations who enacted asset pedagogies through the Bridge model due to the
model’s alignment between what I sought to study and what was likely to be found in their
practice.
Criterion 2. The second criterion was that teachers were officially qualified to teach
Bridge by having attended the initial Bridge Summer Institute (BSI) training. Teachers who
were selected to attend BSI were first recommended by their own school administration, based
on their reputation and effectiveness at their own sites. They were then interviewed and
observed by the Bridge office, which made the final determination on whether to invite them to
BSI. The BSI training was an 8-day summer institute at a Northern California university. There,
teachers who had been nominated by their school administration and observed by the Bridge
office received training in curriculum and writing instruction within the Bridge model, as well as
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 89
received resources for use in the Bridge classroom. Without BSI, Bridge teachers were not fully
equipped to teach Bridge classes. In selecting these teachers, I was be able to examine how
teachers who work in the Bridge Program enacted asset pedagogies through the Bridge model,
based on the model’s alignment between what I sought to study and what was likely to be
reflected in their practice.
Criterion 3. The third criterion was that Bridge teachers had reputations for their
effectiveness in teaching the Bridge curriculum and had been chosen as teacher trainers. In order
to become a trainer for Bridge, teachers must have demonstrated success through data derived
from student work, student grades, and observations of teacher practice by Bridge staff. As these
teachers were already vested through their reputation and success, this was a logical group to
select from as they had more levels of credibility. In selecting these highly effective teachers, I
was able to answer my dissertation question regarding approaches to the characteristics of the
instruction of highly effective teachers who taught marginalized populations.
Instrumentation and Data Collection Procedures
The purpose of this study was to examine the practices and beliefs of reputably effective
teachers of historically marginalized students. As I articulated in my Conceptual Framework, I
was interested in seeing how a teacher effectively creates learning experiences for historically
marginalized students through ideologies, asset pedagogies, and funds of knowledge. As a
qualitative researcher, I was the primary instrument for data collection and analysis (Merriam,
2009).
I collected data through teacher interviews, direct classroom observations, and collection
of artifacts.

TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 90
Interview
For this study, I interviewed two high school teachers who taught in the Bridge Program,
as previously articulated. The interviews provided data on the participants’ experiences,
opinions, feelings, and knowledge (Merriam, 2009). The interviews were conducted using a
semi-structured format, allowing the participants to define their practices in unique ways
(Merriam, 2009). I conducted two formal interview(s) lasting one to two hours with each teacher
in which I focused on her ideology and pedagogy. Interview protocols (Appendix A-C) guided
the questions I asked during the interviews. The purpose of the interviews was to gain insight
into their teaching ideology and pedagogy. I asked questions about their views on the culture
and socioeconomic status of their students, as well as their academic capabilities and the
teachers’ responsibilities to address those topics. I also asked questions about their pedagogy—
how and why they choose the literature they used, how they planned lessons, what learning
experiences they provided their students, and why they choose to deliver those learning
experiences in their classroom. The questions allowed me insight as to what an effective
teacher’s instruction looked like with historically marginalized students. I conducted second
interviews after I completed my observations. In this interview I focused my questions more
specifically on what I saw while I was in the classrooms. I sought insight into the decisions they
made, the interactions they had with students, student behaviors, classroom management, etc. As
necessary, I also sought out opportunities to ask questions as they arose during data collection. I
compiled a total of six hours of interview data, which I then transcribed for analysis.
Observation
I conducted five to six classroom observations of each teacher in this case study. I
observed Mrs. Jones five times for one hour each. I observed Ms. Logan six times, twice for 40-
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 91
minute periods, and another four times for a 80-minute periods. I completed a total of 11 hours
and 40 minutes of observations. I used a semi-structured approach to my observations that
allowed me to see and experience the natural environment of the teachers’ classrooms. As
Merriam (2009) stated, where to begin looking depends on the research question, but where to
focus cannot be determined and must be allowed to emerge (p. 120). My conceptual framework
provided me with a starting point for my observations, which included looking for elements of
asset pedagogies, enactments of funds of knowledge, and how those two notions emerged from
the teacher’s ideology, in delivering instruction to historically marginalized students.
Specifically, I was looking to see how the teachers’ ideologies were reflected in how they
interacted with students during and between lessons; how the teachers cultivated and used the
students’ funds of knowledge in connecting learning experiences to students’ cultural practices
and/or everyday lived experiences; and how the teachers enacted pedagogies that valued and
sustained the students’ culture, such as discussions on how certain aspects of the curriculum
reflected their social, economic, and/or academic realities. In observing the teacher, I noted her
actions in front of the class, communication with the whole class and individual students, and her
reactions to student behaviors. In observing the classes, I noted their interactions with the
teacher during whole group and individual instruction including their ways of communication,
their reaction to the teachers’ instructions, and their engagement with the academic content.
Documents and Artifacts

Obtaining documents and artifacts from the teachers provided insight into curricular
decisions, planning, and how the teacher was or was not working to cultivate and enact funds of
knowledge and asset pedagogies. I collected documents in the form of classwork handouts,
graphic organizers, and Power Points. I also documented the physical arrangement and design of
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 92
the classroom, including but not limited to posters, posted student work, and books. Whereas the
interviews and observations were affected by my participation as the researcher, the documents
and artifacts were produced for reasons other than research and were not subject to the same
limitations (Merriam, 2009). The documents and artifacts provided insight into the cultural
relevance of the teachers’ practice in how students were or were not able to see how their work
connected to their community and/or beyond.
Data Analysis Procedures
Data from this qualitative study included interview transcripts, classroom observation
field notes, documents and artifacts in the form of curriculum, other printed information of use,
and ten analytic memos I wrote throughout the study. Analysis is the process of giving meaning
to the data by identifying and looking closely at its various components to realized their
relationships with each other (Corbin & Strauss, 2007). Additionally, as Merriam (2009)
suggests, the preferred way to analyze qualitative data is to do so in concurrence with collection.
As I transcribed interviews, I performed “categorizing analysis” (Maxwell, 2013) and looked for
segments of data that seemed meaningful. I then conducted “open coding” (Corbin & Strauss,
2007) to identify apriori codes that reflected concepts from literature that were present in the
data. During open coding, data connected to ideologies were first to emerge consistently from
both subjects. As my interview protocol was composed in accordance with the concepts from
my conceptual framework, apriori codes from asset ideologies, asset pedagogies, and FoK were
easily constructed. From there I constructed empirical codes based on the connecting threads of
the components of my conceptual framework. I began to see how ideology factored into asset
pedagogies and FoK, as well as the connectivity between asset pedagogies and FoK. I coded and
sorted the data from observational field notes in the same manner. I first looked for apriori codes
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 93
and the first to emerge from the observational data were also regarding ideology, particularly in
the teachers’ interactions with the students. From there, I constructed empirical codes, which
included the missed opportunities of both teachers to cultivate and/or utilize their students’ FoK.
I chose to analyze and code the data for each teacher separately in order to develop the
clearest picture possible of each teacher. As I analyzed and coded the interview and observation
data for each teacher, I wrote analytical memos regarding the patterns and consistencies that
arose from each teacher.
I also analyzed documents and artifacts from each subject. The documents and artifacts
provided insight into each teacher’s pedagogy in how it allowed for equitable attainment of
student success. It also provided insight into the cultivation and utilization of FoK through its
possible connections to the students’ lives outside of school. I had hoped to see the reflection of
asset pedagogies and evidence of the teachers’ accessing of FoK.
In addition to doing two different case studies, I also conducted a cross case analysis that
compared and contrasted the themes and findings from each teacher. This allowed me to gain
deeper insight into each teacher’s practice and realize what I learned about teaching from each
participant. I then analyzed the data to find the meanings of the components of my conceptual
framework. I learned that though one teacher may enact more components of my conceptual
framework, the absence of one component resulted in less than meaningful learning experiences
for their students. Finally, I wrote a qualitative narrative that presented my findings as it related
to my research question and conceptual framework.
Ethics
Qualitative research requires trust in the study in that it was carried out with integrity and
involved the ethical stance of the researcher (Merriam, 2009). As such, to ensure the ethics of
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 94
my study, I created my protocols based on the ethical checklist compiled by Patton (2002). The
checklist offered ten essential guidelines for ethical research. In accordance with those
guidelines, I provided my participant with a verbal explanation for the purpose of my research as
well as how the data will be used. This information was also available to them as part of the
interview protocol and certified information sheet. The purpose of the study was thoroughly
explained to both participants. I informed them that although they may not benefit directly from
this study, it would allow me to develop an understanding about the intersections of beliefs and
practices of reputably effective teachers of historically marginalized students. There was no use
of deception in the study. All interviews, observations, and document analysis were conducted
with the full knowledge and consent of both subjects.
As a teacher within the Bridge Program, I have an ethical responsibility to present the
findings truthfully and without bias. As the findings do outline areas in which teachers of the
Bridge Program are falling short in their practice, the responsibility to call attention to these
shortcomings falls upon me. There are difficult conversations to be had regarding the
implications of the study. These conversations are necessary if the Bridge Program, and their
teachers, wish to address those shortcomings and serve their stated purpose of helping
historically marginalized students. Without confronting those shortcomings, the program itself
will undermine their capability to build the students’ capacities academically and as human
beings. Further, as a classroom teacher, I have a personal responsibility to my own students with
regards to what I learned about my own practice through this study. Through the literature, data
analysis, and findings, I have learned how to be able to confront my own beliefs so that my
practice can best exemplify that of an effective teacher of historically marginalized students.

TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 95
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations
The results and/or interpretation of the study may have been impacted by generalizability,
truthfulness, and credibility. The study was generalizable only to the teachers and their
classroom that were the units of study as the purpose was not to generalize outside of the study.
The study also relied on the trustworthiness of the participants, so the truthfulness found in
interviews could not be controlled. The participants were chosen because of their reputations for
effectiveness in teaching historically marginalized students. Because of their reputations and the
information they were provided regarding the study, they exhibited confidence in their teaching
abilities and may have responded to questions with the effectiveness of their teaching in mind,
and the confidence that their instructional decisions have been correct. Further, the instructional
decisions they made throughout the time of the observations may have also been affected by
their own reputations for effectiveness in the same way their interview responses may have been
affected. Finally, the study relied on the credibility of those who nominated the effective teacher
trainers for the study, and the effective teachers, which was based partly on data and mostly on
opinion.
Delimitations
As a qualitative researcher, I was the primary instrument of my study. I constructed the
interview protocols based on my conceptual framework. I conducted observations during which
I took field notes. As a classroom teacher, and a teacher for the Bridge Program, my personal
interests and biases may have influenced the way I collected and analyzed the data. In an effort
to conduct conversational interviews, I may have left questions out of the protocol, or have
added questions in order to obtain more elaborative answers. Further, as I was the sole
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 96
researcher on this study, there is also a possibility that I was not able to capture all the data that
was available during interviews and observations. During classroom observations, the students’
movements and activities, as well as the interactions between the teacher and the students, and
among students were more than I was able to capture. There were many instances of group
conversations during which I was only able to listen to one at a time. At times, the teachers
would have quiet discussions with individual students during which I did not capture data.
During classroom observations, although I moved around to hear various conversations, I was
only able to capture those I was closest to.
Throughout the study, I examined the interactions between teachers and their students
from historically marginalized backgrounds. The teachers were White and the students were
predominantly Latino. Although they were identified as such, the terms “White” and “Latino” as
used to describe the race of participants of the study and the students, are dynamic and
intersectional. Both terms are complex in that they may incorporate multiple races, ethnicities,
and socioeconomic statuses within each other. For the purpose of the study, I described the
teachers as White in accordance with how they identified their own racial backgrounds.
Although the students were identified as predominantly Latino, some of them may identify
themselves differently according to their respective backgrounds.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Because I was the primary instrument data collection and analysis, interpretations of the
data may have been limited to my perspective, hence the issues of credibility and
trustworthiness. In order to address the issues of credibility, I employed triangulation by
comparing multiple methods of data collection, which were interviews, observations, and
documents (Merriam, 2009). Interviews were my primary method in examining the connections
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 97
between teacher ideologies and their use of asset pedagogies that value and sustain students’
culture. Observations allowed me to examine how asset pedagogies and cultivated FoK were
enacted in practice. The second interviews allowed me to ask specific questions about
instructional decisions that I witnessed during my observations, as well as about the interactions
between students, and students and teachers. Documents and artifacts enabled me to see how
FoK was cultivated and made relevant to the students’ lives, and also how they were reflected
within each teacher’s pedagogy. Thus triangulation provided me with three measurement points
that allowed me to converge on meaning (Merriam, 2009).
Related to the integrity of my study is the notion of reflexivity (Merriam, 2009). As a
teacher in the Bridge Program, I have a personal investment in the effectiveness of teachers who
also work in it with the populations of students it serves. I was acutely aware of these biases and
addressed them throughout the study. I employed reflexivity and continually and critically
reflected on myself as the researcher through analytic memos and reflective questions that
checked my biases after every interview and observation, and throughout data analysis. I wrote
about my personal reactions to the responses I obtained throughout the formal interviews. I
reflected upon my perceived sincerity of the responses for each participant. I also wrote about
the interactions I saw during classroom observations. I reflected on the differences between my
classroom practices and those of the teachers I was studying, the instructional decisions I agreed
or disagreed with, different reactions I would have to certain interactions with students, questions
for my own practice, and classroom management strategies I would employ in certain situations.
Throughout analysis, I reflected upon whether or not the data from my subjects exemplified the
concepts within my conceptual framework, and whether or not those concepts were exhibited in
their practice.
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 98
Although member checks, or respondent validation (Merriam, 2009) was a suggested
strategy for credibility, I chose not to use member checks as a way to maintain the authenticity of
the participants’ interview responses. Because my interview protocol include questions about
their ideology, it was important to capture their instinctive responses to many of the questions.
Given an opportunity to revise their responses may undermine the candidness of their responses
and may result in a false representation of their ideologies. In terms of classroom observation
data, I used informal interviews during which I asked short, clarifying questions as needed and
noted responses in my field notes. I then used the second formal interview to address any other
questions or necessary clarifications I still had from the first interview, or from classroom
observations.
Because of my personal investment in the Bridge Program, I have a responsibility to
report the data and the findings truthfully. Any deviation from the truth would not only
undermine the integrity of the study, it would also undermine the potential for the study to affirm
the positive affects of the teachers and the program. It would also undermine any potential for
the study to highlight the shortcomings that need to be addressed in order for Bridge to maintain
its purpose of educating and equipping students from historically marginalized backgrounds for
college and service to their community.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to examine the characteristics of the instruction of highly
effective teachers with historically marginalized students. Two highly reputable teachers from
the Bridge Program served as the units of my multi-case and multi-site study. I collected data
through semi-structured formal interviews with both teachers and classroom observations of
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 99
practice. I also collected additional data in the form of documents and artifacts from the
classrooms. My data analysis was informed and guided by my conceptual framework.

TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 100
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
The purpose of this dissertation was to examine the intersection of beliefs and practices
of teachers of historically marginalized students through their curriculum decisions and use,
instructional practices, and the interactions between the teachers and their historically
marginalized students. The first three chapters of this dissertation discussed the problems that
arise when teachers fail to leverage the knowledge and lives of students from historically
marginalized backgrounds, the research question that served as the basis for this study, a review
of the literature on teacher ideology, asset pedagogies, and funds of knowledge, and the methods
for data collection for this study. The data collected from this study answered the research
question: How does the instruction of reputably effective high school teachers of historically
marginalized students reflect the intersection of their beliefs and their practices? This chapter
contains the findings of the study.
This study was informed by a Conceptual Framework that explained how a teacher’s
asset ideologies, asset pedagogies, and utilization of her students’ funds of knowledge all interact
fluidly within a teacher’s classroom practice with historically marginalized students. The
enactment of the framework is what defines a highly effective teacher of historically
marginalized students. The highly effective teacher is someone who continually examines her
beliefs in order to confront her conscious and subconscious mindsets that could potentially
interfere with her ability to foster meaningful learning opportunities for her students.
Additionally, she employs asset beliefs to enact asset pedagogies while drawing on and using
students’ funds of knowledge to best serve historically marginalized students.
For this dissertation, I conducted a qualitative study using a multi-site, comparative case
study of two high school 10
th
grade English teachers who were also a part of the Bridge Program.
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 101
For each case, I conducted two in-person teacher interviews, five classroom observations, and a
review of documents such as handouts. I will describe each of the communities in which the
schools were located. I will then present the findings and analysis of each case. To maintain
confidentiality, all names of teachers, schools, and students have been replaced with
pseudonyms. This chapter will conclude with a cross-case analysis between the two case studies.
Case Study #1: Rachel Jones, Bond High School
Rachel Jones was a high-school English teacher at Bond High School. Bond High was
located in Bond, California, a large city of nearly 350,000 people (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010).
Bond was located in Southern California and Bond High was located centrally within the city,
near a major freeway, and surrounded by a variety of shops, both of the local and chain nature.
The racial breakdown of Bond, California was: 53% Hispanic or Latino, 53% White, 15%
Asian, 4% two or more races, and 3% Black or African American. The median household
income of Bond residents was approximately $60,000 and approximately 17% of the population
lived in poverty (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010).
Bond High School was a public high school that opened in 1980. There were 160
teachers on staff along with 6 counselors, 4 assistant principals, and a principal to serve nearly
3,200 students in grades 9-12. The racial breakdown of the student population at Bond High
was: 94% Hispanic or Latino, 3% White, 1% Asian, 1% Filipino, 0.5% Black or African
American, and 0.4% two or more races (California Department of Education, 2016). Bond High
was a Title I school where 92% of the student population qualified for free or reduced lunch and
27% of the students were English learners. The racial breakdown of the teaching staff at Bond
High was: 61% White, 25% Hispanic or Latino, 9% Asian, 2% Black or African American, 2%
none reported, and 1% Filipino. The average years of experience teachers had at Bond High was
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 102
13 years. The average pupil to teacher ratio was 24 to 1 (California Department of Education,
2016). Bond High School was a large campus with two different 2-story buildings, and a
numerous other 1-story clusters of classrooms. The main building sat on the south side of
campus and housed the administrative offices and was also connected to the auditorium. Behind
the main building was a quad that led to the cafeteria area. There were three smaller buildings
north of the cafeteria area, and five to the west of it. On the western most edge of campus sat
another 2-story building. On the northwest corner and north sides of campus were vast athletic
fields. Bond High School utilized a traditional six period bell schedule with 55-minute classes.
Tuesdays were late-starts where each class was only 48 minutes long and the morning was
allotted for faculty professional development. Bond High School also utilized two separate
lunch periods in order to accommodate the large student population.
Rachel Jones had spent the entirety of her 15-year teaching career at Bond High School.
She began working at Bond as an intern while working on her teaching credential at a nearby
university. Because of that, she never formally completed student-teaching as she was a part of a
professional development program that allowed prospective teachers to enter classrooms as paid
interns. While searching for a teaching job for a friend, she came across the opening for an
English and theater teacher at Bond High. She was drawn to the assignment as she grew up in
the city of Bond, and with the encouragement of her friend, she took the position. As Bond was
also a Title I school, she was drawn to the student loan forgiveness benefits she would receive
from teaching at a low performing, low income school. After two years of working at Bond, her
department chair and mentor approached her about becoming a teacher for the Bridge Program.
When she was asked about taking on the extra responsibility, she said Bridge “seemed like it was
the exact reason why I wanted to teach, to help the students improve the college going culture
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 103
rate, to empower them like the [former] teacher had done for me, to see things in themselves that
they didn’t know they possessed; talents, skills, ambitions, and literacy.”
Rachel remembered struggling in middle and high school as she was constantly in trouble
for being vocal. She realized later that the disconnect she felt from academics stemmed from her
inability to talk about her learning. Her reasons for coming to school were theater and
extracurricular activities. As a student, she remembered thriving in situations where she was
able to use her hands and talk about her learning. She recalled teachers who were strict and held
high expectations of her. She also connected well with her theater arts teacher who was also
theater professional also working in the classrooms.
[She] would bring in the career tech education and how it applied to the outside world.
She gave me the broader more global view of what my learning was for, what the
purpose was for. Once I understood the purpose I could understand why I was learning
what I was learning and I was more engaged.
That same teacher also provided a place in which Rachel felt she belonged, despite having
parents who were separated for years. This was important to Rachel because her circumstances
outside of school affected her motivation in school. She stated that her drama teacher saw things
in her and inspired her to be something she did not think existed at the time. This allowed her to
look forward to coming to school. Another teacher who took a journalistic approach to literature
was also a memorable one for her. She appreciated being able to voice her opinions through
editorials and realize how she connected to the world. Although she knew from a young age that
she wanted to be a drama teacher, her negative experiences in high school deterred her from
considering becoming an educator. It was not until she met with a community college counselor
that she was encouraged to think about a career in education.
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 104
Mrs. Jones’s room was located on the second floor of the main building, directly across
from the balcony entrance to the auditorium. Her room was rather long to accommodate a small
theater space. Because she also taught drama, she had a small stage at the west side of her
classroom. The curtains on the stage were down and at the time of the observations, the stage
area was being used for storage. On the south side of her classroom were the windows that faced
the front of the school. Beneath those windows were two long couches that ran the length of
about half the width of the room. The windows were covered with student-made posters of
various books. Many of them were of Rain of Gold, a required text within the Bridge
curriculum. The rest of the south wall was covered with bookshelves, storage units, and fold up
tables. On the east end of the room were more bookshelves that were built into the wall. These
housed textbooks, workbooks, vocabulary books, and other class materials. The north wall of
the classroom was what was considered the front of the room. The board extended across the
front of the room, spanning the area between the two classroom doors at each end. The teacher’s
desk was at the front of the room, to the left of the board. On the right side of the board, there
was a laminated poster of sentence starters, the date, and a quote of the day that a student
changed daily. At the time of the observations, the classroom was decorated with colorful and
festive lights, cardboard cut outs of candy canes, garlands, and red stockings to observe the
holidays.
The 10th grade Bridge English class was during second period. This was a class of 34
students; 19 females and 15 males. All students were Latino except for one male, who was
Chinese. The students were seated at various combined tables. Each table had between 5-7
students each, and a combination of males and females. One table in the back had four males
and one female. The seating assignments at the time of the observations were self-selected. The
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 105
nature of the classroom furniture was such that they were to be moved around and configured
into different shapes to accommodate different sized groups. Mrs. Jones varied the
configurations depending on the activities of the class.
After an intensive case study of Rachel Jones’ beliefs and practices, the data shows that
while she held an expressed asset ideology about her students, she was not able to transfer that
same belief system into her instruction, creating an environment in her classroom that was
academically rigorous, but lacking in the cultural relevance that would have allowed her students
to make meaningful bridges between her classroom and their home lives. She was a White
woman whose instruction was greatly influenced by her own experiences in school and by her
expertise in English Language Arts. She held a strong stated belief in the capability of her
students from marginalized backgrounds, but her practice limited the extent to which they could
broaden and expand their own thinking. She exhibited asset ideology in that she believed in her
students’ capabilities, recognized them as individuals, deeply cared for them as people, and
encouraged them to give back to their community. Mrs. Jones designed challenging and
collaborative learning experiences that allowed her students to make connections to their home
lives, and used those connections as a basis for academic growth. She spoke of moments in
which she helped her students navigate certain aspects of mainstream culture, which is consistent
with being a “cultural broker” (Bartolomé, 2004). Mrs. Jones also attempted to make
connections to the students’ Funds of Knowledge (FoK) (Moll et al., 1992), but fell short of
making successful bridges between their academic and home knowledge. Her teaching resided
mainly in the academic space, with shallow attempts at making connections to FoK.
Pedagogically, Mrs. Jones desired to prepare her students for college. Consistent with Ladson-
Billings’ (1995, 2014) concept of sociopolitical consciousness, Mrs. Jones attempted to
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 106
recognize the injustices present in her students’ communities. Her practice was also consistent
with culturally responsive teaching, as explained by Gay (2002) in recognizing the challenges
that faced her students outside of her classroom. Unfortunately, Mrs. Jones failed to use her
sociopolitical consciousness and cultural responsiveness as a means to equip her students with
the necessary skills that will allow them to confront the societal injustices and inequities in their
community.
In this section, I will first discuss Mrs. Jones’s ideology as it aligned to asset ideology,
and also as it moved into Milner’s idea of color-blindness (2010). I will then discuss how Mrs.
Jones attempted to tap into her students’ FoK, and how she was only partly successful in doing
so. Finally, I will discuss her pedagogy and how her stated beliefs aligned with Ladson-Billings’
cultural responsive pedagogy (CRP) (1995, 2014) and Gay’s cultural responsiveness (2002),
while her enacted beliefs only touch upon their surfaces and fell short of her intended purposes.
Ideology
Many aspects of Rachel Jones’s ideology were influenced by her own experiences in
school. As the literature on ideologies suggested, teachers’ ideologies are indeed shaped by their
past and their environments, which then influence their approach to teaching their students
(Bartolomé, 2004). Through data mined from interviews, it was evident that Mrs. Jones’s
practice was heavily influenced by her own educational history. She stated, “I realized I needed
to talk about my learning, and I was not allowed talk about my learning.” In turn, Rachel made
sure that her students were not deprived of the same experience. She recognized the value of the
teachers who showed her how her learning connected to the outside world. She appreciated the
teachers who knew her on a personal level, and emulated them. She was grateful for the teachers
who held high standards as she recognized that it was necessary in order for students to achieve
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 107
their own goals. Hence, her classroom was a social environment where students were able to
share and talk about their learning. It was an environment in which conversations held value,
and collaboration was a means through which meaning was made. On the other hand, although
her educational history provided her with the means to develop the approaches to teaching her
kids, it did not prepare her to understand their specific needs. Although Mrs. Jones demonstrated
care and a deep knowledge about her students, she was not properly equipped with the means to
deliver meaningful, culturally contextualized instruction to them.
As a student, Mrs. Jones thrived under the tutelage of a teacher who knew her personally
and held her to high expectations. Thus, Mrs. Jones believed in holding her students to high
standards, as she perceived them to be all highly capable and college bound. She believed in the
value of getting to know her students on a personal level, and she exhibited that knowledge
through her interviews and descriptions of her students. Her classroom was intended to be a
welcoming environment where students felt comfortable, and served as a place for them to seek
refuge. Mrs. Jones’s knowledge of her students came from their writing, class discussions, and
also personal conversations she had with them when they happened to seek her support one-on-
one. She prided herself on the relationships she built with her students through her personal
approach to teaching them.
I think that people are important and so I tell my students that I don’t teach a subject, I
teach people. And that they’re all different so they have different needs and that they’re
welcome to come to me at any time and they do.
Mrs. Jones’s recognition of her students as individuals showed evidence of her asset ideology.
She acknowledged that as individuals, the students faced different challenges and were welcome
to go to her for support. Through her relationships with her students, Mrs. Jones learned of the
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 108
challenges that faced them outside of school. She recognized that many of her students had
parents who did not finish high school and worked multiple jobs to provide for the household.
Some also had families where only one parent worked and the family survived on a single source
of income; so many of her students worked in order to supplement the household income.
Despite those challenges, many of her students were also Advanced Placement (AP) students
who dreamed of attending college. To Mrs. Jones, her job was to help them achieve that goal
with her guidance and support. She said,
When I was told about Bridge, it seemed like it was the exact reason why I wanted to
teach, to help students improve the college going culture rate, to empower them like the
teacher had done for me, to see things in themselves that they didn’t know they
possessed; talents, skills, ambition, literacy.
The influence of her educational history was evident in how she saw her role in her students’
lives. As her past teachers had done for her, she also wanted to be the teacher that recognized
the assets that her students held.
Mrs. Jones encouraged her students to pursue higher education and reach beyond the
confines of Bond. She facilitated this by acting as what Bartolomé would call a “cultural broker”
(2004). A “cultural broker” is one who helps students navigate school and mainstream cultures
(Bartolomé, 2004). For Mrs. Jones, part of preparing her students for college was showing them
the world outside of Bond. She acknowledged that her students lacked the opportunities to
venture outside of their locale, so when given the opportunities, she capitalized on them in order
to teach her students how to navigate situations outside of their norm.
So I try to give them cultural events, take them on cultural events where they’ll have to
negotiate things they’re not comfortable with. New people, new environments. Plays.
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 109
Eating at restaurants. When we go on our NorCal trip I make sure they know how to tip.
Most of them have never been in a restaurant like that, even if it’s just the Spaghetti
Factory. They don’t know. Many of them have never travelled anywhere outside of
Bond except for Mexico, so when we go to college campuses, when we go to Sageland
State, or when we go to these other places, there’s a whole new world. Their eyes open
up to what’s going on in the world and then they see that there are maybe other places
that they can fit in.
Mrs. Jones felt that part of her responsibility to her students was allowing them to see themselves
as part of a larger world outside of Bond. This included negotiating environments such as
restaurants or plays, which were not a large part of her students’ everyday lives. Because many
of her students come from low-income, working families, she recognized that certain skills like
tipping at a restaurant may not be something they have yet learned. Further, it was important for
her to be able to show her students that they belonged on college campuses, as a way for her to
empower them to attain higher education. In being a “cultural broker” for them, she was able to
show her students that they were capable of negotiating the world outside of Bond, and that
eventually they would be able to negotiate college. Mrs. Jones’s stated ideology allowed her to
be able to introduce aspects of mainstream culture to her students, and gave them tools in order
to negotiate it as well.
Mrs. Jones’s stated asset ideology and high expectations for her students resulted in
rigorous academic instruction in her classroom. In addition to her classroom being a place of
comfort for her students, she also implemented procedures that enabled her students to focus on
learning and minimize distractions. As part of a college prep curriculum, Mrs. Jones’s students
completed daily activities that strengthened their English and language arts skills in preparation
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 110
for college. Part of this was their daily practice with SAT vocabulary. At the start of every
class, her students began working on SAT vocabulary practice without her prompting. The
following except was taken from my fieldnotes written during an observation:
8:53 Mrs. Jones circulates while students work quietly. She weaves between and around
tables, looking over the students’ shoulders. The tables contain mixed genders. There
are between 6-8 students at each table. Only 1 table, table 5 is predominantly male.
Students are working in SAT vocab cartoon books. They all have the books open and are
copying the word and examples down into their notebooks. Each SAT word was
accompanied by a cartoon and an example sentence.
8:55 Mrs. Jones asks, “What is the cow doing in the picture?” Mitchell answers, “bowing
down.” Mrs. Jones asks, “Who wants to read the definition?” A female student, Arianna
reads the definition out loud.
Mrs. Jones believed that regular exposure to SAT words strengthened her students’ skills in
order to perform well on the test, which was integral into gaining acceptance into college. She
required the students to keep a notebook of their daily SAT practice. For every word of the day,
Mrs. Jones not only required the students to record the definition, the students also had time to
discuss the word with their peers and then create their own original sentences. They then shared
their sentences, and ideally, their understanding with the class. Mrs. Jones believed that the daily
interactions with the SAT words, along with the examples she provided, and the notebook that
the students continually added to, would strengthen their vocabulary and result in higher scores
on the verbal section of the SAT.
In addition to SAT vocabulary practice, Mrs. Jones’s students were also held to high
standards and rigor with their writing. She believed that preparing her students for college also
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 111
meant she had to prepare them to be able to write proficiently. She prepared them by equipping
them with the necessary tools in order to write well.
On the Bridge rubric, there’s an area in the portfolio called craft… creating style in
writing. This is part of that. It’s called a tool. Will I use a wrench to put up a picture on
my wall? NO… you need the right tool so when you go to college, you have these
tools…
Within her practice, Mrs. Jones often made references to college preparation, particularly with
writing. Here, she reiterated to her students that mastering style in writing was aligned with
college readiness. Within the writing rubrics for the Bridge program, which is also college
preparatory, craft was one of the elements of writing that students must demonstrate to show
evidence of proficiency. Hence, within her own practice, helping her students master craft in
writing, Mrs. Jones believed she was preparing them for college writing.
Because of the influence of her former teachers, writing in Mrs. Jones’s classroom was
also a collaborative process between her and her students. As Mrs. Jones felt the need to
vocalize her learning, she provided those opportunities to her students. While the students
completed their writing assignments on their own, they had constant opportunities to collaborate
with each other through the writing process. Mrs. Jones believed that collaboration translated to
learning as she felt that was how she learned best. For example, at the beginning of one exercise
she said,
9:00 I asked you yesterday to come up with questions for your final. Any question is
valued and respected because someone might have the same question and we can answer
it and some may be too reserved to ask the question. So at each group, I want you to talk
about how your final is going. Talk to your group. I’m not the only brain in the room…
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 112
So you all have a brain and you’re going to use it. Each student will pose a question to
their groups and they will all come up with a solution. We will start with the person
wearing red. Raise your hand if you’re the person starting. Go clockwise. 5 minutes,
begin.
Through the revision process, the students composed their own questions about their work,
which they then presented to their groups as part of their discussion. Through that discussion,
the students were able to help each other solve issues that arose in each other’s writing. Mrs.
Jones encouraged participation and equitability by stating that all questions were valid,
regardless of how simple they might have been. She wanted the students’ conversations to be
inclusive and productive. Further, the rigor in the lesson was apparent in how the students were
required to problematize their own writing, in order to improve upon it. That required the
students to take a critical eye to their own work, and then solve their own problem, with the help
of their group members. This includes generating their own questions regarding their own
writing and then posing them to the group. Questions included but were not limited to the use of
figurative language, incorporating Spanish into their writing, the use of circular plot, and
maintaining a controlling impression. Through this lesson, Mrs. Jones demonstrated asset
ideology in recognizing the value of the students’ work and participation, regardless of how
simple their responses might have been. She validated their concerns. She stated her belief in
their ability to produce quality writing and in their capabilities to take a critical eye to their own
work in order to improve upon it. She encouraged a collaborative environment in her classroom.
She required her students to hold each other accountable to high standards. She also maintained
high standards for all of her students in challenging them to be critical of their own work..
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 113
Although Mrs. Jones exhibited asset ideologies through her enactment of a rigorous,
college preparatory curriculum, some of her instructional decisions may be understood as
evidence of what Milner (2010) considered a context neutral mindset. Much of Mrs. Jones’s
instruction was missing the connection to the contextual factors that would allow her students to
see how social contexts shaped their learning. Hence, she was not able to address their needs in
building a thorough understanding of the SAT vocabulary words. Unfortunately, as Mrs. Jones
believed her instruction around SAT words and writing were meaningful based on the
collaborative nature of the activities, it lacked the necessary cultural scaffolding to make it truly
meaningful to her students. As a result, the students’ learning remained in a strictly academic
space, void of contextualization to their lives. This led to their disengagement through many of
the vocabulary activities.
8:51 The bell rings.
T: Good morning
Students respond from random tables. There is quiet chatter at tables.
T: If you don’t get to work, you are going to COWER at the way I talk to you. And
if you’re not doing your vocab, you won’t know what I said. Anybody know
what cower means?
Some students murmur their answer.
T: Anybody know what the word family is?
Bobby: (Quietly, from the back table) Coward.
T: What part of speech is cower?
A few students scattered throughout the room murmur “verb.”
9:03
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 114
T: Now who’s going to do sentence number 1?
Belle reads a sentence out loud about Bill Hickok from the book.
T: Thank you. Now who wants to do sentence number 2?
Nicholas reads. The rest of the class is still writing in their notebooks…
9:05
T: Now look at the sentence again, how many of you cower at the thought of
your homework? Turn to your shoulder partner. Come up with an original
sentence, using cower as a verb.
T continues to circulate.
9:08
T: Let’s share our sentences. Who wants to share a sentence?
Arianna: Garcia cowered away when Kate tried kissing him.
Students laugh, some say, “Ooooo.”
T: (Smiling) Ok, so he was scared?
More laughter.
T: (Standing between tables 2 and 3) Who has another?... Anyone?... Everyone has
one.
Students are still conversing with partners. Pamela and Jade are giggling at each
other. No one responds. Ms. Jones scans the room.
T: I’m coming your way…
Throughout the almost 20 minutes of the span of the activity, only a handful of the students
participated in the discussion. Although the students were on task, writing in their notebooks
and generating original sentences as part of the assignment, there was no contextualization of the
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 115
word “cower.” Mrs. Jones used the word in a sentence as the students got started on the activity,
and then the examples were read aloud from the book by a couple of volunteers, but because
there was not a contextual and relatable example that was provided, the students remained silent
and did not volunteer to share original sentences. One student did share her sentence, which
actually contextualized the word within the relationships and dynamics of the classroom as
evident from the response of the class and Mrs. Jones. Unfortunately, Mrs. Jones failed to
capitalize on this example to provide scaffolding for the students who did not fully understand
how to contextualize the word on their own. She did not explain the humor behind the example
or why it was humorous in the first place. She did not attend to the fact that there was a
possibility that there were students who needed additional scaffolding, as they were not able to
write their own original sentences at that point. As a result, many of the students chose not to
share examples, and Mrs. Jones had to scan the room, amidst signs of disengagement-silence,
blank stares, and side conversations, for another example of an original sentence.
Mrs. Jones’s writing instruction also demonstrated her context neutral mindset. Although
rigorous in the way that students were required to think critically about their own writing, it
lacked the contextualization and even follow through that would deem it meaningful to all of her
students. Even though the students were able to collaborate in problematizing and then problem-
solving their writing, Mrs. Jones did not capitalize on those opportunities for the students to
grow academically. For example, during one of the collaborative activities, the students were
able to share their writing questions and concerns with the class in order to get input from each
other on how to revise their writing to meet Mrs. Jones’s high standards. The students had
already shared their questions within their small groups, and then were given an opportunity to
present their questions to the class in a larger discussion.
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 116
T: Close your sentences. Finalize your thoughts… So let’s talk about it. What did
you learn? Let’s share. Table 4?
Kate: How do I make my controlling impression flow through my body paragraphs?
T: How many of you think that may be a valuable question? Did anyone have an
answer or a thought or a thinking question?
Oscar: Relate it back through the experience with that person you’re thinking about?
T: So I’m hearing comparison and significance. (Writes on the board). Let’s go to
voice and see what stylistic device will carry into the paper, woven like fabric?
Anyone have an idea?
David: Figurative language?
T: Yes, David!
Here, the students were clearly engaging in rigorous thinking. Kate asked a question about
controlling impression, which is a complex writing skill. The students were thinking about their
writing and were attempting to help each other become stronger writers. Kate posed her question
out loud to the class, beyond the feedback she had already received from her small group. Mrs.
Jones reiterated her question to further encourage rigorous thinking, and asked the students to
engage their brains (How many of you think that may be a valuable question? Did anyone have
an answer or a thought or a thinking question?). Oscar, who sat across the room, responded by
relating Kate’s own statement back to her, framing it as a question while at the same time
providing his own insight. In posing his thought as a question, he also added to the rigor of the
conversation as his question encouraged thought, as opposed to a statement, which would have
provided an answer. His question encouraged Kate to think more about the stylistic move as it
presented her with a choice, as opposed to a definitive statement. Posed as a question, she can
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 117
choose to use his suggestion, or not. As a statement, she would not have to consider whether it is
the correct move. Kate was forced to think about making the best choice with regards to relating
her controlling impression and connecting it to the person that she wrote about. Mrs. Jones, on
the other hand, heard the question, and instead of providing the scaffold and supporting it
through further questioning, providing examples, or adding another suggestion, she quickly
summarized it into a simple and general statement (comparison and significance), and then
moved on to another idea. Kate and Oscar presented her with an opportunity to contextualize an
example, not just for Kate but also for the entire class, and instead she chose to generalize it and
move forward. Mrs. Jones missed the opportunity to provide the necessary support to bridge
Kate’s knowledge, and also deepen the students’ thinking about controlling impression. Hence,
Kate did not receive a clear answer regarding her controlling impression, and Oscar’s response to
Kate was neither validated nor explored. Despite their higher order, critical thinking and
collaboration, the students still failed to receive the scaffolding they needed in order to make
their learning meaningful. Mrs. Jones was unable to provide the cultural connections that would
have contextualized the students’ learning. Without the use of examples that the students can
personally connect to, their learning remained in an abstract, academic space with no connection
to their lives. Cultural responsive teaching calls for the use of the characteristics, perspectives,
and experiences of ethically diverse students as conduits for more effective teaching (Gay,
2002). Had Mrs. Jones demonstrated culturally responsive teaching within this experience, her
students would have benefited from curricula that connected to them personally and better served
their needs.
The disconnect between Mrs. Jones’s stated asset ideology and her practice stemmed
from her inability to recognize her students’ need for the cultural scaffolding to make meaningful
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 118
learning that valued culture and encouraged students to seek better futures for themselves. She
acknowledged her students as individuals, recognized their struggles, viewed them as assets,
required critical thinking, and held them to high standards, but she failed to make the
connections between their academic and home lives. The learning experiences within her
classroom were not reflective of the students’ realities. As a result, Mrs. Jones’s rigorous
instruction remained strictly academic. The lack of application of the students’ learning into
their personal lives makes it difficult for the students to appreciate and retain the concepts Mrs.
Jones wanted them to learn. Although she believed in her students’ capabilities, her own
disconnect from their realities negated her ability to equip them to reflect upon it. Her
educational history influenced her to be understanding and asset oriented, but as a White woman
who grew up in a predominantly White neighborhood, she was always culturally aligned with
her education. Mrs. Jones’s teachers were not required to provide the cultural scaffolding
necessary for her to connect to her education in the same way she was required to for her own
students. Hence, that aspect of her practice remained underdeveloped. With her own students,
Mrs. Jones exhibited a context neutral mindset where she failed to recognize the reality of the
community in which her students resided. Therefore, she could not provide her students the
contextualization of her instruction that would allow them to make connections to their realities.
Mrs. Jones’s unfamiliarity with the realities of her students and her inability to address its
problematic aspects has the potential to be harmful as she perpetuated their marginalization by
teaching them according to the dominant ideology.
Funds of Knowledge
Mrs. Jones believed in getting to know her students as people. This was in part due to the
influence of her past teachers who took time to know her and engage her in school. She knew a
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 119
great deal about their backgrounds and their families from conversations she had with them, and
from what they included in their writing. She also offered her moral support to her students. In
turn, they trusted her with personal information, hence her deep personal knowledge of their
backgrounds. With that knowledge, Mrs. Jones had the capability to make her students’ learning
meaningful by connecting to their Funds of Knowledge (FoK). Moll et al. (1992) argued that
historically marginalized youth entered the classroom equipped with historically developed and
accumulated strategies that have allowed their families to survive and thrive. According to Moll
et al. (1992), teachers who used their students Funds of Knowledge were better able to make
connections between their students’ learning and their backgrounds. They were able to capitalize
on the historically accumulated strategies to make meaning of academic content to arrive at a
deeper level of understanding. The extent to which Mrs. Jones connected to her students’ FoK
was through her beliefs. Mrs. Jones’s stated belief was that it was important for her students to
know and understand their own culture.
Helping students understand why telling stories is important in our society, community,
and school. Showing that their schema is actually important and valid. And that’s part of
learning… I think that students become disconnected from subjects. They don’t see the
relevance. They think that their backgrounds are insignificant. I want them to
understand that their culture plays a big part in making you who you are, as well as other
things but the struggles and the challenges and the obstacles that most of my kids’
families have gone through gives them backbone. Gives them the ability to be advocates
for their children and for their culture and for future generations.
As stated, Mrs. Jones intended to use her knowledge of her students’ cultures and backgrounds in
ways that aligned with Moll et al.’s concept of FoK. Her students’ families and their struggles
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 120
had allowed them to develop the strategies that gave them the “backbone” to survive and thrive
in Bond. Mrs. Jones intended to teach her students how to be advocates for themselves, through
their understanding of their own culture and background. She did not express intent to use her
knowledge of their culture and background to enrich their learning, only in empowering them to
seek social justice. In helping the students to realize the relevance of their culture, Mrs. Jones
believed that she would also empower them to be advocates through their personal struggles.
Unfortunately, even with Mrs. Jones’s great knowledge of her students’ backgrounds and
her intent to use their FoK to allow them to see their relevance to the world, she did not
adequately use her knowledge to connect the curriculum to her students’ backgrounds. She
limited her use of FoK for social justice purposes. When she did make connections to their
learning, they were rather shallow, and only connected superficially. For example, one such
assignment that Mrs. Jones assigned to her students revolved around a person who inspired them,
someone that they could interview and from whom they could learn. The intention behind this
assignment was to not only fulfill academic standards, but also for the students to make
connections between academics and their personal lives. Mrs. Jones intended for her students to
learn about a person who could potentially influence them to become a better person. She said to
them,
Think of role models in your life. Someone who inspires you. And I’m going to ask you
to try to make it somebody that you have a lifetime experience with. A year isn’t going
to cut it. Role models have had life experiences. Some people your age have gone
through lots of obstacles, but unless they’ve had a lifetime of experiences, that’s not
enough.
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 121
Upon brainstorming, the students were required to choose a subject who could speak to a lifetime
of experiences. Mrs. Jones intended for her students to learn from their subjects, so they were
required to choose someone who was not just their peer. In this way, there was potential for her
students to cultivate another person’s FoK and perhaps add to theirs. Per Mrs. Jones’s stated
beliefs, this assignment aligned with her intent for her students to learn about and appreciate their
culture. As the students progressed through the assignment, the focus turned more toward the
academic piece of the requirement. The personal meaning and value of the assignment was set
aside in order to focus on the components of the writing that addressed standards. When asked
about the assignment during an interview, Mrs. Jones provided the following explanation for its
purpose,
Some of them were immigration stories. Some of them were childhood upbringing
stories. Some of them were persistence or determination stories. Some of them were
overcoming challenges and obstacles. How the spear of influence then inspired their own
story. Their own lives. What did it teach them? And then using the writer to then teach
the reader through the story about the controlling impression. The person of inspiration
taught the writer, and then the writer teaches the significance to the reader.
As the students neared the end of the assignment, the focus on the significance of the subject was
lost to the writing skills that the students were required to address. Although there was much to
learn and FoK to acquire from the students’ interactions with their subjects, including the
valuable strategies that have allowed the subjects to survive and thrive, there was no further
discussion of those lessons. When the students moved into the revision phase of the assignment,
there was no follow up as to the lessons they did learn from the subjects. They went from
composing the paper and reflecting on the life experiences of their subject, to finding the
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 122
controlling impression of their writing, and the inclusion of figurative language. The lesson
series was made apparent through the series of classroom observations and follow up informal
interviews.
Although Mrs. Jones’s stated beliefs align with that of the cultivation and use of FoK, her
practice indicated that there remained a disconnect between her intentions and her enactment.
The data from her interviews indicated her expressed desires to use her students’ FoK in order to
empower them to see their significance in the world, but the data from her observations indicated
that her practice fell short on creating the bridges from her students’ FoK to their academic
learning. In her classroom, FoK and instruction were two separate ideas, which sometimes
touched upon each other, but not enough to create deeply meaningful learning experiences for
her Latino students. Mrs. Jones’s educational history included the influence of teachers who
capitalized on her interests in theater arts, and thus engaged her in that way, but in attempting to
recreate the same conditions with her Latino students, Mrs. Jones fell short because of the
cultural disconnect between her cultural background and theirs. She failed to exhibit culturally
responsive teaching, including the knowledge and utilization of her students’ culture. Without
the necessary understanding of her students’ cultural contexts, Ms. Jones fell short of making
important connections between her students’ home and academic lives.
Asset Pedagogies
Mrs. Jones recognized many of the societal challenges that faced her students. She spoke
of their financial struggles, home responsibilities, and inability to realize their identities and
places in society. Despite their challenges, she believed in their capacities to overcome
adversities through the diligence and tenacity they displayed in their schoolwork and school
related endeavors. Mrs. Jones believed that it was her job to teach her students how to navigate
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 123
their challenges. In her attempt to do so, she provided a welcoming atmosphere in her classroom
where she wanted her students to feel comfortable. She provided support through various
resources, whether through her personal support or through other school resources.
Instructionally, she exhibited decisions that aligned with what Gay would consider a culturally
responsive teacher (2002) as she tried to recognize and incorporate various aspects of Latino
culture within her pedagogy.
Mrs. Jones believed that her students’ cultural identities contributed to their societal
struggles. Amidst the challenges that they faced with economics and household responsibilities,
their cultural identification as Mexican-Americans had placed them in a precarious place within
society.
My students have so many challenges... Finding a place in this society where they feel
they belong. Many of them are what I call “hyphen kids.” They’re Mexican-American
kids so that hyphen in the middle of Mexican-American they struggle with. How do I be
a college student in my Mexican culture? How do I fit in? How do I be Mexican in the
American culture and fit in on a college campus? So I kind of think of them as the
hyphen kids. They’re caught in the middle. And there are so many situations where they
just don’t know how to negotiate it. Whether it’s taking a stand for their own beliefs and
how to present that in a way where it’s heard and responded to.
Mrs. Jones felt that her students struggled with negotiating a culture that for them was yet to be
defined. As Mexican-Americans trying to fit into society, she believed that her students
struggled to find their niche, particularly when it came to a college campus. This cultural
struggle was something that Mrs. Jones felt she had to mitigate. As her goal was to prepare her
students for college, she felt that she must also prepare them to negotiate the dominant American
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 124
culture that they would face there, while continuing to recognize their Mexican culture. That
included how to conduct themselves in a way they may be heard when they stood up for their
own beliefs. This suggested that Mrs. Jones’s view of her students attending college went
beyond their negotiations of academics, but also their negotiations within sociocultural contexts.
Mrs. Jones’s expressed beliefs showed that she not only wanted to equip her students
academically, but also socio-politically. She wanted them to be able to not only fit in, but also
have a voice. Mrs. Jones felt that as Mexican-Americans, her students should be able to not only
fit in, but also thrive in society. Pedagogically, her beliefs aligned with cultural responsiveness
in the way that she valued her students’ backgrounds, tried to create relevance in her teaching,
and promoted academic success (Gay, 2002).
One way that Mrs. Jones helped her students navigate their challenges and prepare for
college was by creating a classroom climate of caring built on authentic relationships. This was
further evidence of her alignment with culturally responsive teaching (Gay, 2002). Mrs. Jones
expressed her desire to know all of her students and develop relationships with them so that they
felt comfortable in her class.
I think when students don’t talk or are very private; it’s my job to get to know those
students. Some are vocal. Some you can get to know very easily because they’re very
forthright. It’s the ones that are very private that are the ones that I’m responsible for.
I’m responsible to know all my students, not just the ones that are easy to get to know.
And so I think that teachers have to go the extra mile to know their students and to want
to connect with their students and I think that’s a very difficult thing to do when you have
a lot of students but I also think that some teachers look at their jobs as teaching a subject
or content and I don’t.
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 125
Mrs. Jones prided herself on the relationships she built with her students. In her classroom, she
promoted an atmosphere of inclusion so that all of her students felt comfortable. She believed
that comfort would then translate to learning, based on her own past educational experiences.
She was also particularly concerned about her students who were not so forthright in connecting
with her, and felt that those were the ones that needed more of her support. She felt the
importance of recognizing her students as individuals, and teaching them as people, not just
teaching them a subject. She realized that knowing each student required more time and energy
on her part, but it was something that she was willing to do in order to cultivate authentic
relationships with her students. Mrs. Jones’s stated beliefs showed how deeply she cared about
her students and their well-being, not just academically but emotionally. It also showed aspects
of her culturally responsive teaching (Gay, 2002).
Mrs. Jones’s relationships with her students and her approaches to teaching them also
resonated with aspects of Ladson-Billings’ culturally relevant pedagogy (1995, 2014). Mrs.
Jones wanted to build her students’ awareness of the world around them and used academics as a
means through which she tried to bring about that understanding. She believed in their academic
capabilities, held them to high standards, and refused to allow them to fail. One such example of
this was Mrs. Jones’s relationship with her student Billy. Billy was an athlete who, according to
Mrs. Jones, was self-admittedly lazy and not fond of schoolwork. Throughout observations,
Billy was often disengaged and disinterested. He sat slouched in his seat and often looked
around the room, or stared down at his paper. Although there were moments in which he had
flashes of productivity, he often found excuses to become distracted, and at other times he
simply refused to work. Below are typical interactions between Ms. Jones and Billy.
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 126
11/18/15 9:24 T circulates as students write. Everyone except Billy is looking down
and writing. He’s just looking at his paper.
9:25 T approaches and quietly speaks to Billy. She squats down to remind him to do his
work. Their conversation was very low. Billy looks sullen. She walked
away and Billy hung his head.
12/02/15 9:03 Nicholas’ table doesn’t have much of a discussion. Pamela was talking to
Jade. Nicholas is talking to Octavio and Miguel. Billy is not engaged.
9:30 Billy doesn’t engage today.
12/14/15 9:05 Billy starts copying off the board, faces T as she’s talking up front and
pacing.
9:28 Billy sits up, starts tapping his legs and looking around the room. He is facing he
stage so all he can see is his table and the stage. He starts to look at his
computer again.
9:33 Pamela has a small stuffed animal being passed around the table. She gives it to
Bill. She and her neighbor laugh as Billy starts stabbing the dog with his
pencil.
At various moments throughout the course of observations, Mrs. Jones would attempt to redirect
Billy back to his work. She would walk by him and have a few words, or she would stand near
him and acknowledge him. At other times, she would just allow him to be unproductive.
Although Billy was not productive himself, he was hardly a distraction to his peers. Most of the
time, they worked around him, and when he engaged with them, they were inclusive.
Unfortunately, he spent most of the time excluding himself by disengaging. As Mrs. Jones’s
expressed beliefs were that all of her students were capable and preparing for college, Billy’s
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 127
case seemed to be a special one that warranted further inquiry. During an interview, Mrs. Jones
was given an opportunity to speak about Billy, her relationship with him, her view of his
capabilities, and his work ethic. Despite having to be redirected and refocused more than other
students, Mrs. Jones did have a positive relationship with Billy. She knew of his proclivity for
laziness, yet still held him to high expectations.
Billy will turn in work on time and it’s not the best, but he’ll go back and he’ll look at it.
Sometimes he revises it, sometimes he doesn’t. But Billy is now working with his mom
and me because I met with him mom about his capacity, which is far greater than his
productivity. And so she is working with him now and Billy did a great job on his book
project and he turned in his work even though it was late. He turned it in. He won’t be
able to revise his narrative, but he did turn it in and get a C on it. So he passed. But he’s
still motivated to come to class. I try to give him as much support and inspiration and
motivation as possible. Sometimes I’ll just go up and put my hand on his back and say,
“You can do it.” I acknowledge when he’s working well. I’ll go up and say; “you’re
doing a good job, keep it up.” Celebrate his victories, “You turned it in! Yay!” It may
not be the best work but “you turned it in, yay!”… One of the things about Billy that you
should know, that we have all kinds of commonalities with my son being an athlete. We
talk about professional football and NFL and he shows me new uniforms or the new
helmets that they came up with or he talks to me about my son or about baseball. He
seems to be connected to me even though he may not be doing the work, he’s still
connected to me. He tells me he likes my class and he likes me. I asked him, “Is the
reason you don’t do the work is because you don’t like this class?” He’s all, “No I like
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 128
this class and I like you. I just don’t like to work.” Plain and simple, he just doesn’t like
to work.
Although Mrs. Jones and Billy were often at odds with each other regarding his productivity,
Mrs. Jones still believed in his academic capacity. She reached out to Billy’s mother, as she
wanted Billy to be able to be productive and successful in her class. She acquired his mother’s
assistance in ensuring his productivity. She recognized his academic capabilities despite his lack
of motivation. Mrs. Jones insisted that Billy complete his work whether or not he wanted to.
Although Billy did not always do his best work, Mrs. Jones still made him complete his
assignments and refused to allow him to fail. She encouraged him despite his lack of motivation.
Additionally, Mrs. Jones and Billy had a positive relationship despite his disengagement. They
shared common interests, which contributed to their bond and kept Billy attending class, despite
of his refusal to do work. Mrs. Jones’s persistence with Billy is evidence of her attempts to align
with what Ladson-Billings called culturally relevant pedagogy (1995, 2014). Mrs. Jones made
extra efforts to try to engage Billy, even reaching out to his mother and engaging him in
conversations around sports and other things that interested him. Mrs. Jones’s determination to
hold Billy to the standards she believed he was capable of working to demonstrated her belief in
his assets. Culturally relevant teachers “cajoled, nagged, pestered, and bribed [their students] to
work at a high intellectual level” (Ladson-Billings, 1995, p. 479). Mrs. Jones attempted to do the
same with Billy, despite his apprehensions. She would not accept his failure, rather she pushed
him to make attempts and do his best.
Although Mrs. Jones’s stated beliefs align with that of culturally responsive (Gay, 2002)
and culturally relevant (Ladson-Billings, 1995, 2014) pedagogies, her practice had yet to fully
align with her beliefs. Through data from interviews and observations, there were discrepancies
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 129
between what and how Mrs. Jones believed she was teaching, and what actually occurred in her
classroom. Mrs. Jones was aware of her students’ challenges as Mexican-Americans in their
community, and in preparing for college. She was aware of the importance of recognizing their
cultures. She fostered an atmosphere of inclusion in her classroom so that students may be
comfortable. She also recognized her students as individuals with assets to bring to the
classroom. What was not apparent through the data were the ways in which she encouraged her
students to build cultural capital and to think critically of the world around them. Though she
valued her students’ cultures, she did not contextualize her teaching within them. She did not
encourage her students to develop their sense of sociopolitical consciousness-their awareness of
the social inequities within their own community (Ladson-Billings, 1995, 2014). Though Mrs.
Jones believed she was inciting her students to demonstrate their activism, she was only doing so
in a superficially. The means through which she encouraged her students to be active in their
community was not one that would allow them to fully realize the inequities and injustices they
faced.
One example of this discrepancy could be seen in the “Baskets of Love” project that she
undertook with her students. She encouraged students to participate in the project to have them
become more involved in the community. “Baskets of Love” was a way for students to be able
to help families in need through the holiday season, and also develop a sense of consciousness of
those who were less fortunate than they were. The project required the students to collect items,
such as canned goods, and prepare baskets of complete meals for families who would not
otherwise have the resources for the holidays. She said to them,
Education is not about the knowledge of facts. Are you surprised that I just said that?
It’s about the knowledge of values. That’s what education is about. What do you value?
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 130
I know your hearts. I’ve known you for a while. I know that making a change is
important to you. Raise your hand if you want to make a change! How do we do this?
Get out in the community in the Bridge spirit! I can’t make you do this; it has to come
from your heart. If each one of you does this, we’ll have 34 baskets here for our families
in BHS.
In trying to incite her students to participate in “Baskets of Love,” she attempted to appeal to
them by using the relationships she has established with them. In saying she knew what was in
their hearts, she insinuated that she believed all of them had the empathy and desire to help
others, which should make them want to participate. She also emphasized the importance of
values in education. Although Mrs. Jones felt that this was a way to incite them and get them
involved in the community, a project such as “Baskets of Love,” while kind and charitable, did
nothing in the ways of developing her students’ sociopolitical consciousness. The students
would have been donating to a good cause, but in terms of developing an awareness of social
inequities and injustices that plagued their community, “Baskets of Love” did not provide them
with those opportunities. So while she knew that her students were kind-hearted and had good
values, Mrs. Jones did not sufficiently cultivate critical thinking about the socioeconomic factors
that resulted in the need for a project such as “Baskets of Love” for their own community.
Instead of studying the same societal factors that had placed those families in situations where
they could not afford a holiday meal, Mrs. Jones’s students were merely collecting canned goods
and packaging them for distribution. In terms of culturally relevant pedagogy, the students
would have benefitted more from a project that would have allowed them to contextualize their
learning within the community, and learn to recognize the injustices present in their own
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 131
community, such as the need for “Baskets of Love” in the first place (Ladson-Billings, 1995,
2014).
Mrs. Jones made special efforts to create atmospheres of acceptance and comfort in her
classroom based on her own educational history. Because of the negative experiences she had in
school, she made sure that her own students would not experience the disconnect and exclusion
she felt from her education. Thus, her practice was meant to be engaging and relevant. She said,
I want it to be rigorous but I want it to be fun. So my pedagogy is centered around that
learning can be fun. That doesn’t mean easy, that just means enjoyable. I really believe
in bringing as much of the global perspective to the classroom to widen their perspective
so my class is centered on multiple perspectives. We look at perspectives from around
the world in 10
th
grade. We look at society… It goes back to the whole idea that
learning can be fun in the classroom. So when a student sees that purpose and why
they’re doing what they’re doing and is having fun with learning that there comes an
intellectual curiosity.
Mrs. Jones realized the relevance of her education because of the teachers who made the
connections between her learning and her interests. When she was able to see how her learning
applied to her personal life and her future, it was then that she engaged with her education. She
wanted to recreate that for her students in creating a “fun” atmosphere in her classroom. She
wanted to create relevance in their work by bringing in global perspectives in order to drive their
curiosity about the world. She believed that this was a way to equip her students to be able to
navigate the challenges they faced in society. Mrs. Jones intended to be an educator who aligned
with what Ladson-Billings would deem culturally relevant (1995, 2014). She wanted to create
relevant and meaningful learning experiences for her students and encourage them to think
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 132
critically of the world and their place in it. Unfortunately, although Mrs. Jones wholeheartedly
believed that she was creating fun and relevant learning experiences for her students, evidence
from the data failed to show the connections she believed she was making. Over the course of
multiple observations spanning a month, Mrs. Jones’s instruction hardly showed any of the ways
in which she stated her class was centered on global perspectives. The ways in which her
students were examining the world were through her lenses. In that time period, the only
assignment that resembled an alignment to global perspectives was their “Baskets of Love”
project as described previously. As much as Mrs. Jones believed that she was encouraging her
students to look past themselves, they were only looking past themselves to see her perspectives.
Although there was evidence of collaboration between her and her students, the amount of “fun”
being had in the classroom was subjective. What Mrs. Jones may have considered “fun” may not
be the same as what her students deemed “fun.” Looking at the world and the community
critically, realizing the injustices that plague society, and adapting a global perspective might not
be “fun” for all. Mrs. Jones’s pedagogy of learning as “fun” was not successful in equipping her
students with the necessary skills in order to combat the inequities that faced their community
and society as a whole. Although Mrs. Jones believed wholeheartedly into developing a sense of
sociopolitical consciousness in her students, her practice lacked the aspects of cultural
responsiveness (Gay, 2002) and cultural relevance (Ladson-Billings, 1995, 2014) that she needed
to be successful in that endeavor.
Case Study #2: Carly Logan, Ford High School
Carly Logan was a high-school English teacher at Ford High School. Ford High was
located in Dolores, California, a city of over 100,000 located in a coastal area of Southern
California (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). Ford High was situated on a coastal bluff, about one-
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 133
half mile from the Pacific Ocean, and was surrounded by a combination of man-made and
natural points of interests such as a golf course, a nature reserve, and a neighborhood park. The
school sat between and services two distinctly different demographic neighborhoods, varying in
socioeconomic status between low to upper middle class. The racial breakdown of Dolores,
California was: 52% White, 36% Hispanic or Latino, 8% Asian, 2% Black or African American,
and 2% two or more races. The median household income in Dolores was around $66,000 and
approximately 15% of the city lives in poverty (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010).
Ford High School was a public high school that opened in 1980. There were 55 teachers
and 32 staff members that served nearly 1,200 students in grades 9-12. The racial breakdown of
the student population at Ford High was: 73% Hispanic or Latino, 21% White, 2% Asian, and
1% respectively Pacific Islander, Black, Filipino, or 2 or more races (California Department of
Education, 2016). About 74% of the students at Ford High qualified for free or reduced lunch,
and about 28% of the students were English Learners. As for teaching staff, almost 83% of Ford
teachers were White, with 11% being Hispanic or Latino, 1% Native Hawaiian or Pacific
Islander, and 5% not reported. The average teaching experience of a faculty member at Ford was
13 years, and the average pupil to teacher ratio was 23 to 1 (California Department of Education,
2016). Ford High School was a relatively small campus with a sprawling one-story building that
was separated into pods of eight classrooms. Each pod housed a subject content area. The
classrooms themselves had no doors, only sliding gates that locked with a pad-lock. The library
and the theater sat in the middle of campus, surrounded by the classrooms on the northeast, east,
south, and west sides. Northwest of the library and theater is the Commons area where students
gathered for lunch. On the other side of the commons area sat the gym and athletic facilities.
Ford High School utilized block scheduling on Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 134
where students were in class for 85 minutes. On Wednesdays they used a late-start, traditional
eight period schedule where each class was 40 minutes and the morning was allotted for teacher
collaboration.
Carly Logan’s eight years of teaching experience had been spent entirely at Ford High
School. She first came to Ford at the culmination of her undergraduate work at the nearby
university and became a substitute teacher for the Dolores School District. Soon after she
became the program director of their after-school program. She did not intend to become a
teacher at all. Through her work with the after school program, she fell in love with the age
group and decided to return to school to pursue her credential. She worked as a summer school
teacher at Ford for one summer where the English department chair asked her to interview for an
opening in their English department. She was hired immediately and was simultaneously offered
the classes that were a part of the Bridge Program.
Ms. Logan was a White woman who grew up in a small, predominantly White, and
affluent town in Northern California. There she attended private primary and middle school, and
then a small public high school. According to her interview, she had the same classmates all
throughout school because of the small nature of the town. There was also a good amount of
parental involvement throughout her time in school. Her parents made her very conscientious
about her homework and her reading. Because of her background in private school, she was
tracked into the upper track in high school where she took Advanced Placement classes. She
spoke of a good relationships with her teachers, where a few stood out and influenced her to
study history and English in college. She felt that her teachers knew her, as she was extremely
involved in school activities and they were conscious of that. Ms. Logan felt that her teachers
did not go out of their way to connect her learning to her, aside from being able to choose outside
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 135
reading assignments and corresponding projects. She felt that having those options with those
assignments allowed her to have ownership over her learning. She described her teachers as
being traditional in that their approach to teaching is, “this is the curriculum and this is what
we’re teaching and you don’t really have much of a choice in the matter.” She stated that her
time at the Bridge Summer Institute was what “hooked her” into teaching for Bridge. She
appreciated the community aspect of the Bridge texts.
Ms. Logan’s room was located on the south side of Ford High School, in the English pod.
Her room was arranged with student desks in groups of four. At the front of the room there was
a media cart that houses the projector and a document camera. The front white board doubled as
the projection screen where instructions were posted when students entered the room. On far
upper right corner of the board, Ms. Logan had written the Essential Questions. For 9
th
grade:
“What is empathy? Why is empathy important? How might a greater degree of empathy affect
our school environment/community?” For 10
th
grade: Are humans inherently good or inherently
evil? To what extend are rules and governments necessary in society? To what extent are our
behaviors influenced by our environment? To what extent are our behaviors influenced by our
nature?” Beneath the white board, on the right side, sat a table that housed the handouts that the
students needed for each day, other materials such as colored pencils, pens, and a large piece of
carved wood that serves as the hall pass. At the front, left corner of the room there was a small
class library of outside reading books. A few titles were displayed atop the shelves. The walls
were covered with students’ work. The back wall contained student created posters of the
“Characteristics of Odysseus the hero,” various definitions and examples of literary terms, a
Bridge Program bulletin board, and the quotation, “It’s almost impossible to verify quotes found
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 136
on the internet” by William Shakespeare. The teacher’s desk sat in the back, left corner of the
room.
The 10th grade Bridge English class was fourth period, just after the mandated Sustained
Silent Reading (SSR) period for the school. This was a class of 25 students; 11 females and 14
males. The racial composition of the class was mostly Latino, with 2 male students who were
mixed with White. The students were seated in groups of four, with an exception for one group
of five. The seating assignments were chosen by Ms. Logan, who placed students in groups
according to their reading levels. For the most part, there was an equal number of boys and girls
at each table, with the exception of a table of all boys who sat front and center.
In the case of Carly Logan, the data showed that her instruction demonstrated her
substantial academic knowledge and her absolute belief in the capabilities of her students, yet her
practice fell short of fully realizing how she might have incorporated culture in order to deliver
more rich and meaningful learning experiences for her students. Her ideology was complex in
that she recognized her students as individuals who lived challenging lives outside of school, but
she failed to leverage what she might know of their lives in order to enrich her instruction.
Instead, she designed learning experiences that created affective environments and positive
relationships in order to mitigate those challenges. She exhibited empathy for her students, but
also a color blindness (Milner, 2010), which prevented her from seeing the students’ lives
outside of school as assets that they brought to the classroom. Ms. Logan drew upon no Funds of
Knowledge (Moll et. al., 1992) to drive her instruction. Her teaching was located entirely in the
students’ academic spaces, and not at all based on actual experiences from their lives outside of
school. Being color-blind (Milner, 2010) also kept her from recognizing the prominent issues
that faced her students. Ms. Logan’s pedagogy lacked the sociopolitical consciousness (Ladson-
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 137
Billings, 1995, 2014) that would have allowed her to recognize the injustices present to her
students in their own communities. Thus, her instruction was missing the cultural scaffolding
(Gay, 2002) in which she might have used the students’ culture and experiences in order to
expand their intellectual horizons.
In this section, I will first discuss Ms. Logan’s ideology as she tried to align to asset
ideology, but fell into Milner’s idea of color-blindness and context-neutral mindsets (2010). I
will then discuss how Ms. Logan was unsuccessful in trying to tap into her students’ FoK.
Finally, I will discuss her pedagogy and how her lack of sociopolitical consciousness (Ladson-
Billings, 1995, 2014) prevented her students from making meaningful and relevant experiences
in her classroom.
Ideology
Ms. Logan believed in the academic capabilities of all her students. She believed in
getting to know each and every one of her students because “the key to helping students be
successful is relationships. And so the more you know about them and their lives, the more
you’re able to help them be successful.” Her classroom was an affective environment in which
her students felt free to express themselves, especially through their writing and their
conversations. The students’ writing and conversations were the means through which Ms.
Logan learned about their challenging lives outside of the school. She recognized that many of
her students came from homes with multiple families, and where parents work multiple jobs.
Many of her students had responsibilities at home that deterred them from completing their
homework. Ms. Logan recognized the challenges that her students were presented with in their
home environment and made accommodations for them accordingly. Her classroom was a place
in which they might have felt comfortable, accepted, and free to speak their minds.
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 138
Unfortunately, the asset-aligned aspects of Ms. Logan’s ideology were limited to the
affective environment of her classroom. Further examination of the data from interviews and
observations suggested a lack of political and ideological clarity in her practice (Bartolomé,
2004). Political clarity requires teachers to examine and be conscious of the sociopolitical and
economic realities, as well as an understanding of the relationships between the political,
economic, and social factors that affect academic performance. Ideological clarity requires an
individual to struggle to arrive at his or her own understanding of the socioeconomic and
political hierarchy. As Bartolomé also articulated, teacher ideologies are shaped by their past
and have a direct influence on the success of their students. As Ms. Logan was a White, middle-
class woman who grew up in an affluent community, she had limited knowledge of the
challenges that her working-class Latino students faced outside of school. This became apparent
throughout the course of classroom observations and interviews. She struggled to identify the
social issues that her students faced. When asked how she had been helping her students realize
and overcome their challenges, she was hard pressed to find a response. When asked how she
was working with students to be involved in their community, she responded with text based
writing assignments. What Ms. Logan knew about her students and their lives were what they
shared with her through writing and conversations. Further, Ms. Logan failed to demonstrate her
own understanding of the complex political, social, and economic relationships that faced her
own students. It was evident that ideological clarity was not something she had grappled with.
Ms. Logan believed her students’ challenges stemmed from balancing their school and home
responsibilities, and that the greatest challenge they faced from society was that “they do not
understand how competitive our world is.” This statement showed the lack of awareness of her
responsibility to her students. She was unaware of how her lack of knowledge was actually
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 139
positioning her students to be disadvantaged. Because Ms. Logan lacked the understanding of
her own ideology, she failed to provide the necessary scaffolds that her students needed in order
for them to make sense of their world.
In addition to her lack of understanding of her own ideology, Ms. Logan also exhibited a
color-blindness (Milner, 2010) that was detrimental to her instruction and to the learning of her
students. Milner asserted that color-blind teachers lack the necessary knowledge, sensitivity, and
empathy to teach historically marginalized students. Through the examination of interviews and
observations, Ms. Logan demonstrated empathy, but fell short on the knowledge and sensitivity
to the socioeconomic realities that faced her students on a regular basis. What little she did
know, she used to create an affective environment, where the priority was acceptance and
comfort. An example of her inability to prioritize empathy ahead of academic success was her
choice in placing specific students in a group together, based on their relationships with one
another. The students in this particular group of four had been historically under-achievers in her
class. One student is an English Learner (EL) with very low skills, and the other three were in
the Special Education program with Individualized Education Plans (IEP). One of the Special
Education students was emotionally disturbed. Two of the students had been unproductive all
year, and their particular grouping was Ms. Logan’s attempt at having them at least try the
assignment. Ms. Logan said,
It wasn’t the best grouping of students… They like each other. So I figured if I put them
in a group where they like the people they’re with, they’ll make an attempt. And they
did. They actually did more work than they’ve ever done in class (laughs). But they still
didn’t meet the goals that I wanted them to meet. And that’s partly because they’re so far
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 140
behind already as it is, in terms of their skills. So the fact that they made an attempt, that
was huge for them.
Ms. Logan demonstrated empathy when she decided that it was more important for those
students to be placed with people they were comfortable with, rather than with those who would
be more likely to help them reach the academic standard. Ms. Logan acknowledged that with
that particular grouping, the likelihood is that an attempt would be made, instead of a complete
failure. In recognizing that those students together would actually make an attempt at the
assignment, rather than fail completely, Ms. Logan was giving them an opportunity to at least
make strides toward the standard. Her empathy was found in the way that she prioritized the
students’ feelings, rather than their academic success. She knew that these students would feel
better in working with each other, which at the time was more important than them meeting the
standard. At this point, her color-blindness allowed her to dismiss the cultural contexts that her
students needed and became a detriment to her instruction. Instead her empathy allowed her to
have the students’ feelings in mind, which resulted in her decision to organize them
instructionally to fail. Her lack of knowledge in how best to scaffold her students’ learning,
aside from catering to their feelings, ultimately led to their academic failure. Her reasoning for
grouping them based on feelings of willingness to work interfered with her providing them with
the necessary scaffolds in order for them to succeed. In being satisfied with their mere tries, she
justified her decision based on their attempt to complete the work, and not the actual completion
to standard. She demonstrated that she lacked the knowledge to provide them with the necessary
support to carry the assignment to completion. This leads one to believe that the high academic
standards were then compromised for the sake of comfort, in order to mitigate the challenges of
the students’ lives.
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 141
Collaborative group work was something that Ms. Logan wholeheartedly believed in.
She believed that the students would be able have meaningful learning experiences through the
sharing of their ideas. She said, “We do a lot of partner work on a daily basis. Group
discussion. Partner discussion. Group work. Everyday to some extent because students
learn best from other students.” The observation data on Ms. Logan’s practice showed that
despite of her intentions, group interactions were not always beneficial to the students, especially
when Ms. Logan does not recognize their needs for more scaffolding. Although she required her
students to discuss challenging and rigorous topics, her color-blindness (Milner, 2010) prevented
her from providing the necessary scaffolds the students needed in order to make meaningful
connections to their academic work. In one such instance, the students were asked to discuss the
message that William Golding, the author of Lord of the Flies, intended the reader to understand
about fear and evil. The students were required to discuss their ideas and write two theme
statements in complete sentences. Throughout the discussion, Ms. Logan circulated around the
room and provided some insight into the various groups’ conversations, but the students did not
always understand.
At table 2, Derrick and Ross discuss… “Something about fear… those are the effects of
what is happening.” Jennifer writes their answers down. Daisy is silent. She watches
interactions between Derrick, Ross, and Ms. Logan who has come back.
T: Take it out of the question… Human nature is…
She stands behind Daisy and reads the answers off her paper. Then Jennifer.
T: Have you shared with each other? Do a read around and share your theme. Ross
and Derrick put their head down. Girls look at each other.
Daisy: I didn’t get it.
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 142
T has already moved on.
At this point, the students were very clearly struggling with the concepts. Only two of four
students at the table were engaged in the discussion. The only scaffold that Ms. Logan provided
was the instruction to take the statement from the question, which was not sufficient to get the
students to produce what she was asking of them. The students were struggling to compose the
theme statements, yet Ms. Logan’s suggestion was to do a share around with those same
statements that did not yet exist. As she walked away, the boys dropped their heads in
frustration, and Diana verbalized hers. Ms. Logan failed to recognize their struggle. Her
understanding of their frustration was that they had not sufficiently shared their ideas, and not
that perhaps the actual concepts were still beyond their reach. They had no direction, nor any
feedback to indicate if they were even near standard. Ms. Logan made her color-blindness
apparent when she failed to recognize the students’ struggle and provide the cultural
contextualization that the student needed. Ms. Logan believed that by simply working in groups
and sharing ideas, they would somehow support each other enough to arrive at the standard set
by the teacher. Because Ms. Logan failed to realize that her students needed more than group
collaboration, she set the students up for failure. Her belief that group work was what drove her
kids kept her from seeing the other scaffolds they needed–to see the themes contextualized in
their reality. Ms. Logan’s lack of knowledge of her students, and her disconnect from their
realities ultimately caused the failure in the assignment. At the culmination of this activity, a
representative from each group was randomly chosen to write a theme statement on the board.
Rick was chosen from his group. As the representatives returned to their seats, Ms. Logan asked
the class to copy the statements from the board.
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 143
T: Make sure you write at least two of these down. (Students copy statements as she
reads them from the board).
• Golding is showing us our true nature which is uncivilized and more primitive.
• Without civilization and rules people bring out their hidden evil natures.
• Civilization will teach you right from wrong.
• Human nature is show without order civilization show we are savage.
Who wrote that? (The class responds, “Ross”). No it’s fine. I think we just need to
reword it.
At this point, Ms. Logan did not discuss the validity of the statements. There was no
determining whether it was right or wrong, or even how to “reword” the statement that clearly
suggested grammatical errors. The students were asked to copy the statements down into their
notes as Ms. Logan moved the lesson forward into symbols. Ms. Logan failed to give any value
to the statements, or make the connections to the students. What could have been a valuable
opportunity to make important connections to the students and their personal lives was left to
copying meaningless statements onto their papers. The exercise became devoid of any cultural
or academic value. Ms. Logan once again demonstrated color-blindness in failing to make those
connections. Her lack of knowledge of how to contextualize the students’ learning interfered
with her ability to provide meaningful instruction. Additionally, for the students who struggled
to reach this point in the lesson, such as the students at table two who eventually arrived at the
statement that Ross shared on the board, there was no validation of their work. In allowing
students to merely copy theme statements off the board and choosing to look past the obvious
mistakes in what they were copying, Ms. Logan also lowered the rigor of her instruction, and
hence the standards to which the students were required to work. If the students were not
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 144
capable of arriving at the knowledge on their own, they may have simply copied statements off
the board, and even then they had no guarantee that the statements were valid.
Compromising standards is indicative of deficit mindset. When expectations are lowered
and the rigor and relevance are lacking, educators demonstrate deficit mindsets (Milner, 2010).
Ms. Logan demonstrated deficit mindset in adjusting her standards based on what she deemed
were challenges that her students faced, such as grouping students by relationships or allowing
them to copy theme statements off the board. Another example of deficit mindset is Ms. Logan’s
decisions on the use of an Observation-Question-Inference (OQI) chart. She said,
The OQI chart for me is… I don’t know if I’ve explained this before but it’s a way for me
to get what would be their annotations in the text because they can’t write in their books,
and so when we annotate we write down… we summarize the main points, we write
down what we observe, we ask questions, we draw our own conclusions, make inferences
about what we’re reading. That’s essentially their notes paper for their annotations when
they read. I don’t do it with every chapter or even with every other chapter because,
especially with the level of kids I’m working with it burns them out. Sometimes they
can’t even keep up with it, but I try to use it at some point with every text. It’s also a
good conversation starter to jump into discussion.
Ms. Logan’s statement implied that frequent use of a graphic organizer designed to chart
annotations was too much of a cognitive load for her students. Although annotating in itself is a
complex skill, her lowering of the expectation of the students’ abilities to be able to annotate
shows the concurrent lowering of the rigor of her instruction. This was an intentional move on
Ms. Logan’s part as she justified why her students were not required to annotate more frequently.
This meant that the students were only required to interact with their texts on occasion. Charting
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 145
observations, questions, and inferences allowed students to keep track of their thinking as they
read, and also encouraged them to make deeper connections with the text. This is something that
students should be required to do regularly in order to maintain connections and develop
relevance with the text. When Ms. Logan accepted that her students were not capable of
maintaining those connections, she took away their opportunities to create bridges to their own
knowledge. Without realizing it, she made decisions to the detriment of their success. Instead of
providing the necessary scaffolds, Ms. Logan eliminated the requirement altogether. Although
Ms. Logan felt that she was being considerate of her students’ situations, she actually held them
back from creating their own knowledge. She believed that her students are capable, but her
failure to recognize exactly what her students needed from her translated into low expectations.
She exhibited deficit mindset by not knowing the needs of her own students, thus second-
guessing their academic capabilities.
Finally, Ms. Logan’s ideology exhibited a context neutral mindset that deterred her from
making meaningful scaffolds for her students. Milner (2010) stated that responsive teachers
must know more than just their subject matter; they must also understand the complexities of
what it means to teach in urban environments and recognize the realities of their teaching
community. Ms. Logan showed that she had no understanding of her students’ environments
when she attempted to use a podcast as a part of a text set. She wanted her students to explore
human nature and its goodness or evilness. The podcast was something she had intended the
students listen to, but as it was rather lengthy, she decided to create PowerPoint slides in order to
deliver its contents instead. The interaction took place as follows:
Provides definition of “fraud” and “unethical” on the board – students do not need to
write it down. She talks about the definitions and projects slides about a podcast.
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 146
Introduces podcast, gives background, provides context. It’s about a man who gets
convicted of fraud for “air loans.” Explains “air loans.” “Toby” is the case study. Toby
is a good person that made other people do the wrong thing. She talks about the research
on business. Business frames makes people think of 1 set of goals. Business decisions
are more likely to involve lies versus ethical decision. Once in a frame of mind, all other
aspects or frames of what’s ethical and what’s not fades away. Business makes us blind
to the fact that we are making ethical decisions at all. It doesn’t mean that people are evil
or bad, there’s a difference. The evil people who intentionally do bad things are a
minority. People who make bad decisions are just unaware… What about the people
that decided to help Toby? Our desire to help others is what gets others to do bad things.
Humans want to help each other. Those who helped Toby are blinded by trying to help
him. Examples of mortgage brokers and emissions testers.
In exploring the definition of “fraud” or “unethical,” Ms. Logan decided to use an example that
was far from relevant for her students. She used a podcast about real estate fraud, committed by
a White businessman. Although Ms. Logan was fully aware that her students were from low-
income, working-class backgrounds, she decided to use an example that had no cultural or
societal relevance to her students. In exploring the topic of human nature, Ms. Logan chose not
to use examples that were culturally and contextually relevant, rather one that was completely
disconnected from the cultures and lives of her students. Further, she also lowered the rigor of
the activity by providing the definitions of concepts on the board, without requiring the students
to write them down. Thus, the activity was void of both rigor and relevance.
Although Ms. Logan stated her beliefs in her students’ capabilities and intended to
provide relevant and challenging instruction, her color-blindness, deficit mindset, and context
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 147
neutral (Milner, 2010) approaches proved that her enacted beliefs lacked the capacity to do so.
Hence her beliefs and instruction were rather two parallel ideas. Ms. Logan was well-intentioned
in creating text sets and finding examples that she felt were relatable to her students, as well as
making decisions to place them in socially comfortable groups, but without fully acknowledging
the community that her students come from, and realizing the challenges they faced on a daily
basis, Ms. Logan remained disconnected from her students, and their learning remained in an
academic vacuum.
Funds of Knowledge
Ms. Logan believed in the importance of having the students make connections to their
learning. She developed and used text sets in order to supplement her novel units with outside
materials such as poetry or art, in order to further the students’ connections with the main text.
She also used an OQI chart that she provided to the students to help identify their connections. It
was important to her that her students “get the opportunity to make connections to that reading,
whether they’re personal connections or they’re connections to other things they’ve read or seen
on the news.” Further, she believed that the relationships students build within the classroom
through conversation and collaboration, were ways in which they were making connections to
their learning. She believed that the personal connections she was fostering in class were
allowing her students to develop into stronger readers and writers, which in turn equipped them
for success.
Unfortunately, Ms. Logan’s cultivation and use of her students’ FoK for instruction was
not as successful as she perceived it to be. Though she believed she was making connections to
the students through their interests and non-academic knowledge, she was still unable to procure
the knowledge necessary to make her instruction meaningful. According to Moll et al. (1992),
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 148
teachers who use FoK had a better sense of her students’ realities and families, and she
capitalized on FoK to create bridges between school and home, validating her students’ culture
and capitalizing on cultural knowledge to build academic context. Ms. Logan was very
disconnected from the lives and the cultures of her students outside of school. What little she
knew about them, she had learned through their interactions in her classroom–a strictly academic
space, or it was data that was provided to her by the school. Her only other means of acquiring
knowledge about the students was through conversations or student writing. Her knowledge of
their cultures and lives outside of school was very limited, which was apparent throughout the
data found in interviews and observations.
Culturally, Ms. Logan recognized her students as young adults. She recognized their
proclivities as teenagers, and not as youth who were equipped with historically developed and
accumulated strategies that had allowed their families to survive and thrive (Moll et al., 1992).
The fact that her students came from working class Latino families had no resonance to her to or
to her instruction. Thus, in attempting to design meaningful learning experiences for them, she
only strictly considered their age, and not any other outside influences that may have resulted in
deeper connections. She stated,
Well I know my kids love to work in groups and sometimes they work better in groups
than they do by themselves. Also just being teenagers, they’re into conversations about
rules and expectations and they love to be put in charge of making rules and expectations.
That was part of the survival challenge. The fact that they got to make their own group
names. There was a lot of ownership. They go to make a lot of choices with their
survival challenge activities.
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 149
Here she justified her decision to create survival challenges as a component of her Lord of the
Flies unit based on the generalization that all teenagers wanted to set their own rules and
expectations. She also assumed that the assignment was meaningful because they had
opportunities to make choices, such as creating their own group name. To Ms. Logan, the
students’ ownership of their learning was based on the fact that they were allowed to make
decisions. This lesson, in no way acknowledged the students’ cultural capital.
Even when she was presented with opportunities to use her students’ FoK, Ms. Logan
failed to capitalize on those opportunities. At one point in an observation, a student, Derrick,
presented Ms. Logan with an opportunity to make connections to his FoK when he said, “What
kind of mask are we making? Like the Day of the Dead?” Instead of using that cultural capital
that was just presented to her and making the apparent connections to Derrick’s FoK, Ms. Logan
presented him with an example from a new James Bond movie, which was a mainstream, pop-
culture reference that was not a part of his FoK and completely disconnected from Latino
culture. In this case, Ms. Logan failed to tend to the cultural context that was readily presented
to her. Instead she chose to shift to something completely out of reference, and away from his
FoK. The disconnect between Derrick’s and Ms. Logan’s references shows the disparity
between their two worlds. Daniel was creating context using his FoK, which Ms. Logan failed to
recognize when she then alluded to mainstream culture.
Through the data mined from interviews and observations, one might gather that Ms.
Logan’s own cultural background was the factor that was preventing her from realizing the
utility of her students’. Growing up White in an affluent community, the challenges that faced
Ms. Logan and her family had no comparison to that of her students’ families. FoK
encompassed those challenges that her students’ families have had to face–the sociopolitical and
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 150
economic contexts, and the strategies that they had developed in order to survive and thrive
(Moll et al., 1992). Because of her lack of awareness of such contexts, she was unable to utilize
FoK in her instruction. Thus when she intended to make meaningful connections to her students’
lives, she failed. She attempted to make those connections as she said,
… making sure whatever we’re doing in class does connect to our own lives and that
there’s an opportunity for my students to share their personal experiences and share
themselves in their writing and make those connections to their reading. And then as
we’re learning about literature and our writing, we’re also learning about ourselves as we
go.
Ms. Logan fully intended to make those personal connections, but without the knowledge of how
to cultivate and use FoK, she fell short. She had no knowledge of her students’ culture; she only
assumed so as she recognized them as teenagers. That seemed to be the only cultural connection
she had with them–that she was a teenager once herself, albeit in an entirely different
socioeconomic and cultural context. She did not know to what she was attempting to connect.
She was not aware of the bridges to the knowledge that were already there, she was just making
blind assumptions based on what she thought she knew. Because of this, Ms. Logan’s
instruction remained in a vacuum, completely devoid of any cultural context. Her students’
learning resided entirely in an academic space, without the influence of their FoK.
Asset Pedagogy
Ms. Logan believed in equipping her students with the necessary skills in order to be
competitive in today’s world. She believed that their societal challenges included managing their
responsibilities at home, while maintaining success in school. She also believed that their low
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 151
reading levels were a part of this challenge, and it was something that she must address in her
instruction. She stated,
The challenge is teaching them that the more they read, the less likely they’ll be taken
advantage of in life too. They don’t think of those things. Reading is just a chore to
them. Just a challenge of school. The challenge too of not relating to it. Not feeling like
it’s important to them.
Pedagogically, she attempted to address these issues by creating text sets in order for her students
to find multiple entry points for connections to the instructional texts. She also used class
discussions to stress the importance of reading to her students. Ms. Logan believed that through
discussion, reading, modeling, and text sets, she would be able to empower her students to
overcome the challenges of reading levels and competitiveness in today’s world.
Although Ms. Logan had a genuine desire for her students to succeed, she lacked the
knowledge and sociopolitical consciousness that was necessary to address the needs of her
Latino students and lead them to success. Sociopolitical conscious teachers have the ability to
examine social inequities and recognize, understand, and critique them in order to enable
students to contextualize their learning within their own realities (Ladson-Billings, 1995, 2014).
Ms. Logan exhibited no knowledge to this effect as she was convinced that the main challenge
her students faced is how to be competitive outside of school. Although she was aware that her
students lived in challenging neighborhoods, within multiple family homes, and had parents who
worked multiple jobs in order to provide, she negated all of that when she was asked what issues
in society are most prevalent to her students. Her lack of sociopolitical consciousness was
actually deterring her students from overcoming their challenges in order to succeed.
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 152
Even when students presented Ms. Logan with examples of the issues that faced them,
her ignorance to those issues prevented her from addressing them, and from equipping her
students with the understanding of how to confront and overcome them. In exploring social
issues through literature, her students presented her with personal and valid examples. She
explained,
They talked about personal experiences they’ve had just in Dolores with being out after
hours and feeling like they might be stopped because of the way they looked and they
bring in conversation about that older Arizona law about how anybody could be stopped
and asked for their ID. We also talked about the Eric Garner case last year and all the
different police brutality examples they were seeing in the news and then how that all
relates to Tom Robinson’s experience.
In this example, Ms. Logan’s students brought the reality of their situations into the classroom.
As Latino teenagers in a predominantly White city, they experienced a valid paranoia,
particularly with examples of prevalent police brutality. Further, drawing connections to the
Arizona anti-immigrant bill in which police may stop anyone who they might consider
undocumented because of its immediate relevance to them. The students were able to
contextualize the experience of the characters through their own realities. Ms. Logan, however,
failed to see the relevance of these examples as something she could draw upon and use in order
to help students understand and confront the very same issues. According to her, the goal of that
lesson was to,
… just explore a topic and be able to think critically about it. Because these topics are all
complex and I want them to be able to read different perspectives of the same topic. And
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 153
again be able to think critically about that topic and the different perspectives out there
and be able to have conversations around it.
Critical thinking is an important part of a rigorous curriculum and her desire to foster critical
thinking revealed Ms. Logan’s intent to hold her students to high standards. Within asset
pedagogies, critical thinking about the world is also important as it allows students to see the role
they play in it (Paris, 2012; Camangian, 2013). Although well intended, Ms. Logan’s
exploration of the complex and different perspectives of social issues lacked the depth necessary
to make meaningful connections and realizations by the students. She failed to see the
pervasiveness of the very issues that the students themselves presented. Instead of using her
curriculum to address said issues and enable her students to overcome the forces of oppression in
their own communities, Ms. Logan believed that a simple discussion was adequate in building
meaningful connections for her students. During an observation, Ms. Logan was once again
given an opportunity to make specific, relevant connections to her students’ community when
they brought in personal examples of human nature as part of an assignment. The students were
to look for examples within their community, or even in the media. One student, Abigail,
provided a personal example, which she felt strongly about.
Abigail: So these two Dolores kids and a Gulf Shores kid went to the coach’s house to
vandalize the house. They stole one of our parking things (sign) and made it
look like we did it. The whole thing is that why they were so mad that they lost
and their anger built up and they went to go vandalize the house. That’s an
example of… sorry, I’m shaking
T: You’re fine. (She smiles.)
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 154
Abigail: Their behavior was barbaric and rude and WE still have to do community
service hours!
Howard: That’s savagery.
T: That is savagery!
As she spoke of the incident, Abigail was clearly frustrated and angered at the fact that Fairview
students had to face consequences for actions that students from another campus committed. She
felt a personal injustice, which also resonated with her classmates. She felt this was an example
of humans being inherently evil as the students from their cross-town rivals defaced the coach’s
house, and then attempted to incriminate Fairview students. Considering the demographics and
the socioeconomic differences between the communities in Dolores, this may have also been a
racially charged incident. Instead of using this opportunity to address an example of human
nature being inherently evil, as well as a pervasive social issue within Dolores, Ms. Logan
treated it as any other example and failed to capitalize on its relevance. This would have been an
opportune time to discuss social issues that were located within the students’ own neighborhood.
As Abigail was clearly personally invested in the example, so might have the other students who
had to face similar consequences and injustices. Here, the students would have been able to
share their own experiences or shared their own thoughts. Instead, it was treated as any other
distant example. This proved Ms. Logan’s sociopolitical ignorance. Even when readily
presented with the issues and examples, she failed to see their relevance and importance to the
lives of her students. She saw their merits in incorporating them for an academic exercise, but
not in that they will make direct connections to her students’ lives.
In addition to lacking sociopolitical consciousness, Ms. Logan’s pedagogy also lacked
cultural responsiveness. Culturally responsive teachers use the cultural characteristics,
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 155
perspectives, and experiences of ethnically diverse students as a means for more effective
teaching (Gay, 2002). Culturally responsive teaching was also at the core of the purpose of the
Bridge Program (Pradl, 2002). As a Bridge teacher, Ms. Logan failed to use the materials and
trainings provided to her in order to deliver culturally responsive teaching. Her lack of
knowledge about the community in which she taught, as well as the underutilization of Bridge
materials resulted in instruction that was void of cultural relevance. Her views and use of Bridge
texts are such that,
…just like any other texts, to practice those reading and discussion skills of the
standards… With the Bridge literature, it’s just a matter of using them the same way
you’ve always used the other texts… With Rain of Gold, we’ve talked about family and
immigration and sacrifice. With House on Mango Street, it’s been about community and
identity. Community and identity are topics that I think we can pull through with a lot of
the Latino lit.
Here Ms. Logan recognized the value of the texts in terms of using them for surface connections.
She used community and identity as themes that resonated from such works because students
might have made connections to them as Latinos, but she failed to use them for the social justice
potential they presented. She said, “I think yeah, we’ve explored social issues through literature,
sure. Just in the form of writing. We typically use… Not the Bridge literature though… No
just mainly [To Kill a] Mockingbird.” She addressed racism through the lens of an African
American struggle, and not a Latino one. Because of her lack of cultural responsiveness, Ms.
Logan failed to make resonating connections between her curriculum and her students’ realities.
Based on data mined from interviews and observations, Ms. Logan’s pedagogy did not
resemble one that is anchored in social justice. An effective teacher working with historically
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 156
marginalized students has strong beliefs with their students’ academic capabilities despite the
socioeconomic circumstances of the school and community, they also use a curriculum that
connects to the students’ realities-the value of their culture and the systems of oppression that
undermine social justice (Ladson-Billings, 1995). Although Ms. Logan did state her belief in her
students’ capabilities, she was unaware of the systems of oppression within their community.
Her approach to overcoming their challenges was “to design opportunities for them to feel
successful. That can be difficult because of the challenges they have, trying to work around
personal issues…” Ms. Logan was well intended, but in avoiding the reality of the inequities that
faced her students, and designing opportunities for them to be successful, her instruction lacked
the authenticity and relevance that would empower her students to face said inequities. She saw
their challenges as a hindrance to their success, and not something that she might use in order to
equip them to fight those challenges. Ms. Logan even failed in encouraging community
involvement. She addressed community involvement through mere writing assignments,
We’ve had a lot of writing assignments to talk about what community is and how we see
ourselves as a part of that community. What different types of communities there are.
They’ve written about leaders in their communities before. They’ve, at different times,
written responses to the UC personal statements, which asked them to think about their
own experiences and their own community as well. We encourage the community
service but I don’t know if that’s directly tied to curriculum at all. We study community
with House on Mango Street and also with To Kill a Mockingbird and Of Mice and Men.
A little bit with every text in the sense of how the characters live in their own
communities.
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 157
Ms. Logan had a misconception of what it meant for her students to be involved in the
community. She failed to see the importance of activism, of the students being aware of the
socioeconomic injustices in their community in order to combat them, which is consistent with
culturally relevant pedagogy (Ladson-Billings, 1995). The idea of community to her was a
shallow, geographical location in which people exist and perhaps interacted. She saw her
students in their communities in the same way she saw fictional characters in communities. Ms.
Logan’s lack of awareness of the sociopolitical and economic factors that continually oppressed
her students in their own communities resulted in the students’ own ignorance of such issues.
She neither prepared nor equipped them to fight the injustices as culturally responsive and
relevant teacher would.
Unfortunately, the intersection of beliefs and practices in Ms. Logan’s pedagogy is not
one that provides her students with meaningful, contextualized instruction. Her lack of
awareness of the societal issues that face her students on a regular basis prevented her from
designing instruction that was rooted in social justice. She was neither socio-politically
conscious (Ladson-Billings, 1995, 2014) or culturally responsive (Gay, 2002). Without any
awareness of the oppression that her students face, Ms. Logan was not able to incite her students
to make societal changes and overcome their challenges.
Cross Case Analysis
This section explores the intersections of teacher ideologies, Funds of Knowledge (FoK),
and asset pedagogies as revealed through the case studies. This study proposed that highly
effective teachers of historically marginalized students continually examined her beliefs,
confronted her conscious and subconscious mindsets that could potentially interfere with her
ability to foster meaningful learning opportunities for her students. Additionally, a highly
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 158
effective teacher of historically marginalized students also enacted asset pedagogies that drew on
her students’ FoK to deliver said meaningful learning opportunities.
In a cross-case analysis, the following were the more apparent patterns between Mrs.
Jones’s and Ms. Logan’s beliefs and practices in their efforts to create meaningful learning
opportunities for historically marginalized students through their enactment of asset ideologies,
FoK, and asset pedagogies:
• Belief in the academic capabilities of the students
• Conceptions and mindsets of culture
• Classroom environments of empathy and inclusion
• Cultivation and utilization of Funds of Knowledge
• Culturally responsive and relevant pedagogy
Both teachers were successful in fostering classroom environments that were collaborative, with
atmospheres of empathy and inclusion. Both teachers also exhibited belief in the academic
capabilities of their students, though one sometimes exhibited a deficit mindset. Where both
teachers exhibited shortcomings were the concepts that involved culture, FoK, and culturally
responsive and relevant pedagogy.
Belief in the Academic Capabilities of their Students
The data from the interviews and observations of both Mrs. Jones and Ms. Logan showed
their firm belief in the academic capabilities of their students. Regardless of the cultural or
socioeconomic backgrounds of their students, they both believed that their students were capable
of academic success. Mrs. Jones’s high expectations were evident within her stated beliefs and
also within the rigor of the curriculum that she delivered to her students. Ms. Logan’s
expectations were evident in her interviews, but were inconsistent in practice. Both Bartolomé
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 159
(2004) and Milner (2010) stated that teachers who held asset mindsets of their students are more
effective in working with historically marginalized students as they reject their deficits and
instead focus on the assets they bring to the classroom.
Mrs. Jones held a firm belief in the academic abilities of her students. Regardless of the
educational level of their parents, she believed that her students were capable of academic
success, and also of obtaining college educations. Her high standards were apparent in the
thoughtful and challenging assignments she required her students to complete. She felt it was
her job to prepare her students for college and required them to learn complex writing techniques
such as controlling impression. Her students completed daily SAT preparation through the
enrichment of their vocabulary with SAT words. Regardless of her students’ backgrounds, Mrs.
Jones refused to accept failure from them.
Ms. Logan also believed in the capabilities of her students. Her stated beliefs expressed
her alignment with the assets of her students. She understood that her students came from
challenging backgrounds and tried to mitigate their circumstances through an atmosphere of
acceptance comfort in her classroom. Unfortunately, in mitigating those circumstances, Ms.
Logan also lowered her standards for the work her students completed for class. In her attempt
to recognize their assets, she exhibited empathy to the point that resulted in a deficit mindset and
allowed her students to fail. In prioritizing the affective environment in her classroom as a way
of mitigating her students’ challenges outside of school, Ms. Logan compromised her standards
to the detriment of her students. An example of this was her decision regarding the use of an
Observation-Question-Inference chart,
The OQI chart for me is… I don’t know if I’ve explained this before but it’s a way for me
to get what would be their annotations in the text because they can’t write in their books,
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 160
and so when we annotate we write down… we summarize the main points, we write
down what we observe, we ask questions, we draw our own conclusions, make inferences
about what we’re reading. That’s essentially their notes paper for their annotations when
they read. I don’t do it with every chapter or even with every other chapter because,
especially with the level of kids I’m working with it burns them out. Sometimes they
can’t even keep up with it, but I try to use it at some point with every text. It’s also a
good conversation starter to jump into discussion.
Although she believed she held her students to high standards, those standards were easily
compromised depending on the circumstances of the students. The discrepancy between her
consciously stated belief and her unconsciously enacted belief might be attributed to her failure
to interrogate her mindset when it came to working with historically marginalized students.
Without knowing how to properly mitigate her students’ circumstances, she compromised the
rigor of her expectations, which was indicative of a deficit mindset.
Conceptions and Mindsets of Culture
The data from the interviews and observations of both Mrs. Jones and Ms. Logan
revealed that the extent to which they used culture within their practice was limited to what was
presented to them by their students. Both Mrs. Jones and Ms. Logan were White, which
presented a cultural disconnect between their culture and the culture of their Latino students.
Both teachers wholeheartedly believed that they were successfully utilizing their students’
culture in their instruction, but what they did not realize was that they failed to demonstrate an
understanding of the differences of their own culture from that of their students. They exhibited
what Milner would call color-blindness and context-neutral mindset (2010) in that although they
were aware of the varying ethnicities present in the classroom, they did not address disparities
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 161
between their culture and the students’. Failing to overcome those differences were detrimental
to the students’ learning as it took away the teachers’ abilities to provide meaningful scaffolds.
In using examples within their instruction, both teachers made references to cultural
representations that were aligned with their ethnicity, and not their students. There was no
evidence that either one tried to find ways to contextualize within their students’ realities, and
not their own.
Mrs. Jones believed that she knew her students well, as individuals and as scholars on
their way to a college education. She valued their culture and held expressed beliefs that her
students should recognize their own culture as a way to connect to the world. She said,
Helping students understand why telling stories is important in our society, community,
and school. Showing that their schema is actually important and valid. And that’s part of
learning… I think that students become disconnected from subjects. They don’t see the
relevance. They think that their backgrounds are insignificant. I want them to
understand that their culture plays a big part in making you who you are, as well as other
things but the struggles and the challenges and the obstacles that most of my kids’
families have gone through gives them backbone. Gives them the ability to be advocates
for their children and for their culture and for future generations.
What she did not know was how to contextualize their learning in ways that they could easily
understand. She consistently provided examples that were not rooted in her students’ realities,
but rather in hers. Even when she was provided with opportunities through her interactions with
students, or through their interactions with each other, she failed to incorporate her students’
culture into her examples and her instruction as a whole. Mrs. Jones believed that she was
knowledgeable in the cultures of her students’ and articulated some of that knowledge in
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 162
interviews; she did not demonstrate that knowledge in the delivery of her instruction. Because of
the lack of culture in her instruction, her students were left to learn in an academic vacuum, void
of contextualization. Although Mrs. Jones stated her conscious appreciation for the culture her
students brought to her classroom, her unconscious enactments failed to show that value.
Ms. Logan, however, demonstrated little knowledge of her students’ culture, and
therefore provided no contextualization for her students. Where Mrs. Jones demonstrated some
awareness of her students’ culture, both Ms. Logan’s interviews and instruction were void of it.
Even when students presented her with opportunities to provide cultural scaffolding through
class discussions and conversations, she failed to capitalize on those opportunities and instead
provided examples in contexts she understood. Her contextualization as a White female from an
affluent background may have proved detrimental to her Latino students from working-class
families. Because Ms. Logan failed to confront the disparities between her culture and that of
her students, she was unable to deliver meaningful, contextualized instruction that valued the
culture of her students.
Classroom Environments of Empathy and Inclusion.
Both Mrs. Jones and Ms. Logan fostered atmospheres of empathy and inclusion in their
respective classrooms. Both believed that building relationships with and among their students
were important to the students’ academic success. Bartolomé (2004), Gay (2002), and Ladson-
Billings (1995, 2014) all asserted that positive relationships within a classroom were a conduit
for student success. Asset ideology and culturally responsive and culturally relevant teaching, all
stress the importance of positive, asset based, collaborative learning. This is particularly
important when working with historically marginalized students, as positive, authentic
relationships in the classroom allow them to realize their potential for success without being
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 163
demeaned for their ethnic and cultural identities. Both Mrs. Jones and Ms. Logan made extra
efforts to ensure that their students had a comfortable space in which they could learn.
Mrs. Jones’s practice was very much influenced by her past educational experiences. As
much of her teaching was based on how she viewed school and how her teachers treated her, it
was imperative to her that her classroom was a space in which students not only learned, but also
felt comfortable in. Through her interviews, her care and concern for her students were apparent.
She said,
I think that people are important and so I tell my students that I don’t teach a subject, I
teach people. And that they’re all different so they have different needs and that they’re
welcome to come to me at any time and they do.
She spoke of them as individuals and people. She knew about their passions and their struggles,
as well as their family backgrounds. She spoke of moments in which she took time to help
individual students through various problems. She helped them find resources to help their
families with specific needs. Mrs. Jones also spoke of the level of candidness her students had
with each other. She attributed that to the atmosphere of inclusion and acceptance that she
fostered. Through her practice, the mutual respect between teacher and student was apparent.
Her students were engaged and attentive. They also exhibited a respect for each other through
their collaborative groupings and class discussions. The students not only exhibited a
comfortable camaraderie, they also showed a genuine desire to help each other. Because it was
important for Mrs. Jones to foster an atmosphere of inclusion, she created that atmosphere
through mutual respect and collaboration.
Ms. Logan believed that positive relationships with her students were the keys to their
success. Much like Mrs. Jones, it was important for Ms. Logan that her students felt comfortable
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 164
in her classroom environment. From her interview data, she had knowledge of her students’
struggles and backgrounds, which she attributed to informal conversations and class discussions.
It was because of those challenges that Ms. Logan felt her classroom had to be a place of
acceptance. Her attempts to mitigate the struggles of her students came from a place of positive
intent, but they sometimes resulted in lower standards of academic performance for certain
students. Through her practice, it was evident that the students felt comfortable being heard in
her class. They demonstrated camaraderie between each other and with Ms. Logan. The
camaraderie sometimes impeded upon their learning as they were often off task, but they were
still able to complete their assignments as required. Ms. Logan exhibited empathy toward her
students, sometimes to a fault, but she was successful in forming positive relationships with and
among her students.
Cultivation and Utilization of Funds of Knowledge.
The data from interviews and observations of both Mrs. Jones and Ms. Logan proved the
extent to which they cultivated and used their students’ FoK in their practice. According to Moll
et al. (1992), it is important that teachers of historically marginalized students cultivate and use
FoK as it validates the cultural, non-academic knowledge that their families have built upon, and
to incorporate it into academic contexts in order to build knowledge. Teachers who use FoK are
able to better contextualize learning into the realities of the students and their families.
Unfortunately for Mrs. Jones and Ms. Logan, their uses of FoK were not sufficient enough to
build the meaningful bridges that their students needed from academic knowledge to their
realities.
Mrs. Jones prided herself on her deep knowledge of her students. Through her
interviews, she spoke of her authentic relationships with them and how she was able to cultivate
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 165
those relationships through care and compassion. Although she knew of their backgrounds,
families, challenges, and successes, the extent to which she used that knowledge to create
meaningful bridges to her instruction was almost absent in her practice. Despite of her great
knowledge of her students, Mrs. Jones failed to use that knowledge to leverage their learning.
As a result, her students built knowledge in an exclusively academic space, void of any cultural
context. Although the students were challenged with rigorous assignments and held to high
standards, they were not fully able to contextualize their learning and make connections to their
personal realities. Mrs. Jones exhibited an awareness of the factors that challenged her students,
and the ways in which they and their families have overcome them, but she did not use that
knowledge within her instructional practice.
Ms. Logan believed in her knowledge of her students. Through interviews, she expressed
her knowledge of their challenges and proclivities. She felt that she had developed relationships
with her students that have allowed her access to that knowledge. Although she felt as if she was
using that knowledge in her instruction and creating experiences that her students can connect to,
the evidence from her observations indicated otherwise. She expressed,
… making sure whatever we’re doing in class does connect to our own lives and that
there’s an opportunity for my students to share their personal experiences and share themselves
in their writing and make those connections to their reading. And then as we’re learning about
literature and our writing, we’re also learning about ourselves as we go.
Contrary to her stated beliefs, Ms. Logan’s instruction was devoid of any influences from her
students’ FoK. Her students worked primarily in strictly academic spaces that she created,
without any connections to the FoK that they might already have had. Even when students made
attempts to make their own connections, Ms. Logan was unable to bridge the connections
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 166
because of her own lack of knowledge of her students’ funds. The contextualization that she was
able to provide came from her own FoK, which was culturally misaligned with that of her
students. Unlike Mrs. Jones, who had the background knowledge of her students but had yet to
successfully utilize it, Ms. Logan had yet to cultivate that knowledge. Although her conscious
and expressed intent was to use what she knew of the students to create meaningful learning
experiences for them, her unconscious enactment was neither cultivating nor utilizing any of that
knowledge. As a result, her instruction was strictly academic and void of any connection to her
students’ backgrounds or realities.
Culturally Responsive and Relevant Pedagogy.
The data from interviews and observations of Mrs. Jones and Ms. Logan revealed the
ways in which they utilized culturally responsive and culturally relevant pedagogy. Culturally
responsive teaching, as defined by Gay (2002) is using the cultural characteristics, perspectives,
and experiences of ethnically diverse students as conduits for effective teaching. Additionally,
culturally relevant teaching, according to Ladson-Billings (1995, 2014) is teaching that helps
students accept and affirm their cultural identity while developing critical perspectives that
challenge inequities that schools perpetuate (p. 469). The use of culturally responsive and
culturally relevant pedagogy ensures the academic success of students through teaching that
values their culture and encourages them to confront the inequities that cause their
marginalization. The practices of Mrs. Jones and Ms. Logan, though well intended, failed to
provide the necessary cultural scaffolding to develop the cultural competence and sociopolitical
consciousness that would then lead the students to become agents for change within their
community. While they acknowledged the societal struggles their students faced, they failed to
equip their students with the proper tools and knowledge to overcome their struggles.
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 167
The genuine care and concern that Mrs. Jones exhibited toward her students was not only
a product of the influence of her past educators, but also of her compassion for the struggles of
her students. The relationships she had formed with them allowed her to acquire knowledge of
their personal and familial struggles. Through her interviews, Mrs. Jones expressed a desire to
empower her students to see beyond the limits of their community, into higher education, and the
world. She said,
My students have so many challenges... Finding a place in this society where they feel
they belong. Many of them are what I call “hyphen kids.” They’re Mexican-American
kids so that hyphen in the middle of Mexican-American they struggle with. How do I be
a college student in my Mexican culture? How do I fit in? How do I be Mexican in the
American culture and fit in on a college campus? So I kind of think of them as the
hyphen kids. They’re caught in the middle. And there are so many situations where they
just don’t know how to negotiate it. Whether it’s taking a stand for their own beliefs and
how to present that in a way where it’s heard and responded to.
She expressed a genuine concern about their ability to negotiate the world outside of their city
and made efforts to equip them with the proper skills and knowledge in order to do so. She
wanted her students to be able to speak up for themselves, as Mexican-Americans, for the
injustices they faced. She greatly desired for them to be active and engaged members of society.
For all that Mrs. Jones desired for her students, her practice failed to show the ways in which she
was equipping them in order to accomplish such things. Although she expressed an
understanding of the plight of her students and their families, there was no evidence in her
practice to indicate that she was developing the cultural competence and sociopolitical
consciousness necessary for them to combat those inequities. She expressed her expectation for
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 168
them to be kind and generous citizens, but not ones that would challenge the status quo to fight
their marginalization. Mrs. Jones was well intended in terms of culturally responsive and
culturally relevant teaching, but without equipping herself with the necessary knowledge about
the ways in which to fight the injustices that faced her students, she could not equip them to fight
their own fight.
Ms. Logan was also well intentioned when it came to helping her students overcome their
societal struggles, though she was not well informed as to what those struggles were. Though
she recognized the socioeconomic and familial challenges that her students faced, Ms. Logan
understood their main struggle to be their reading levels. She wanted to equip her students with
the academic capabilities to be competitive and succeed in school, but without the proper
knowledge of the plight of her students outside of school, she could not equip them to overcome
their circumstances. Ms. Logan’s pedagogy suffered from her lack of cultural competence. Her
practice was clearly lacking the cultural responsiveness and cultural relevance that her students
needed. Her instructional decisions, though well intended, were based only on a shallow
understanding of the culture of her students, an understanding based solely on conversations and
student writing. She attempted to bring relevance into her practice, but she lacked the necessary
knowledge in order to do so. Ms. Logan’s cultural background varied greatly from her students,
and without confronting those differences and developing the knowledge she needed to create
meaningful and relevant lessons for them, she, her students, and her practice will continue to
have that disconnect. Because she was not well positioned to understand the societal inequities
and injustices that her students faced on a regular basis, Ms. Logan was also not well positioned
to equip them to navigate those challenges.
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 169
Mrs. Jones and Ms. Logan were both well-intentioned teachers whose teaching
approaches were based on a genuine care and concern for the well-being and success of their
students. For their well intentions, they attempted to provide engaging and meaningful learning
experiences for their students. From the data derived from interviews and observations of them
emerged patterns five themes that were consistent with both of their practices. The five themes
combine for a picture of a teacher who is able to deliver robust and meaningful instruction to
students from historically marginalized backgrounds. Those teachers’ beliefs in the capabilities
of their students would ideally manifest into teaching practices that are empathetic, that connect
with the students’ backgrounds through instruction that is rich with cultural validation and FoK,
and that encourages students to examine the systems that marginalize them and find ways to
overcome that oppression. Unfortunately, when pieces of the picture are absent, the students are
then presented with incomplete learning experiences. For both teachers, the absence of those
pieces resulted in instruction that was void of cultural validation and the necessary scaffolds that
their students needed to realize their potential to combat the inequities that marginalize them.
Although both teachers were well intentioned as they consciously expressed in their interviews,
their inabilities to confront the disparities between their culture and that of their students led to
an unconscious enactment of instruction that fell short of their established goals. Ms. Logan’s
lack of cultural competency stemming from her inability to see the disconnects between her
affluent White background compared to that of her low-income Latino students resulted in
instruction that was more culturally aligned to her than to them. Mrs. Jones, on the other hand,
displayed more cultural competence but lacked the sociopolitical consciousness to be able to
provide her students with the necessary tools to fight their injustices. Although she displayed
more of the characteristics of a teacher who delivers robust and meaningful instruction to
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 170
historically marginalized students, the absence of essential characteristics such as the cultivation
and utilization of FoK results in incomplete and culturally void instruction. Mrs. Jones and Ms.
Logan were both well intentioned and well-meaning teachers who showed devotion to their
practice and their students, but because they were missing a most critical element of relevant
instruction for their students-culture-they were not well positioned as teachers to equip their
students to combat the dominant forces of marginalization.

TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 171
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This dissertation explored the ways in which reputably effective teachers of historically
marginalized students used asset ideologies, asset pedagogies, and Funds of Knowledge to create
meaningful and relevant learning experiences. A qualitative multi-site, multi-case study was
used to address the research question:
• How does the instruction of reputably effective high school teachers of historically
marginalized students reflect the intersection of their beliefs and their practices?
The data I collected to answer this question included two in-person interviews of each teacher,
lasting one to two hours each, five-to-six direct classroom observations of each teacher lasting
approximately 11 hours total, and a review of teacher created documents including Power Point
slides, handouts, and graphic organizers that were used during class time. Data collected from
this study provided insight into the practices of two teachers of historically marginalized
students, within an academic outreach program designed to serve students from working-class,
economically advantaged, and marginalized backgrounds (McGrath & Galaviz, 1996), their
beliefs about and relationships with their students, their interactions with their students, the tasks
and assignments given to their students, and their instructional decisions. Although I chose to
study two vested teachers who had been deemed highly effective by key personnel within the
Bridge program, the data that emerged from the study indicated that even those deemed highly
effective teachers of historically marginalized students were not fully developed in their
ideologies, pedagogies, and Funds of Knowledge (FoK) and were not able to provide meaningful
learning opportunities to their students. Further, their practices were not consistent with the
concepts I outlined in my conceptual framework. As the educational needs of historically
marginalized students are complex, so are the practices of those teachers deemed effective in
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 172
teaching them. The practices of a highly effective teacher of historically marginalized students
must exhibit the combination of asset ideology, asset pedagogies, and FoK in order to deliver
meaningful learning opportunities for their students. While it is possible to deliver instruction
without the presence of all components, the absence of one results in a weaker, less robust
learning experience. In this chapter, I will review the findings of the data and offer implications
for teacher practice, educational policy, and educational research.
Summary of Findings
Mrs. Jones was a 10
th
grade English teacher who also taught for the Bridge program. She
was a White woman who grew up in the same town as the school at which she had spent her 15-
year career. She had great care for her students and genuinely wanted them to be successful.
Although she developed relationships with her students and knew a great deal about their
personal and family backgrounds, she did not use that knowledge to create meaningful learning
opportunities for them. She displayed an asset ideology in that she believed in her students’
capabilities for academic success, but her inability to use their identities and their culture within
asset pedagogies and FoK resulted in her instruction that was strictly academic and devoid of
cultural responsiveness or cultural relevance.
The ideology that Mrs. Jones enacted included empathy that allowed for a mutual respect
between everyone in the classroom, including the teacher. This enabled her to assign tasks to her
students that were both rigorous and challenging, tasks that they completed with her
encouragement. Aside from empathy, asset ideologies also required recognition of her students’
diverse backgrounds and a confrontation of mindsets that would deter her from fostering
meaningful learning opportunities. Although Mrs. Jones recognized her students’ culture, she
failed to confront the discrepancies between her culture and those of her students. Her
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 173
instruction therefore was missing the relevance that would allow the students to see themselves
in their schoolwork. Though she encouraged the students to be successful, she did not provide
cultural scaffolding that connected their learning to their realities.
Pedagogically, Mrs. Jones did not fulfill her expressed intentions. She intended to be
socio-politically conscious, yet she failed to enact that consciousness. She consciously expressed
her desire for her students to be heard socio-politically, but her enactment failed to show her own
sociopolitical consciousness and so she was not able to equip her students to be heard. She was
not able to equip her students with the proper tools to navigate their marginalization. Further,
she did not make efforts to cultivate and use their FoK. Although Mrs. Jones had knowledge of
her students’ backgrounds and realities through her authentic relationships with them, she did not
utilize that knowledge in her practice. As a result, her practice failed to validate the FoK that
already existed within her students. Her practice lacked the cultural responsiveness and
relevance that the students needed in order to see the value of their own culture and knowledge,
use that as a means of empowerment, and then become the agents of social change that she
wanted them to be.
Ms. Logan was also a 10
th
grade English teacher and also taught for the Bridge program.
She was a White woman from an affluent background. She believed that the key to her students’
successes were the relationships that she formed with them, and the relationships they formed
with each other. Ms. Logan expressed a conscious belief in her students’ capabilities and
appreciation of their assets, but her unconscious enactment sometimes exhibited deficit mindset.
She believed she knew her students well, but data shows that her knowledge was only a
superficial one. The cultural disconnect between Ms. Logan and her students was clearly evident
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 174
in her practice. Because she was unaware of those differences, hence her inability to confront
them, her instruction was void of cultural responsiveness or cultural relevance.
Ms. Logan expressed an asset ideology in that she believed her students were capable of
academic success. She formed relationships with them that allowed her to gain knowledge about
their lives through their writing and class conversations. Because of these relationships, Ms.
Logan felt she had a thorough knowledge of her students. She felt she understood their realities
and the challenges they faced outside of school. She designed text-sets and classroom
experiences that she felt catered to their interests. She sometimes adjusted her expectations, as
she felt necessary, as she tried to mitigate the challenges her students faced outside of her
classroom. What she did not realize was her own color-blindness that deterred her from making
meaningful connections to her students’ realities, and the deficit mindset she displayed when she
lowered her expectations out of empathy. Although Ms. Logan was well intentioned, her lack of
awareness, and hence confrontation, of the disparities between her culture and that of her
students, resulted in instruction that was less than meaningful.
The cultural disconnect between Ms. Logan and her students proved detrimental to the
growth of her students. Although Ms. Logan consciously acknowledged her students’ challenges
outside of school, that knowledge did not translate into her equipping them to confront those
challenges. Further, the sociopolitical realities that her students faced regularly were far from
Ms. Logan’s consciousness. Her understanding of her students’ realities was limited to what she
learned from them in class and her simplified notion of Latino culture from her own experiences.
She also did little to cultivate any more knowledge of their backgrounds or existing FoK that
they brought from home. As a result, her instruction lacked the influences of the realities of her
students. Ms. Logan contextualized her instruction within her own culture and understanding,
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 175
not from that of her students. Even when presented with opportunities to make connections to
her students’ backgrounds, Ms. Logan always reverted back to her own frames of reference.
Without an understanding of the inequities and injustices that her students faced, or that they
faced any at all, Ms. Logan was not able to design learning experiences that would equip her
students to face them. Her instruction remained in an academic vacuum, void of cultural
responsiveness and cultural relevance. Although Ms. Logan deeply cared for her students and
meant to teach them to the best of her ability, her color blindness and lack of cultural competence
proved detrimental to her students.
In the following section, I will address the implications and recommendations that I have
derived from my study.
Implications and Recommendations
This dissertation explored the ways in which beliefs and practices intersect within the
instruction of two teachers of historically marginalized students. It examined the ways in which
asset ideologies, asset pedagogies, and Funds of Knowledge, as enacted by both teachers, did not
combine together to create robust learning experiences within their classrooms. Findings from
this study revealed that although both teachers exhibited beliefs in the capabilities of their
students, they were not well positioned to deliver the culturally rich and relevant instruction the
students needed. Both teachers exhibited genuine care for their students and were well
intentioned in creating learning experiences that they believed would equip them to succeed
academically, but their failure to confront the cultural disparities between their White
backgrounds and the Latino students that they taught resulted in instruction that was culturally
void. In the following section, I will discuss the implications that emerge from these findings as
they relate to teacher practice, educational policy, and the research community.
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 176
Practice
The growing population of students from historically marginalized groups creates a
higher demand for teachers who are able to serve culturally diverse communities (Gay, 2010;
Sleeter, 2001). As most of the teachers who enter the profession are from White, middle-class
backgrounds, there is a great cultural disparity between them and their Latino, working-class
students (Gay, 2010; Sleeter, 2001). Because of their limited experiences with those from
cultures aside from their own, these teachers tend to have negative beliefs about the capability of
their students (Hollins & Torres Guzman, 2005). The negative beliefs about the cultures in the
classrooms of these teachers lead them to adapt a deficit mindset, where they believe that their
students are less than capable because of their socioeconomic status (Haberman, 1991). To
ensure that these teachers are best equipped to serve their marginalized students, they must be
able to confront their preconceived biases and mindsets, both conscious and subconscious, in
order to confront harmful deficit beliefs about their students (Bartolomé, 2004). They must
develop a political and an ideological clarity that allows them to realize the sociopolitical and
economic realities that face their students, as well as how those factors affect academic
performance in the classroom. Additionally, teachers must also struggle to arrive at their own
explanation for the socioeconomic and political disparities, allowing themselves to reflect on
their own beliefs and their alignment to dominant society (Bartolomé, 2004). It is not enough to
merely acknowledge these disparities, it is necessary so realize and confront where they are
located consciously and subconsciously within these disparities, how they may contribute to
them, and how they may equip their students to navigate them.
Aside from an examination of ideology, teachers of historically marginalized students
must also examine their pedagogy and how it is grounded in culture. When working with
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 177
culturally diverse students, it is imperative to have explicit knowledge about cultural diversity in
order to meet their needs (Gay, 2002). They must be able to design curriculum and learning
experiences that reflect the cultures of their students and recognize the significant contributions
of various ethnic groups to numerous academic and cultural fields (Gay, 2002). They must be
able to scaffold their students learning using various aspects of their students’ culture. In order
to be effective, teachers of historically marginalized students must be culturally responsive and
use the characteristics, perspectives, and experiences of their ethnically diverse students within
their practice (Gay, 2002). Included in those experiences are the social injustices and inequities
that marginalized students face on a regular basis. Culturally responsive teachers encourage their
students to think critically about the facets of society that contribute to their marginalization, and
provide a contextualization and understanding so as to remove the deterrents from their students’
successes (Gay, 2002). When teachers of historically marginalized students fail to incorporate
valuable and vital aspects of culture within their instruction, the students’ learning remains in a
vacuum and is only relevant to academics. There is no connection to their realities, nor does it
provide them with ways in which to fight their marginalization.
In order to equip historically marginalized students with the means through which they
may confront their marginalization, teachers must use aspects of culturally relevant, sustaining,
and humanizing pedagogy (Ladson-Billings, 1995, 2014; Paris, 2012; Camangian, 2013).
Culturally relevant pedagogy requires teachers to demonstrate and instill cultural competence
and sociopolitical consciousness within their students. Cultural competence allows them to
appreciate and celebrate theirs and others’ cultures. Sociopolitical consciousness encourages
activism allows them to recognize and solve problems they will encounter outside of school
(Ladson-Billings, 1995, 2014). When the students’ knowledge is contextualized in this way,
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 178
they are also more inclined to be academically successful. Further, teachers of marginalized
students must also take steps to sustain cultural pluralism in the context of social justice through
culturally sustaining pedagogy (Paris, 2012). This ensures that students are aware of and
appreciate the language, literacies, and cultural practices of communities outside of their own.
Finally, teachers of historically marginalized students must be able to incite their students to
make the necessary changes in their communities to combat their marginalization using their
literacy as a tool. Humanizing pedagogy requires students to examine the systems of oppression
within their communities and empowers them, through knowledge, to confront those systems to
transform their realities (Camangian, 2013). Teachers of historically marginalized students must
have a sense of responsibility to help their students fight the injustices that perpetuate their
marginalization. Knowing and acknowledging their struggles is not enough. In order for
students to make their way out of marginalization, teachers must equip them with the proper
tools to not only mitigate their circumstances, but to overcome them. Only then will their work
be truly meaningful to their students.
Finally, in order to create robust learning opportunities for historically marginalized
students, teachers must use the resources within the Funds of Knowledge (FoK) that students
bring with them from home. These historically accumulated and culturally developed bodies of
knowledge are essential to the survival and well-being of the households from which
marginalized students come (Moll et al., 1992). Teachers who cultivate and use FoK have a
better sense of students’ realities. They are able to contextualize within and validate the
student’s culture, and also capitalize on cultural knowledge to build academic content (Moll et
al., 1992). Academically, FoK strengthens the teachers’ abilities to provide cultural scaffolding,
providing connections between school and home knowledge. It allows them to create learning
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 179
opportunities that are grounded in the students’ realities, and not an abstract academic space.
FoK is also essential in equipping students to confront their marginalization. As it is a
compilation of the strategies their families have used to survive and thrive historically, those
strategies may also prove useful as students examine ways in which to confront the systems of
oppression within their communities.
Teachers should not be solely responsible for their own professional growth. In order to
ensure that teachers are best equipped to effectively teach historically marginalized students,
their practice must be supported and enhanced with professional development that will allow
them to have to opportunities to conduct the necessary reflections of their ideologies and seek
support for their pedagogies. Particularly within academic programs such as Bridge, that seek to
serve marginalized students, it is imperative that teachers be provided with the proper training to
be able to create truly meaningful and robust learning experiences. Constant reflection on
ideology must become an integral part of practice. This is to ensure that teachers do not
succumb to the dominant beliefs that are harmful to their students.
In addition to the necessary confrontation of deficit beliefs, teachers of historically
marginalized students must also be better equipped to provide the cultural scaffolding that is vital
to the students’ success. Academic outreach programs such as Bridge, must better address those
needs for the exact reasons it exists-the students. Therefore, academic outreach programs must
provide opportunities for teachers to learn how to cultivate cultural competence for themselves,
and utilize it in their instruction. Cultural scaffolding expands the intellectual horizons of the
students and has positive affects on academic achievement (Gay, 2002). Teacher education
programs must also be more thorough in training their teachers to enter culturally diverse
communities. Pre-service teachers must develop sufficient cultural competence prior to entering
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 180
the classroom, in order to be able to provide the proper scaffolding for their students. They must
have a thorough knowledge of the cultures present within the communities they teach in. They
also must be able to cultivate their students’ FoK in order to attain a better understanding of the
populations in which they work and how to best serve the needs of their students. Both in-
service and pre-service teachers, as well as their respective schools and programs must be held
accountable for the development of cultural competence.
Those who choose to enter the teaching profession accept certain responsibilities upon
setting foot in their respective classrooms; especially those who choose to work with students
from historically marginalized backgrounds. Whether they are aware of it or not, they become
cultural brokers for their students. The kind of broker they are is dependent upon their
preparation and their willingness to continually confront the pervasive dominant ideologies. As
this responsibility requires teachers, both pre-service and in-service, to provide their students
with the tools that will allow them navigate dominant society, they must be able to navigate it
themselves, regardless of race or ethnicity. Only then will they be well positioned to prepare
their students to do the same. Unless students are provided these navigational tools, teachers will
continue to undermine their students’ abilities to do what their teachers say they believe their
students can do.
Policy
This study of two effective teachers of historically marginalized students does not intend
to pose determinative solutions to the challenges that face all educators in urban high schools. In
seeking to find understanding of the intersections of teacher beliefs and practice, it did uncover
facets of practice-ideologically and pedagogically- that must be confronted at the policy level,
particularly within academic programs such as Bridge, that seek to serve historically
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 181
marginalized students. There are also implications within teacher education, as pre-service
teachers prepare to enter communities where their cultural background differs from that of the
students.
An ideology is a framework of thought, constructed by members of society to justify or
rationalize an existing social order (Bartolomé, 2004). It is derived from past experiences and
constructed by social conditions. When teachers do not critically examine their own belief
systems, they allow themselves to be vulnerable to influences of dominant society. They become
subject to pervasive negative ideological orientations that are harmful to their students. This is
particularly important within academic and college preparatory programs that seek to serve
students from historically marginalized backgrounds. Academic outreach programs such as
Bridge, must enact policies that require their teachers to conduct critical examinations of their
ideologies. It is not enough that teachers have expressed asset ideologies, as they may still enact
instruction that aligns to deficit mindsets. As evident from the data, even teachers who have
expressed asset orientations still enacted harmful mindsets that were a detriment to their students.
These teachers were reputably effective within the program to the extent that they were
recommended for the study more than once. As teacher trainers, they are positioned to influence
the ideologies and practices of other teachers within the program. This then questions the ability
of the program to build the capacity of its own teachers. Within such academic programs, it is
necessary to be forthright with these ideological confrontations, especially in the selection
process of its teachers. Potential teachers must be willing to comply and be fully direct with
their beliefs, in order to be able to confront and overcome those that are harmful to students.
Further, confronting negative ideological orientations is a process. In terms of building the
capacity of teachers within the program, popular one or two day professional development
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 182
sessions will not suffice. What are necessary are recursive professional development sessions in
which teachers are required to have the difficult conversations about pervasive negative beliefs.
These are conversations that need to happen over time and facilitated by those who are able to
lead the conversations to be productive. These are essential to programs such as Bridge,
particularly as their teachers have agreed to take the responsibility to work with their target
students. The program should then continue to build the capacities of these teachers who are still
in the process of fully realizing their students’ learning potential, and even their own potential as
teachers.
Confronting harmful mindsets should not only be limited to teachers within academic
outreach programs. Pre-service teachers who are preparing to enter classrooms should also be
required to fully explore their preconceived notions of the cultures that may be present in their
classrooms. Bartolomé (2004) has asserted that the failure of teacher education programs to
require their pre-service teachers to critically reflect on their ideologies has resulted in a teacher
workforce that unconsciously holds beliefs and attitudes of the dominant ideology. These
teachers fail to consider the oppressive realities within the communities that perpetuate their
students’ marginalization. Although these teachers may be well intentioned, such as those in this
dissertation, their unconscious beliefs and enactments may be deterrents to the success of their
students. Therefore, teacher education programs must enact policy that requires pre-service
teachers to critically reflect on their ideologies. This should be a requirement of the program that
must be completed by the pre-service teacher prior to entering classrooms for observations
and/or student teaching. Both the program and the student must be held accountable for the
requirement and its fulfillment.

TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 183
Research
This study provided insights into the intersection of the beliefs and practices within the
instruction of two highly effective teachers of historically marginalized students. Although
measures have been taken to ensure that the data and the findings of the two subjects were as
accurate as possible, the study was limited by factors that would have otherwise provided more
complete pictures of the teachers’ practices. First, the time allotted to gather data placed
limitations on the amount collected. Additional time for more consistent classroom observations
of both teachers would have provided more data for a more definitive understanding of their
practice. Further, the addition of data from student interviews would also enrich the
understanding of their respective teachers’ practice. Having access to the students and being
able to gather answers from them regarding their relationships with their teachers, and whether
or not they feel that their learning experiences were robust would provide more insight into the
expressed and enacted ideologies and pedagogies of the two teachers.
As for the research that is already in existence, there is a wide array of literature that
speaks to theories of the necessary asset pedagogies that are required of teachers of historically
marginalized students. However, the number of empirical studies that suggest how to enact
those pedagogies are limited. Further research is needed to explain how the various renditions of
asset pedagogies are enacted. Both in-service and pre-service teachers would benefit greatly
from such studies as a means to improve their practice.
Finally, research regarding how academic outreach or college preparatory programs are
interrogating their own ideologies would be a valuable addition to educational literature. This is
especially true regarding literature that speaks to how the programs have been successful in
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 184
implementing policies that require and support their teachers in confronting harmful deficit
ideologies while working with students from historically marginalized backgrounds.

TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 185
References
Akiba, M., LeTendre, G. K., & Scribner, J. P. (2007). Teacher quality, opportunity gap, and
national achievement in 46 countries. Educational Researcher, 36(7), 369-387.
Bartolomé, L. I. (2004). Critical pedagogy and teacher education: Radicalizing prospective
teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly, 31(1), 97-122.
Barton, A. C., & Tan, E. (2009). Funds of knowledge and discourses and hybrid space. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 50-73.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of
learning. Educational researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
California Department of Education (2012). http://www.cde.ca.gov/
Cazden, C. B. (2002). A descriptive study of six high school Puente classrooms. Educational
Policy, 16(4), 496-521.
Cooper, C. R. (2002). Five bridges along students’ pathways to college: A developmental
blueprint of families, teachers, counselors, mentors, and peers in the Puente
Project. Educational Policy, 16(4), 607-622.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2007). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Duncan‐Andrade, J. (2007). Gangstas, wankstas, and ridas: Defining, developing, and supporting
effective teachers in urban schools. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in
Education, 20(6), 617-638.
Duncan-Andrade, J. M. R. (2009). Note to educators: Hope required when growing roses in
concrete. Harvard Educational Review, 79(2), 181-194.
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 186
Gándara, P. (2002). A study of high school puente: What we have learned about preparing Latino
youth for postsecondary education. Educational Policy, 16(4), 474-495.
Gandara, P. (2010). The Latino Education Crisis. Educational Leadership, 71(5), 24-30.

Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education,
53(2), 106-116.
González, N., & Moll, L. C. (2002). Cruzando el puente: Building bridges to funds of
knowledge. Educational Policy, 16(4), 623-641.
Good, C., Aronson, J., & Inzlicht, M. (2003). Improving adolescents' standardized test
performance: An intervention to reduce the effects of stereotype threat. Journal of
Applied Developmental Psychology, 24(6), 645-662.
Haberman, M. (1991). The pedagogy of poverty versus good teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(4),
290-294.
Hand, V. M. (2006). Exploring sociocultural perspectives on race, culture, and learning. Review
of Educational Research, 76(4), 449-475.
Hollins E., & Torres Guzman, M. (2005). Research on preparing teachers for diverse
populations. In Cochran-Smith, M & Zeichner, K (Eds.), Studying Teacher Education:
The Report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education (pp. 477-548).
Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Laden, B. V. (1999). Socializing and mentoring college students of color: The Puente Project as
an exemplary celebratory socialization model. Peabody Journal of Education, 74(2), 55-
74.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American
Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491.
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 187
Ladson-Billings, G. (2014). Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0: aka the remix. Harvard
Educational Review, 84(1), 74-84.
Maxwell, J. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publications.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation: Revised and
expanded from qualitative research and case study applications in education. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Meznek, J. (1989). The Puente Project. A report to the Board of Governors, California

Community Colleges.

Milner IV, H. R. (2010a). Culturally relevant pedagogy in a diverse urban classroom. Urban
Review, 43, 66-89
Milner IV, H. R. (2010). Start where you are, but don't stay there: Understanding diversity,
opportunity gaps, and teaching in today's classrooms. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Education Press.
Milner, H. R., & Tenore, F. B. (2010). Classroom management in diverse classrooms. Urban
Education, 45(5), 560-601.
Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching:
Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into
Practice, 31(2), 132-141.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). Racial/ethnic enrollment in public schools.
Indicator 7. In The condition of education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education.
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 188
National Assessment on Educational Progress (NAEP), (2014). Achievement gaps. Retrieved
from https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/studies/gaps/.
National Education Association (NEA). (2015). NEA and teacher recruitment: An overview.
Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/home/29031.htm
Pew Research Center (2015). Statistical Portrait of Hispanics in the United States, 1980-2013.
Retrieved from http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/05/12/statistical-portrait-of-hispanics-
in-the-united-states-1980-2013/
Pradl, G. M. (2002). Linking instructional intervention and professional development: Using the
ideas behind Puente High School English to inform educational policy. Educational
Policy, 16(4), 522-546.
Sleeter, C. E. (2001). Preparing teachers for culturally diverse schools research and the
overwhelming presence of whiteness. Journal of teacher education, 52(2), 94-106.
United States Census Bureau. (2013). Household Income: 2013. Retrieved from
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2014/acs/acsbr13-
02.pdf.
The Achievement Gap Initiative at Harvard University. (2015). Facts on gaps. Retrieved from
http://www.agi.harvard.edu/projects/thegap.php.
United States Census Bureau (2010). http://www.census.gov/2010census/
Wiener, R. (2006). Opportunity gaps: The injustice underneath achievement gaps in our public
schools. North Carolina Law Review, 85, 1315

TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 189
Appendix A
Pre-Observation Teacher Ideology and Pedagogy Interview Protocol

School Name: ______________________________________________ Date: _________________________
Name of Teacher Interviewed: _____________________________________________________________________
Start time: _____________________ End time: _______________________ Total time: ___________________
Researcher: __________________________________________________________________________________________

Interview Questions:
I am going to start by asking you some questions about you.
1. Where did you grow up?
2. What was your educational experience like?
3. Do you feel like your teachers knew you as a student? As a person?
4. What were some ways that your teachers connected the curriculum to who you are as a person?
5. What made you decide to go into teaching?
6. Why did you choose to teach at this school?
7. What drew you to become a teacher in the Bridge program? (What made it appealing to you?)
8. Think back to a recent day that you think is an example of what typically happens in your class. Can
you please describe that day?

Now I would like to talk with you a little bit about your students.

9. Tell me about your students.
10. Tell me about your students’ families’ histories (e.g., Where are they from, how long have they lived
here—in this area and/or country—what you know about who they are and where they come from).
a. How did you arrive at this knowledge? Would you give me some examples of your approach
to learning this information?
11. How would you describe your students’ lives outside of school (e.g., what they spend time doing?)?
a. How did you arrive at this knowledge? Would you give me some examples of your approach
to learning this information?
b. Talk to me about your reasons for wanting to know this about your students?
12. How would you describe the language your students use inside of class? What I mean is (are you
asking about slang, the use of Spanish or other language that may or may not be theirs but may be
adopted from the other students in their class?)
13. How would you describe the language your students use outside of class? Do they talk differently
outside of class than they do inside of class?
14. What types of music do your students listen to?
15. Who are their favorite celebrities?
16. How would you describe the kinds of clothes they tend to wear? What fashion trend or trends you
would you say their choices reflect?
17. What types of social media do they use inside of class?
18. What types of social media do they use outside of class?
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 190
19. How, if at all, do you learn about the histories and cultures of your students beyond what you learn
from them?
20. Some teachers say it is impossible to get to know all of your students because there are so many of
them, what is your opinion of that?

Now I would like to talk about your approaches to teaching your students.

21. Talk about your academic expectations for your students. How do you expect them to perform
academically (e.g., do you expect them to perform at high levels, do you expect them to be able to
reach the academic standards set forth in the California—Common Core—Standards)?
a. How might I see evidence of your academic expectations through what your students do in
your classroom? Tell me about a recent lesson that you think demonstrates what you think
your students are capable of academically.
b. How might I see evidence of the way you teach your kids so that they reach your academic
expectations? Tell me about a recent lesson that you think demonstrates your approach to
helping your students meet their academic potential.
22. How do you approach a student who regularly struggles in your class? Would you walk me through a
recent experience you had with him/her?
a. What did you do to help him/her gain understanding?
b. How do you know they’ve arrived at understanding?
c. How do you ensure that your students are comfortable asking for your help? How might I
see evidence of this during an observation?
23. How do you encourage a culture of collaboration in your classes?
a. How often are students presented with opportunities to collaborate with each other?
b. How do you facilitate these opportunities?
c. What are some examples of collaborative work that the students engage in?
d. Tell me about a recent collaborative activity in your class. What was it? Were the students
successful in reaching the learning objectives?
24. How do you ensure that students work cooperatively?
a. How do you ensure that the students make equitable contributions when working
collaboratively?
25. How often, if at all, do you participate in collaborative activities with your students?
a. What some examples of activities where you are able to collaborate with your students?
b. How might I see an example of a collaborative activity in which you are a part of? Tell me
about a recent activity in which you participated with your students.
c. When you are also a participant in the activity, how do you ensure that the students arrive at
their own knowledge? Tell me about a recent activity in which your participation helped
students arrive at their own knowledge.
26. Talk about the behavioral norms/expectations in your class.
a. How did you establish those norms?
b. How do you maintain them?
c. How do you handle situations when the norms/expectations are violated?
d. Say a student makes a derogatory remark to another student, either directly or indirectly,
how would you address this?
27. What do you think are the challenges that your students face in our society?
28. Describe your approach to addressing those challenges with your students.
a. How might I expect to see them show up in your lessons?
b. Talk about a recent lesson you think demonstrates how you have tackled one of these
challenges with your students.
29. How do you use the Bridge texts in your lessons?
a. What kinds of topics do you use them to get at with their students?
b. If you use them to get at social issues, tell me about a recent social issue that you have
discussed in your class.
c. What did the discussion sound like? What did you say? What did the students share?
d. What did you want them to get out of the lesson?
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 191
e. What do you think they got out of the lesson? What would you point to as evidence of what
you think they got out of it?
30. Describe your approach, if you have one, to helping your students to overcome their social, economic,
and/or academic disadvantages. Walk me through a recent lesson or project where you worked with
students to overcome one or more of these disadvantages.
31. Talk with me about the way, if at all, you have worked with your students to become involved in their
community.
32. How, if at all, does the idea of service fit into the way you work with your students?
a. How, if at all, have service projects played a role in your class?
b. How do you incorporate the students’ experience in their community within your
instruction?
33. Talk about the way you use what you know about your students’ backgrounds (family histories) in
your lessons.
a. Describe a recent lesson that you think best exemplifies the way you use students’ families’
histories in your lessons.
34. Talk about the way you use their language in your lessons.
a. Describe a recent lesson that you think best exemplifies the way you use students’ language
in your lessons.
35. Talk about the way you integrate your students’ interests into your lessons. (Here you want to get at
their music, their social media, their television, reading, etc. You might want to spend a little bit of
time here asking a few questions targeting these topics).
a. Describe a recent lesson that you think best exemplifies the way you use students’ interests
in your lessons.
36. When you decide to use something you know students will like (a particular piece of music, a story,
or a poem) that will also have problematic aspects to it, what do you do? For example, sometimes
songs have very negative messages in them. How, if at all, do you approach using those materials in
your lessons?

Now I would like to ask you a few questions about your experiences with students’ parents.

37. Talk about the kinds of interactions you have with your students’ parents.
a. When do you see them? Under what circumstances?
b. What might a typical experience look and sound like?
38. How often do you talk with your students’ parents? What topics do you discuss?
39. Are there any questions I should have asked you, anything you think I need to know in order to
understand your approach to teaching your students in the Bridge program?

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and experiences with me and I am looking forward to watching you
teach!

TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 192
Appendix B
Post Observation Teacher Practice Interview Protocol; Mrs. Jones

School Name: ______________________________________________ Date: _________________________
Name of Teacher Interviewed: __________________________________________________________________
Start time: _____________________ End time: _______________________ Total time: ___________________
Researcher: __________________________________________________________________________________________

Interview Questions:

1. Describe the planning process for the learning experience I observed. What was the
reasoning behind the narrative?
2. What were your desired outcomes for that experience?
3. Did the students achieve your desired outcomes for that experience?
4. How do you assess if the students met the desired outcomes?
5. What standards were you addressing in the learning experience I observed?
6. What aspects of the students’ backgrounds and influences were you addressing in
this learning experience?
7. Do you feel you were successful in making those connections to their background
and influences? Why or why not?
8. How do you determine what materials and resources you utilize for your lessons?
You mentioned your disappointment in the district chosen curriculum, how do you
determine what you use and what you do not? Do the students’ backgrounds and
influences affect those decisions? How so?
9. How are you able to still satisfy district requirements while also catering to your
students’ needs?
10. Is there anything else about this learning experience that you’d like to share with
me?
11. Most of the students seem to be very well versed in the routines and procedures of
your classroom. How are you able to encourage that independence and self-
directedness?
12. You mentioned that Billy is one who often chooses to wait until the last minute to
complete his assignments, often when it is crunch time. How do you ensure that
despite his shortcomings, he can still work to his potential and be successful? Do
you think Billy will achieve his goal of going to college? How often do you
communicate with his mother regarding his progress?
13. On a few occasions, you were able to inquire with certain students regarding their
family or happenings in their home lives. How were you able to arrive at that
information?
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 193
14. Because the students are seated in groups at tables, how do you ensure that their
independent work is completed with integrity? That in collaborating, they are also
able to complete independent work?
15. While some students are clearly self-directed and focused, some students are very
easily distracted. How do you maintain engagement and ensure they are achieving
the outcomes you’ve set for them?
16. Students like Nick are always very eager to participate in class discussions. How do
you ensure that other students, those who are less apt to speak up, are able to
participate and contribute equally to class discussions?
17. Do community service projects like Baskets of Love, where students are engaging in
service, reflect in their academic work? How so?
18. Is there anything else about your classes or your practice that you’d like to share?

TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 194
Appendix C
Post Observation Teacher Practice Interview Protocol; Ms. Logan

School Name: ______________________________________________ Date: _________________________
Name of Teacher Interviewed: _________________________________________________________________
Start time: _____________________ End time: _______________________ Total time: ___________________
Researcher: __________________________________________________________________________________________

Interview Questions:

1. Describe the planning process for the learning experience I observed. What was
your reasoning for creating the survival challenges? Where were you able to find
your resources? What about the resources did you think would connect to your
students?
2. What were your desired outcomes for that experience?
3. Did the students achieve your desired outcomes for that experience?
4. How do you assess if the students met the desired outcomes?
5. What standards were you addressing in the learning experience I observed?
6. What aspects of the students’ backgrounds and influences were you addressing in
this learning experience?
7. Can you expand a little more about how this lesson might connect to the students’
lives outside of school?
8. Do you feel you were successful in making that connection? Why or why not?
9. Where do you find ideas for the essential questions for your units? How might the
essential questions connect to the students’ lives? How might you enable
connections?
10. Many of the students seem to be very comfortable in your class. It is evident in their
camaraderie. How are you able to encourage that class dynamic?
11. Howard’s group was clearly more demanding of your attention than others, how do
you ensure that you are able to address the needs of the other students who are not
as vocal about needing your assistance?
12. Some students are very easily distracted. How do you maintain engagement and
ensure they are achieving the outcomes you’ve set for them?
13. How do you ensure equity in participation and contribution between the members
of the cooperative groups?
14. There are a handful of students that have a tendency to create distractions during
various phases of lessons, how do you ensure that they do not detract from other
students’ learning?
15. Do your students read aloud in class? Can you explain your choice in reading a
passage aloud to them?
TEACHING HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS 195
16. I noticed that you made changes to your lesson between your 3
rd
and 5
th
period
class. Can you explain why you decided to review the podcast instead of playing it
as you did for the other class?
17. What is your policy on electronic devices?
18. Is there anything else about this learning experience you’d like me to know?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Asset ideology, culturally relevant and asset pedagogies, and Funds of Knowledge (FoK) are three essential components of the practices of effective teachers of historically marginalized students. To understand how these components merge to bring meaning to instruction, this study addressed the following research question: How does the instruction of reputably effective high school teachers of historically marginalized students reflect the intersection of their beliefs and their practices? This multi-case study examined the interactions, decisions, instructional practices, and curricula of two high-school English teachers and one of each of their 10th grade classes. Both teachers taught for an academic outreach program that serves students from marginalized backgrounds. The data for this qualitative study included teacher interviews, classroom observations, and teacher created documents. The findings from this study revealed that although both teachers were well-intentioned and exhibited beliefs in the capabilities of their students, their inability to confront the cultural disparities between their White backgrounds and those of their Latino students resulted in their ill-position to deliver the culturally rich and relevant instruction the students needed. In order to be able to provide meaningful and robust learning opportunities for historically marginalized students, teachers must examine their own ideologies for potentially harmful mindsets, develop competence in the cultural contexts of their students, and cultivate and utilize FoK to deliver instruction that is culturally rich and relevant.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

4th space teaching: incorporating teachers' funds of knowledge, students' funds of knowledge, and school knowledge in multi-centric teaching

PDF

Examining elementary school teachers’ beliefs and pedagogy with students from low socioeconomic status and historically marginalized communities

PDF

Examining urban high school English language arts teachers’ written feedback to student writing and their perceptions and applications of culturally relevant pedagogy

PDF

How do teacher beliefs shape the approaches used to support low-income, Black, White, and Latino students in Advanced Placement English?

PDF

A case study about the implied and perceived messages sent by one teacher through instruction for academic and behavioral expectations of students

PDF

Examining the learning environments of urban high school educators who are culturally aware and serve a majority of students from historically marginalized populations

PDF

Changing pedagogy to promote the success of international students

PDF

Do you see you in me!? No, I do not. I other you.

PDF

Examining the intersection of ideology, classroom climate, and pedagogy in creating open-forum discussions in secondary English classrooms

PDF

Enacting ideology: an examination of the connections between teacher ideology, classroom climate, and teacher interpretation of student behavior

PDF

The intersections of culturally responsive pedagogy and authentic teacher care in creating meaningful academic learning opportunities for students of color

PDF

Towards ideological clarity: an action research project on the role of a teacher in unearthing unconscious bias to embrace culturally relevant pedagogy

PDF

Challenging dominant ideologies through sociopolitical discourse: an action research study on creating change as a history teacher

PDF

Discipline with dignity for African American students: effective culturally responsive practices used by teachers in kindergarten through second grade in Los Angeles County urban elementary schools

PDF

Examining teacher pre-service/credential programs and school site professional development and implementation of culturally relevant teaching of BIPOC students

PDF

The opportunity gap: culturally relevant pedagogy in high school English classes

PDF

Developing sociopolitical consciousness and cultural competence to dismantle structural racism and hegemony within my high school English classroom

PDF

Exploring the reflective practices of secondary, in-service teachers of students from diverse backgrounds

PDF

The effect of opportunity gaps: the charge for culturally relevant pedagogy in middle school social studies classes

PDF

Uncovering dominant ideology: an action research project aimed to uncover dominant ideology to enact culturally relevant pedagogy in the classroom

Asset Metadata

Creator Stevens, Mary Catherine (author)

Core Title Examining the practices of teachers who teach historically marginalized students through an enactment of ideology, asset pedagogies, and funds of knowledge

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publication Date 07/08/2016

Defense Date 06/08/2016

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag asset ideologies,asset pedagogies,culturally relevant pedagogy,culturally responsive pedagogy,culturally responsive teaching,funds of knowledge,OAI-PMH Harvest,teacher ideologies,teaching historically marginalized students

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Slayton, Julie (committee chair), Crawford, Jenifer (committee member), Samkian, Artineh (committee member)

Creator Email mary.c.stevens@usc.edu,stevensmaryc15@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-266214

Unique identifier UC11279547

Identifier etd-StevensMar-4524.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-266214 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-StevensMar-4524.pdf

Dmrecord 266214

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Stevens, Mary Catherine

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA