University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Examining Elementary School Teachers’ Beliefs and Pedagogy with Students from Low
Socioeconomic Status and Historically Marginalized Communities
by
Michael Jamal Williams, Jr.
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2024
Copyright 2024 Michael Jamal Williams, Jr.

ii
© Copyright by Michael Jamal Williams, Jr. 2024
All Rights Reserved

iii
The Committee for Michael Jamal Williams, Jr. certifies the approval of this Dissertation
John A. Garcia
Artineh Samkian
Julie Slayton, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2024

iv
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to the students and families who I have had the pleasure of serving
throughout my career thus far as an educator. In a world that continues to change and evolve, it is
my hope that our system and the educators within it will continue to do so.

v
Acknowledgements
The work that we do as educators is rooted in the passion that we have to see our students
and families grow and thrive. There are many educators and players on my team who have
continued to push me to ensure that I grow and thrive. I know that my team would agree when I
say that my journey to the Doctorate in Education was a complex road. I am forever grateful to
those individuals who have pushed and stuck by me.
To my dissertation chair Dr. Julie Slayton, you have pushed me to grow in ways that I
cannot fully explain. You never gave up on me even when I felt like giving up on myself. I will
be forever grateful for the years of guidance and support you have given me from my master’s
degree and through to my doctorate.
To Dr. Artineh Samkian, thank you for making research methods a friendly and
understandable topic. Your passion and positivity always made me feel a sense calm during the
program.
To Dr. John Garcia, PhD thank you for always looking out for my interest. Our candid
conversations over the years have pushed my thinking, practice and research. I can say without a
doubt that my capacity as an educational leader has come because of your guidance and support.
Your mentorship has been invaluable in me being “all in” on kids while being better today than I
was yesterday and better tomorrow than I am today.
To my family, in particular my mother Feleicianne Motley, you have raised a man who
holds your beliefs of hard work and making the most of this life. Thank you for always being
there to support and push me when times were the most difficult. Knowing that I always had you
in my corner gave me a sense of peace and confidence.

vi
Table of Contents
Dedication...................................................................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgements......................................................................................................................... v
List of Figures................................................................................................................................ ix
Abstract........................................................................................................................................... x
Chapter One: Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 1
Statement of the Problem.................................................................................................... 5
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 6
Significance of the Study.................................................................................................... 6
Overview of the Dissertation .............................................................................................. 7
Chapter Two: Literature Review .................................................................................................... 8
Deficit Teacher Ideology .................................................................................................... 9
Theoretical Literature on Deficit Ideology ........................................................... 10
Empirical Studies Demonstrating Deficit Ideology.............................................. 14
Equity Pedagogy ............................................................................................................... 24
Theoretical Literature on Culture-based Teaching ............................................... 26
Empirical Literature on Culture-based Teaching.................................................. 34
Conceptual Framework..................................................................................................... 42
Contributing Beliefs to Deficit Teacher Ideology ................................................ 44
Contributing Beliefs to Equity Teacher Ideology................................................. 45
Deficit Pedagogy................................................................................................... 46
Equity Pedagogy ................................................................................................... 47

vii
Chapter Three: Methods ............................................................................................................... 50
Research Design................................................................................................................ 50
Sample and Population ..................................................................................................... 51
Setting ................................................................................................................... 51
Participants............................................................................................................ 52
Instrumentation and Data Collection Procedures ............................................................. 53
Interview ............................................................................................................... 53
Observation........................................................................................................... 54
Data Analysis.................................................................................................................... 55
Limitations and Delimitations........................................................................................... 57
Limitations............................................................................................................ 57
Delimitations......................................................................................................... 58
Credibility and Trustworthiness........................................................................................ 59
Ethics................................................................................................................................. 60
Chapter Four: Findings................................................................................................................. 62
Case Study # 1: Mrs. Garcia, Liberty Elementary School................................................ 63
Finding 1: Mrs. Garcia Held a Combination of Deficit and Equity Beliefs......... 64
Finding 2: Mrs. Garcia Made Attempts at Equity Pedagogy................................ 76
Case Study # 2: Mrs. Johnson, Liberty Elementary School ............................................. 85
Finding: Mrs. Johnson’s Pedagogical Practices Reflected Deficit
Pedagogy............................................................................................................... 96
Assumptions About Students’ Backgrounds, Experiences, and Upbringing...... 106
Beliefs About Teachers’ Role in the Classroom................................................. 109
Enactment of Pedagogy ...................................................................................... 112
Revised Conceptual Framework..................................................................................... 114
Deficit Teacher Ideology .................................................................................... 116

viii
Equity Teacher Ideology................................................................................................. 116
Deficit Pedagogy............................................................................................................. 116
Equity Pedagogy ............................................................................................................. 117
Chapter Five: Discussions, Implications and Future Research................................................... 120
Summary of the Findings................................................................................................ 121
Implications and Recommendations............................................................................... 122
Practice ................................................................................................................ 123
Policy .................................................................................................................. 124
Research.............................................................................................................. 125
References................................................................................................................................... 127
Appendix A: Teacher Pre – Observation Interview Protocol ..................................................... 131
Appendix B: Classroom Observation Protocol........................................................................... 133
Appendix C: Nomination Checklist for Prospective Study Participants.................................... 134

ix
List of Figures
Figure 1 Cycle of Social Conditioning and Compliance with Deficit Ideology.................. 12
Figure 2 Cross-classification Matrix of Teachers’ Beliefs.................................................. 23
Figure 3 Conceptual Framework ......................................................................................... 44
Figure 4 Revised Conceptual Framework.......................................................................... 115

x
Abstract
Equity pedagogy practices have been researched and recognized as ideal for low socioeconomic
status (SES) students from historically marginalized communities. To understand how teachers
implement equity pedagogy, this study addressed the following research questions: What beliefs
do two elementary school teachers hold about their low SES students from historically
marginalized communities’ academic and behavior capabilities? How do two teachers who have
been recognized as demonstrating equity pedagogy in classrooms serving low SES students from
historically marginalized communities address the academic and behavior capabilities of their
students through their pedagogy? This study examined beliefs and practices of two teachers who
were recognized for implementing equity pedagogy at one public elementary school. One teacher
taught in a self-contained classroom, while the other was a Resource Specialist Program teacher.
The qualitative data for this study included teacher interviews and classroom observations. The
findings indicated that both teachers made assumptions about the academic and behavior
capabilities of their students, held differing beliefs about their roles as teachers, and enacted
pedagogy with varying tenets of deficit and equity. Teachers must confront their conscious and
unconscious beliefs and implement equity pedagogy that is relevant and responsive to the
backgrounds and experiences of low SES students from historically marginalized communities.

1
Chapter One: Introduction
In this chapter I set the context of my study by presenting the background of the problem.
I follow the background with a statement of the problem, purpose and significance of the study,
and the organization of the dissertation.
Background of the Problem
Students from low socioeconomic status (SES) and historically marginalized
communities have historically attended schools that possess a myriad of challenges that interfere
with and impede their academic and behavioral successes (Darling-Hammond, 2000; DarlingHammond & Sykes, 2003; Howard, 2019; Morgan, 2012; Noguera, 2019; Ogbu, 1987;
Valenzuela, 2010). Two major issues facing students from low SES, historically marginalized
communities have been 1) the beliefs held by teachers and administrators that their students are
less capable than White and more affluent students (Valenzuela, 2010) and 2) that schools they
attend consistently are less well-resourced than schools serving White affluent students (Howard,
2019; Morgan, 2012). Beginning in 1945, the case of Mendez v. Westminster highlighted district
administrators’ views that their Latine students were inferior to their affluent, White peers. In
fact, to keep Latine students from attending schools with affluent White students, the district
used Latine students’ last names to place them in schools with other Latine students (Aguirre,
2005). Thus, Latine students attended segregated schools. Additionally, these schools were not
equipped with the same quality of educational resources that were present in the schools of their
White and more affluent peers. In response to this fact pattern, the court held that the district had
violated the students’ Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection and had
unconstitutionally prevented students from enrolling in a public school based upon their race
(Aguirre, 2005).

2
Although landmark cases such as Mendez v. Westminster (1945) and later, Brown v.
Board of Education (1954), declared separate but equal school facilities as inherently unequal
and forced integration of school facilities, educational inequalities continue to exist for low SES,
historically marginalized students. Such inequalities have been manifested in the form of less
qualified teachers and administrators and inadequate facilities where buildings and textbooks are
in poor condition (Morgan, 2012; Noguera, 2019). These issues have played out in a wide range
and large number of subsequent lawsuits regarding the inequities and inadequacies of schools
that serve low SES, historically marginalized student populations (e.g., Edgewood Independent
School District v. Kirby, 1991; San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 1973;
Serrano v. Priest, 1971).
At the same time low SES students from historically marginalized communities have
attended schools less well-resourced schools, they have also experienced a persistent disparity in
academic performance when compared to their White and more affluent counterparts. For
example, in 2022 48% of White fourth grade students scored proficient or above in mathematics,
only 15% of Black and 22% of Hispanic students scored proficient or above on the National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Nation’s Report Card, 2022. Additionally, only
20% of students who qualified for the school lunch program scored proficient or above, while
51% of those students who did not qualify scored proficient or above. Moreover, while NAEP
results from 1990—2022 indicate some increases in the average academic achievement scores of
low SES students from historically marginalized communities, the results also indicate that
White, Asian, and more affluent students are also increasing in their academic achievement
scores (National Center for Education Statistics, 2022). Thus, the gap in performance persists.

3
In California, the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP)
results for 2023 demonstrated the existence of an achievement gap between economically
disadvantaged students and their White and affluent peers within the state. In English language
arts, only 35% of economically disadvantaged students met or exceeded standards, whereas 66%
of non-economically disadvantaged students met or exceeded standards (California Department
of Education, 2023). In mathematics, 23% of economically disadvantaged students met or
exceeded standards, whereas 54% of non-economically disadvantaged students met or exceeded
standards. Similar gaps were present across ethnic lines. Thirty percent of Black students and
36% of Hispanic students met or exceeded standards in English language arts while 61% of
White students met or exceeded standards. In mathematics, 17% of Black students and 23% of
Hispanic students met or exceeded standards, while 49% of White students met or exceeded
standards.
The achievement data provides evidence on both national and state levels that low SES
students from historically marginalized backgrounds are persistently achieving at much lower
rates than their White and more affluent peers.
In addition to the inadequate resources, the teachers who are most likely to teach low
SES, historically marginalized students are the least likely to look like them and share their
culture and experiences (Milner, 2011). Nationally, the majority of teachers are white, even in
schools where the majority student population is Black, Hispanic or Asian (National Center for
Education Statistics, 2020). The same trend exists in California where a majority of teachers are
white in contrast to a majority Hispanic student population (EdData, 2023). These differences
often result in teachers who carry a deficit perspective about the kids they come to teach
(Freidus, 2020; Milner, 2011) These teachers can hold beliefs that students from low SES,

4
historically marginalized backgrounds are intellectually deficient, lack motivation to learn and
possess liabilities rather than assets. These beliefs can stem from a teacher’s lack of understand
or awareness of their students’ backgrounds and the way the media depicts their students’
cultures (Bartolomé, 2008; Gorski, 2011; Milner, 2011). A teacher’s deficit perspective can be
expressed as low expectations for their students and manifest as pedagogical practices that
impede their low SES students from historically marginalized communities’ opportunities to
learn (Milner, 2011).
Haberman (1991) describes the pedagogical practices that are rooted in teachers’ low
expectations as “pedagogy of poverty.” He suggests that such practices include teachers simply
giving directions, making assignments, asking questions, and settling disputes. He argues that
teachers in urban classrooms see their relationship with their students as one where the teacher is
in charge and students are not capable of teaching since their job is to learn. These teachers focus
on teaching basic skills to their students through directive instructional practices that are based
upon the belief that low SES students from historically marginalized communities need
controlling. Such directive instructional practices stem from urban teachers’ lack of knowledge
and understanding of a range of pedagogical practices. The pedagogies identified by Haberman
(1991) continue to show themselves in today’s classrooms with teachers who work with low SES
students from historically marginalized communities (Milner, 2011).
In 2014, a court in California found that less effective teachers were often left to teach
low income and minority students (Vergara v. State of California, 2014). The court found that
less effective teachers with tenure were more likely to be teaching in the classrooms of students
with the highest level of need (Strunk, 2014). The court highlighted that students with an
ineffective teacher could lose months of instruction (Blume & Ceasar, 2014). Overall, the judge

5
determined that in 2014 students from low SES, historically marginalized backgrounds continued
to have teachers who were less effective than those found in more affluent schools. He concluded
that the lack of access to high quality teachers denied these students their right to equal
educational opportunities pursuant to the California Constitution.
Quality teachers are at the core of the students’ educational experience, especially in
schools that serve students from low SES, historically marginalized populations (DarlingHammond, 2000: Freidus (2020); Thomas & Berry, 2019). As Milner (2011) suggests, many
teachers have little to no awareness of their students’ backgrounds, cultures, and experiences and
they do not place any educational value on such backgrounds, cultures, and experiences. This
causes teachers to view difference as deficit (Milner, 2011). The resulting pedagogical practices
are ones that continue to marginalize students from low SES, historically marginalized
backgrounds. Addressing the education debt will require teachers who are not highly effective in
teaching students from low SES historically marginalized backgrounds to develop or deepen
their knowledge of content, pedagogy and the students whom they serve.
Statement of the Problem
Teachers’ beliefs about their students are connected to the expectations they hold for their
students and the pedagogy they use when teaching low SES students from historically
marginalized communities. Most often, teachers hold deficit beliefs about and low expectations
for their students. On the other hand, teachers who hold asset beliefs about their students are
more likely to communicate high expectations and use asset pedagogies in their classrooms
(Freidus, 2020). There is some qualitative research (cf, Milner, 2010) that 1) examines the ways
asset beliefs influence teachers’ approaches to working with their students from historically
marginalized communities and 2) that demonstrates the ways teachers use pedagogy to shape

6
students’ learning opportunities (Hatt, 2010; Rist, 1970). On the other hand, there is little
literature that investigates how teachers’ beliefs are communicated to students through their
pedagogical practices. Specifically, research is needed to understand how teachers’ beliefs reveal
themselves in the pedagogy they use with their low SES students from historically marginalized
communities.
Purpose of the Study
This study investigated elementary teachers’ perceptions of their low SES students from
historically marginalized communities’ academic and behavior capabilities. The study also
investigated how teachers’ perceptions of their students were communicated to students through
the teachers’ pedagogical practices. The following research questions guided my dissertation
study:
1. What beliefs do two elementary school teachers hold about their low SES students
from historically marginalized communities’ academic and behavior capabilities?
2. How do two teachers who have been recognized as demonstrating equity pedagogy in
classrooms serving low SES students from historically marginalized communities
address the academic and behavior capabilities of their students through their
pedagogy?
Significance of the Study
Low SES students from historically marginalized communities face a multitude of
educational challenges due to the deficit perspectives of their teachers, pedagogy of poverty and
the overall quality of instruction provided in their classrooms. This study is significant because it
demonstrated the connectedness of teacher beliefs and pedagogical practices, which have
typically been presented in isolation in other studies (Thomas & Berry, 2019). As a principal in a

7
K–12 school with a large population of low SES students from historically marginalized
communities, this study informed my instructional leadership practice in coaching pre-service
and in-service teachers to effectively teach in classrooms serving low SES students from
historically marginalized communities.
Overview of the Dissertation
There are five chapters in this dissertation. Chapter one provides the context problem by
describing the background and statement of the problem. The chapter then outlines the purpose
of the study and its significance. Chapter two explores bodies of literature on deficit and equity
ideology and pedagogy. Chapter two also provides a conceptual framework that synthesizes and
represents the various concepts from the literature and that was used to guide the methods of the
study. Chapter three provides the methods for the study including the procedures used to collect
and analyze the data along with addressing issues of credibility and trustworthiness, ethics, and
limitations and delimitations in the study.
Chapter four discusses the findings of the study. It presents the themes that emerged from
each case. Chapter four concludes with a cross case analysis, where the similarities and
differences between the two case teachers are discussed through the lens of the contextual
framework. This chapter also provides a revised conceptual framework that emerged because of
the data collected and the analysis completed. Revisions to the framework were made in
response to the way I originally thought teachers would behave in their beliefs and pedagogical
decisions with the new information I learned from my research. Chapter five summarizes the
findings and discusses the implications for the study. The final chapter also provides
recommendations to consider for practice, policy, and further research.

8
Chapter Two: Literature Review
This chapter explores literature that addresses teachers’ beliefs and perceptions of
students from low socioeconomic, historically marginalized backgrounds and the pedagogical
practices that teachers enact with these students. This literature review assisted me as I sought to
answer the following research questions:
1. What beliefs do two elementary school teachers hold about their low SES students
from historically marginalized communities’ academic and behavior capabilities?
2. How do two teachers who have been recognized as demonstrating equity
pedagogy in classrooms serving low SES students from historically marginalized
communities address the academic and behavior capabilities of their students
through their pedagogy?
To answer my research questions, I drew on two bodies of literature. The first focuses on
deficit teacher ideology and the second focuses on teacher pedagogies that support academic and
behavioral success for low SES students from historically marginalized communities. The
literature on deficit ideology provides insight into the ways that teachers’ perceptions of their
low SES students from historically marginalized communities’ knowledge and ability are
derived from conscious and unconscious beliefs generated from dominant ideologies put forth by
society. The literature on pedagogies focuses on what I am calling equity pedagogies that will
provide insight into what is already known about effective pedagogy and how that pedagogy is
manifested to support economically disadvantaged, historically marginalized students’ academic
and behavioral success.

9
Deficit Teacher Ideology
Bartolomé (2008) defines ideology as, “The framework of thought constructed and held
by members of society to justify or rationalize an existing social order” (p. XII). Ideology is
reflected in the conscious and unconscious beliefs of teachers about their work and their
students. These beliefs are demonstrated through the actions (or lack thereof) undertaken by
teachers in classrooms when they work with their children. Bartolomé explains that teachers can
carry three dominant ideologies. These dominant ideologies are deficit, assimilationist and
meritocratic.
Although Bartolomé (2008) and other theorists have identified a range of ideologies or
mindsets, in this literature review I have chosen to specifically examine literature related to
deficit teacher ideology. I have limited my focus to this ideology because I believe this mindset
is the one that leads to the majority of damage that occurs for children in school. As I discuss
below, deficit ideology positions the student as less than in every way. I assert that this
ultimately results in the desire of those from the majority culture to want historically
marginalized and poor children to assimilate into the dominant culture (to attain the values,
skills, and knowledge of the dominant society) and the belief that, with effort, anyone can
succeed and when they don’t, it is their fault. Thus, I begin by reviewing literature that provides
a theoretical foundation for deficit ideology. I then turn my attention to the empirical literature
examining the ways deficit ideology has played itself out in classrooms. Understanding deficit
teacher ideology enabled me to gain insight that helped me answer my research questions
because it provided a foundation for understanding where teachers generate their perceptions and
expectations of and the consequences for low SES students from historically marginalized
communities.

10
Theoretical Literature on Deficit Ideology
Deficit ideology is the belief held by educators that students from low SES or historically
marginalized backgrounds are inherently deficient (Bartolomé, 2008; Gorski, 2011; Haberman,
1991; Milner, 2011). I begin by presenting the way deficit ideology plays itself out in the society
at large and then move into the more specific enactment of deficit ideology in the K–12 context.
Not only do negative ideologies affect those on whom they are imposed but they become
internalized by educators and expressed in their teaching of low SES students from historically
marginalized communities (Bartolomé, 2008). Teacher education programs are graduating
teachers who are primarily White females and entering classrooms without an understanding of
their ideological orientation, which is problematic in an era where there is an increasing number
of students of color (Bartolomé, 2008).
Valencia (1997) contends that deficit ideology is historically based upon the compulsory
ignorance laws of the mid-18th century where individuals were fined for teaching African slaves
to write or scribe. He argues that deficit ideology alleges limited intellectual abilities, linguistic
shortcomings, lack of motivation to learn, and immoral behavior, which contributed to the forced
segregation of schools for minority students, including separate but equal legislation of the early
1900s (Valencia, 1997). Among educators, a deficit ideology also is expressed in the belief that
parents of low SES students do not value education and thus do not instill such value in their
children (Valencia, 1997). As a result, low SES parents are seen as being uninvolved and nonparticipative in the education of their children (Valencia, 1997).
Gorski (2011) suggests that deficit ideology is a “blame the victim” mentality applied to
an entire group of people that centers on the idea that inequalities exist due to moral, cultural,
intellectual, and behavioral deficiencies that are inherent in members of disenfranchised

11
individuals and communities. In a deficit ideology, social conditions, including racism and
economic injustice, are ignored and the ideology focuses on fixing disenfranchised people rather
than addressing the systemic issues that are causing them to be disenfranchised altogether
(Gorski, 2011). He argues that a deficit ideology manipulates popular consciousness and shifts
attention away from the systemic conditions and sociopolitical context of disenfranchised
communities. When the deficit ideology continues to recycle its misperceptions of the
disenfranchised, it seems to continually justify the societal inequities that exist.
Gorski (2011) theorizes that the educators in the U.S. are socialized through an American
capitalist and consumerist hegemony. Educators then buy into the stereotypes and myths, which
manifest into educators’ philosophies and practices. Such philosophies and practices serve as
indicators of the educators’ level of commitment to addressing social, political, and economic
justice for low SES and disenfranchised individuals (Gorski, 2011). He highlights a cycle of
social conditioning and compliance that normalizes the deficit ideology through the propagation
of class mythology and popularization of a lower class “other.”
Gorski (2011) argues that a popular consciousness of class mythology in education
currently exists in the U.S. Rooted in this popular consciousness is the discourse of a hard work
ethic. Additionally, the discourse includes the idea that a level playing field exists, the
opportunity structure is solid, and the system is equitable for all (Gorski, 2011). The systemic
inequities that influence the achievement gap are largely ignored, thus perpetuating the belief of
a fair and meritocratic opportunity structure in America.
Coupled with the existence of a class mythology, society has popularized the notion of a
lower class other (Gorski, 2011). This lower class other includes disenfranchised communities
and the belief that these communities are inherently deficient, thus leading to their poverty status.

12
Gorski (2011) suggests that a shift has occurred regarding the attributions of poverty from the
pre-1970s where poverty was attributed to social conditions to now where people attribute
poverty to the individuals in poverty and their perceived lack of moral values.
Gorski (2011) explains that such a view of those in the lower class other is related to the
sociopolitical context in history, especially the influence of politicians and their painting of those
in poverty as dependent. He also highlights the “culture of poverty” hypothesis and its rise to
popularity as influencing the perception of the lower class other. Even though the hypothesis has
been dismissed and refuted by many studies, it influenced the attitudes of society from seeing
those in poverty as repressed to seeing their communities as deficient.
The propagation of class mythology influences the popularization of a lower class other,
which leads to the normalization of a deficit ideology. This normalization of a deficit ideology
then leads to the propagation of class mythology, thus creating Gorski’s (2011) cycle of social
conditioning and compliance with deficit ideology.
Figure 1
Cycle of Social Conditioning and Compliance With Deficit Ideology
Adapted from “Unlearning deficit ideology and the scornful gaze: Thoughts on authenticating
the class discourse in education,” by P. Gorski, Counterpoints, p. 159.

13
Haberman’s (1991) research describes the pedagogical practices that are rooted in
teachers’ low expectations as “pedagogy of poverty.” He argues that teachers in urban
classrooms see their relationship with their students as one where the teacher is in charge and
students are not capable of teaching since their job is to learn. These teachers focus on teaching
basic skills to their students through directive instructional practices that are based upon the
belief that low SES students from historically marginalized communities need controlling
(Haberman, 1991). Such directive instructional practices stem from urban teachers’ lack of
knowledge and understanding of a range of pedagogical practices. Such practices include
teachers simply giving directions, monitoring seatwork, reviewing assignments, punishing
noncompliance, asking questions, and settling disputes.
Milner (2011) carries the concept of deficit ideology into the K–12 classroom. With most
of the teaching force being White, Milner attributes deficit thinking to teachers’ lack of exposure
to and experience with individuals of color. Thus, these teachers rely on media, television, and
family biases to determine their perceptions of individuals of color. These perceptions are
manifested in the deficit orientations these teachers carry, which are often stereotypical in nature
(Milner, 2011).
Milner (2011) highlights that deficit thinking influences the pedagogical decisions that
teachers make for students of color. Under deficit thinking, teachers bring the belief that students
of color lack the skills and knowledge that are necessary for success in learning. Such inaccurate
perceptions of students of color can be detrimental to the classroom learning progress of these
students, as teachers lack the belief that students of color bring knowledge and experiences into
the learning environment. Milner (2011) explains that deficit thinking causes teachers to view
students of color as liabilities rather than focusing attention on students’ assets.

14
Empirical Studies Demonstrating Deficit Ideology
In this section I examine empirical literature that demonstrates teachers’ perceptions and
expectations of the learning and behavior capabilities of students from low SES and historically
marginalized backgrounds and how those perceptions and expectations translate into the
pedagogical decisions teachers make. The empirical studies in this review did not set out to
understand deficit ideology, but their findings reveal the tenets of deficit ideology and thus had
significance to my understanding of the way the theory translates into practice. This literature
provided me with insights that I used to answer my research questions because it focuses on low
SES and historically marginalized students, teacher perceptions, and pedagogical decisionmaking. This literature provides contextual examples related to the teacher ideologies discussed
in the previous section of the literature review. Finally, this literature provided insight into my
questions as this research focuses on urban contexts.
Rist (1970) conducted a longitudinal qualitative study to analyze the factors that
contribute to teachers’ expectations of their students and how those expectations had an
influence on the classroom experience for both teachers and students. The school where the
study was conducted was in an urban area and had a 98 percent Black population where more
than half of the families received public benefits. The teacher was a Black, middle-class female.
The district superintendent selected the school as one of five schools that were available for
research. The study followed a cohort of elementary school students for 2 1/2 years. Rist (1970)
conducted formal observations in the classroom twice per week in 1 1/2 hour increments during
kindergarten and second grade. He observed the students informally on four occasions in first
grade. The researcher also interviewed the kindergarten and second grade teachers.

15
Rist (1970) found that kindergarten students were treated differently based upon whether
they were an ideal fit for criteria the teacher deemed to yield a successful student. Those students
who fit the criteria were seated together at a specific table, while those who least fit the criteria
were seated together at separate tables. From his observation data, Rist (1970) found that in
kindergarten, the student groups differed based upon four criteria. The criteria included physical
appearance (including body odor), interactional behavior with each other and the teacher, use of
language (including standard American English or Black dialect), and societal factors such as
income, education, and family size.
Interview responses from the kindergarten teacher illustrated that she grouped students
based upon whom she deemed as “fast” and “slow” learners (Rist, 1970). The teacher interacted
with the students at the fast learner table by focusing more of her teaching, attention,
conversations, and non-aggressive behaviors towards them. On the other hand, the teacher
interacted with the students at the slow learner table by giving them less teaching time, attention,
fewer conversations, and demonstrating more aggressive behaviors towards them. In addition,
students placed at the slow learners’ tables engaged in what Rist called secondary learning—they
discussed among themselves the information that was being taught to the students at the higher
tables without having the advantage of the teacher’s interaction with them directly (Rist, 1970).
The first and second grade teachers employed similar table group arrangements to that of
the kindergarten teacher. The same students from the fast learners’ tables in kindergarten were
seated at the higher tables in first grade. In second grade, where the teacher used reading levels
to group students, the same students from kindergarten continued with placement into the higher
group, with exception to two students where the teacher moved them due to their work areas
being messy (Rist, 1970). As these students had received more instruction at a higher level in

16
both kindergarten and first grade, they continued to progress at higher levels than their
classmates who had initially been designated as slow within the first 8 days of their kindergarten
experience.
The IQ test results given to the kindergarten teacher at the start of year indicated that
students were all at the same intellectual level. The kindergarten teacher’s grouping of students,
which was based primarily upon her own criteria and definitions of success for students, carried
over into the subsequent grade levels where no mobility occurred for students in the lower
groups. The same fast learners from 2 years prior continued to achieve and progress, whereas the
slow learners continued to struggle in the eyes of the teachers. A self-fulfilling prophecy was
evident, where the teachers’ initial expectations of success for students became the actual result
of the students’ achievement (Rist, 1970).
Hatt (2011) conducted a 1-year ethnography to understand the concept of smartness as a
cultural practice in the context of a kindergarten classroom. The kindergarten classroom in which
the study took place consisted of 25 students of whom 15 were White and 10 were Black. The
school was in a semi-rural community, which consisted of students who were children of
university academics, as well as students from minority and working-class families. Two White
adults, one teacher and the other a teacher’s aide, were present in the classroom. The researcher
sought to answer the following questions: Who has power? How is it enacted? What actions in
the classroom constitute privilege? How is privilege negotiated? The researcher conducted
observations, interviews, and document review (Hatt, 2011). Both structured and unstructured
interviews were used. One teacher, one teacher aide, 10 parents, and all students in the class were
interviewed. Observations took place from the beginning until the end of the school day for 3–5

17
days per week. Kindergarten readiness assessments and report cards were the documents the
researcher reviewed.
Hatt (2011) utilized Holland et al.’s (1998) concept of figured worlds, which are the rules
and/or forces that dictate how people act, speak, or behave. The three main components of
figured worlds used by the researcher in her findings included: artifacts, discourses, and
academic identities. The study found that specific artifacts within the classroom were used by the
adults in the room to define which students were smart and who was not, and that teachers’
discourses in the classroom revealed their perception of which students they deemed as smart
(Hatt, 2011). The study also found that students’ academic identities were influenced by their
experience in this classroom. For the purposes of this literature review, I will focus on artifacts
and discourses as they were most relevant to the research question I asked related to actions
taken by the teacher in communicating their perceptions of students through their pedagogical
practices.
Hatt (2011) found artifacts in the classroom that were used by the adults to define which
students were smart. The artifacts were not based upon academic abilities of students, but instead
based upon behaviors that students demonstrated in the classroom. One example of the use of an
artifact to define smartness was evident in the way the teacher used a stoplight as a classroom
management tool. As students engaged in behaviors deemed undesired by the teacher, the
students were required to move a car from green to yellow or red on the stoplight. Moving of the
cars resulted in loss of privileges for students. Hatt found that many of the students who were
asked to move their cars were working class White and Black students, while affluent White
students were rarely asked to move their cars, even when the more affluent students were
committing the same infractions as their non-affluent and Black classmates. Interview responses

18
from students revealed their feelings that students who did not move their car were smart
students, thus demonstrating their construction of what it meant to be smart and which types of
students fit the criteria. Consequently, when asked to identify specific smart students in the
classroom, the two adults in the classroom and the students cited names of students along racial
and social class lines, where middle-class and White students were smart and poor and Black
students were not (Hatt, 2011).
Another artifact example of smartness in the classroom was the shoe tyer and phone
numbers club, where students who could tie their shoes and remember their phone number had
their names publicly displayed. Students who could not perform those tasks were not assisted by
the teacher and were publicly humiliated. Hatt (2011) found that the ability to tie shoes and
remember phone numbers was based upon the students’ home lives and not what they learned in
class. The students who were able to accomplish those tasks were the affluent White students. As
a result, students whose parents worked more than one job or were not home as much with their
children were placed at a disadvantage. Those students did not receive the praise and feedback
from the teacher that communicated their smartness for being able to accomplish such tasks. This
type of system communicated to students the idea that smartness was innate and not based upon
what occurred in one’s family or what was learned in class (Hatt, 2011).
In addition to artifacts, Hatt (2011) found that classroom discourse demonstrated to
students who was smart. The teachers used language such as, “making good choices” and “first
grade work” for students to decide if they were being smart. The adults in the classroom used
discourse to convey the social order of the class. When talking to the class, the teachers would
often use language such as “you’re so smart” or “geniuses” to affirm desired behaviors and
actions of students. Such affirmations were generally directed to the affluent White students.

19
Whereas “good choices” was the statement used to express that students were not engaging in
desired behaviors. This statement was often used with students who were from low-income
backgrounds and who were Black.
Through the artifacts and discourses, the adults in the classroom used the concept of
smartness as tool of social positioning and social control (Hatt, 2011). Students came to
understand that their position in the class and being smart was based upon gaining positive
recognition and praise from the teacher along with the associated privileges. Additionally,
teachers were able to use smartness as a tool for social control by getting students to believe that
engaging in expected behaviors of the teacher made them smart. However, poor and Black
students who could not live up to these expectations began to feel as though they were not smart
and became less invested in school and withdrawn from schooling over the course of the school
year.
Espinosa and Laffey (2003) conducted a mixed methods study that investigated teacherstudent relationships and instructional conditions to understand the low performance of innercity children from low socioeconomic backgrounds. The study was conducted in an inner-city
elementary school located in an impoverished area where 98.5 percent of students qualified for
free or reduced lunch. The school also performed in the bottom 5 percent of all schools in the
state, where none of the students achieved at the minimum state standard. The study focused on
the academic and behaviorally challenged students of six teachers who taught pre–K through
first grade. Four teachers were Anglo-European and two of the teachers were African American.
The authors did not explain their sampling strategy or criteria for including the six teachers in
their study. The students in the study were the students in the six classrooms. All students in the
sample were African American and qualified for free or reduced lunch.

20
The study used a quasi-experimental design. To identify the academically and
behaviorally challenged students Espinosa and Laffey first administered the Social Skills Rating
System (SSRS) to teachers. The SRSS was a tool used to understand teachers’ perceptions of
students’ anti-social or problematic behavior along with their academic competence (Espinosa &
Laffey, 2003). Results of the teachers’ ratings indicated that more than half of students (54
percent) were classified as at-risk for behavior problems, while academically, 81 percent of
students were perceived by teachers to be below the 50th percentile, an indicator of lacking
academic competence. The students were then given a pre-test to understand their mathematical
knowledge.
For each classroom, researchers randomly assigned the students rated by the teachers as
academically and behaviorally challenged into a treatment or control group. They gave the
treatment group a computer-based mathematical intervention program twice per week for 25–30
minutes. The purpose of the treatment was to see whether students with perceived behavior
challenges would be able to demonstrate appropriate behaviors in an alternative setting and
increase their self-concept as a learner through experiencing school-based successes (Espinosa &
Laffey, 2003). The students in the treatment group also received the regular mathematics
instruction in the classroom with the teacher.
After the treatment, Espinosa and Laffey (2003) administered a posttest and found that
students who were rated as high for behavior problems and low academically yielded higher
gains in mathematical knowledge when given the treatment as compared to those students in the
control group who only received classroom instruction from their teachers.
The researchers observed and interviewed students during the intervention followed by
observations in those students’ classrooms during directed instruction with their regular

21
classroom teacher. The researchers specifically selected eight students who had high initial math
scores but very low teacher ratings in academic competence. Observation data revealed that
during the intervention, these students were on task and focused. Interviews with these students
explained that students felt good about their tasks on the computer intervention. However, when
researchers went to observe these same students in the classroom, they found the students were
being disciplined by the teachers and became disruptive during teacher-led instruction. On a few
occasions, the students were placed in time out, or sent out the classroom altogether and did not
participate in the class activities. Espinosa and Laffey (2003) noticed that teachers did not
provide any positive feedback or support to the students.
Overall, students whose behaviors were rated high by their teachers were also assumed to
be low achievers. Espinosa and Laffey (2003) concluded the teachers’ perceptions of their
students’ behavior problems confounded their perception of the students’ academic capabilities.
With those perceived problem students excelling during the treatment, the research suggested the
issue of focus was classroom environment and practices of the teacher.
Winfield (1985) conducted a qualitative case study to understand teacher beliefs about
academically at-risk students in five urban elementary schools. The urban, inner-city schools
were sampled from a metropolitan school district, where all schools served low-income and atrisk students. Forty elementary school teachers were sampled, with an equal number of teachers
representing each school. Teachers were interviewed using a semi-structured format about the
reading achievement of academically at-risk students. Teachers were selected by the principal or
reading specialist and were deemed either effective or ineffective. Additionally, new teachers,
union representatives, and others with varying years of experience were selected to participate.

22
The researchers spent 400 person hours collecting field data and spent about 1 full day at
each school site per week (Winfield, 1985). Teachers were interviews and observational field
notes were written. The researchers wrote a case study narrative for each school after spending
time in the field collecting data. Cross-classification was used in the analysis of the teachers’
interview responses. Teachers’ self-reports and observation field note data were used to create
the description of teacher beliefs from the sample.
Researchers found that teacher beliefs could be categorized into two dimensions. First,
researchers identified that teachers held improvement or maintenance beliefs. Under
improvement, teachers acknowledged that instruction was needed to increase at-risk students’
achievement and maintenance beliefs ignored and maintained the low levels of achievement of
at-risk students by blaming a lack of resources such as aides and special programs (Winfield,
1985). The second dimension related to the practices and behaviors that teachers employed with
at-risk students. In this dimension, teachers either assumed responsibility for the students’
achievement or shifted the responsibility to others.
Based upon the responses from teacher interviews, Winfield (1985) classified teachers
into four domains (See Figure 2). Teachers who assumed responsibility for improving at-risk
student achievement were called tutors. Teachers who knew that additional instruction was
needed for students but did not assume the responsibility for such instruction were called general
contractors. Teachers who expressed thoughts that little could be done to help at-risk students
and those who were interested in maintaining the low level of at-risk student achievement were
called custodians. Finally, referral agents were identified as teachers who expressed views that
did not take responsibility for at-risk student achievement and overall believed that at-risk

23
students were incapable of achieving the in the traditional classroom. These teachers often
referred at-risk students to other settings including special education or psychological testing.
Figure 2
Cross-classification Matrix of Teachers’ Beliefs
Adapted from “Teacher beliefs toward academically at-risk students in inner urban schools,” by
L. Winfield, 1985, The Urban Review, 18, p. 257.
Through interviews, Winfield (1985) found that tutors possessed an intent and
willingness to assume responsibility for the academic achievement of at-risk students instead of
shifting the responsibility to others. In observations and interviews of the general contractors, it
was evident that these teachers understood that at-risk students needed interventions, however
these teachers relied on aides and other members of the school community to provide such
support, illustrating a shift of responsibility. Interviews with custodians demonstrated their
intentions of keeping at-risk students at low levels of achievement through providing a less
challenging and below grade level curriculum in addition to shifting the responsibility for
educating the at-risk students to other teachers. Interviews and observations of referral agents
demonstrated that these teachers refused to assume responsibility for educating at-risk students
and were highly concerned with referring and placing at-risk students into special education

24
classes. Referral agents often expressed beliefs that students’ home environments were to blame
for their achievement and that little could be done on the part of the teacher.
It is evident from the literature that a teacher’s possession of a deficit ideology can be
highly problematic both academically and socially for low SES students from historically
marginalized communities. The low expectations of students and negative perception of their
academic abilities can lead to pedagogical practices that water down the curriculum and do not
value the backgrounds, experiences, and assets that students bring to the learning environment.
Additionally, a deficit ideology and its associated pedagogical practices can lead a self-fulfilling
prophecy and construction of where students belong in the social order of a classroom. The
literature in this section provides theoretical and empirical support of the beliefs and practices
that continue to marginalize students.
Although deficit ideology helped to answer my research questions about teacher
perceptions of low SES students from historically marginalized communities, it focuses on
negative perceptions and practices, and it would have been inappropriate to solely explore
literature that highlights marginalizing practices on students. I was also interested in
understanding how teachers use equity beliefs and subsequent pedagogical practices with
students from low SES, historically marginalized backgrounds. This helped me further answer
my research questions about teachers’ perceptions and communication through pedagogical
practices from an opposite perspective of deficit.
Equity Pedagogy
Banks and Banks (1995) define equity pedagogy as “teaching strategies and classroom
environments that help students from diverse racial, ethnic, and cultural groups attain the
knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed to function effectively within, and help create and

25
perpetuate, a just, humane, and democratic society” (p. 152). They argue that equity pedagogy
focuses on basic skill acquisition and allowing students to become agents of social change in
society.
In equity pedagogy, the traditional relationship between the teacher and student is altered
and creates a shift from the teacher being the center and transmitting knowledge to allowing the
student to construct knowledge and where knowledge and reflection are integrated (Banks &
Banks, 1995). Through equity pedagogy, students are engaging in the production of knowledge
and skills that will work to create change in society.
Banks and Banks (1995) suggest that for teachers to implement equity pedagogy they
must understand that equity pedagogy is highly contextualized, have sound knowledge of subject
matter, pedagogy, and the cultures of the students they serve. Teachers who implement equity
pedagogy must also be willing to engage in reflection about their practice.
Bennett (2001) also supports the argument for equity pedagogy by highlighting the
socialization that occurs between the teacher and student as essential to the teaching and learning
process. She offers an argument for genres of multicultural education in which she presents four
clusters. One of the clusters she presents is equity pedagogy. Bennett defines the equity
movement as working to achieve fair and equal educational opportunities for all children,
especially those from ethnic minority and economically disadvantaged backgrounds to address
the issues that are often faced by minority and low socioeconomic status students. Bennett
explains that low SES and ethnic minority students often experience mismatches between home
and school cultural expectations. Teachers often lower expectations of low SES and ethnic
minority students due to the teachers’ lack of knowledge of students’ cultural styles and
differences, such as communication, learning and values. In her review of equity pedagogy, she

26
cites culturally relevant pedagogy, among other culture-based theories (i.e., congruent,
compatible, appropriate) as an ideal pedagogical practice (Bennett, 2001).
In the subsequent sections I will review literature that describes equity pedagogy that is
utilized in teaching low SES students from historically marginalized communities. Although the
group of theorists does not refer to their theoretical perspectives as equity pedagogy, I have
chosen to name the collection of theories equity pedagogy because their tenets align with Banks
and Banks’ (1995) and Bennett’s (2001) conceptualizations of equity pedagogy. I will review
both theoretical and empirical literature that highlights equity pedagogy in the form of culturally
relevant (Ladson-Billings, 1995), responsive (Gay, 2002), and sustaining (Paris, 2012; Paris &
Alim, 2014). These pedagogical frameworks helped me to answer my research question because
they demonstrate the specific mindsets and methods that teachers employ when communicating
and interacting with students from low SES, historically marginalized communities in ways that
support these students’ academic and behavioral success in the classroom.
Theoretical Literature on Culture-based Teaching
In this section I present theoretical representations of culturally relevant pedagogy,
culturally responsive teaching, and culturally sustaining pedagogy from the perspectives of
Ladson-Billings (1995, 2009, 2014), Gay (2002), Paris (2012) and Paris and Alim (2014).
Culturally Relevant Pedagogy
By utilizing a grounded theory approach, Ladson-Billings (1995) developed a theory of
culturally relevant pedagogy by studying successful teachers of African American students.
Culturally relevant pedagogy can be described as pedagogy of opposition that is focused on
collective empowerment (Ladson-Billings, 1995). Culturally relevant pedagogy is situated under
three criteria. First, students need to experience academic success. Second, students must

27
develop and maintain a cultural competence. Third, to challenge the status quo and societal
inequities, students must develop a critical consciousness.
Ladson-Billings (1995) argues that despite the research that exists about African
American students’ status and whether their culture is a fit with school culture, students must
achieve. Teachers who teach from a culturally relevant perspective must ensure that students’
academic needs are met in addition to focusing on students’ affective needs. Ladson-Billings
(1995) draws this theoretical tenet from her finding that successful teachers of African American
students believe one of their primary responsibilities is to ensure the academic success of their
students.
Ladson-Billings (1995) expands beyond Winfield’s (1986) categories of teacher beliefs.
In addition to Winfield’s four categories—teachers seeking improvement (tutors and general
contractors) and maintaining the low levels of achievement among at-risk students, or status quo
(custodians and referral agents)—Ladson-Billings (1995) suggests a fifth category: teachers who
seek excellence among their students. Such teachers are called conductors and coaches.
Whereas Winfield’s (1985) research suggests that tutors are the ideal teacher for at-risk
students, Ladson-Billings (2009) ranks the conductor as the first in order of teacher beliefs.
Conductors hold the belief that students are capable of excellence and these teachers assume the
responsibility for ensuring their students achieve such excellence (Ladson-Billings, 2009).
Coaches see the responsibility for educating students as a shared one and work to include a
variety of stakeholders in the education of children, including parents, community members, and
the students (Ladson-Billings, 2009).
In addition to achieving academically, culturally relevant pedagogy asserts that students
will develop a cultural competence, where they maintain their cultural integrity (Ladson-Billings,

28
1995). She explains that culturally relevant teachers utilize students’ culture as a vehicle for
making learning meaningful.
Culturally relevant pedagogy also aims to have students develop a critical consciousness
whereby teachers assist students in the recognition, understanding, and critique of the inequities
that exist in society. Ladson-Billings (1995) argues that such a critique includes cultural norms,
values, mores, and institutions that support the inequities in society. Teachers themselves need to
recognize and understand the social inequities to engage with students in the work of developing
a critical consciousness.
Ladson-Billings (1995) theorizes that culturally relevant teachers hold a certain
conception of themselves and others, engage in specific social relations with students and the
community and possess a certain conception of knowledge.
Culturally relevant teachers hold conceptions of themselves as being members of the
communities in which they work, and their teaching is a way of them giving back to the
community (Ladson-Billings, 1995). These teachers make an active choice to involve themselves
in their students’ communities. Additionally, these teachers hold beliefs that all students can be
academically successful and see their pedagogical practices as arts forms. Finally, culturally
relevant teachers see their teaching role as a solicitor of knowledge from students, or mining
(Ladson-Billings, 1995).
Teachers engaged in culturally relevant pedagogy intentionally create social conditions
that allow for students to demonstrate the three criteria discussed earlier: academic achievement,
cultural competence, and critical consciousness (Ladson-Billings, 1995). Teachers in a culturally
relevant classroom create connectedness and fluid relationships with students. These teachers
create a community of learners who become responsible for one another and work

29
collaboratively in the classroom (Ladson-Billings, 2009). Students are provided with the
opportunities to serve as teachers in an environment that is focused on individual achievement
rather than competition between students.
Culturally relevant teachers hold particular conceptions about knowledge. These teachers
believe that knowledge is constructed and does not remain static (Ladson-Billings, 2009). They
believe in a passion for teaching and learning occurring in the classroom and that teachers should
provide scaffolds that allow additional access to learning (Ladson-Billings, 1995). These
teachers also see assessment as involving multiple forms. Culturally relevant teachers allow for
the knowledge transmission from students and teachers in the classroom (Ladson-Billings,
1995).
Culturally Responsive Teaching
Gay (2002) adds to the research on culturally relevant pedagogy by providing five
essential elements for culturally responsive teaching. She argues that teachers must develop a
cultural diversity knowledge base, design culturally relevant curricula, demonstrate cultural
caring and build a learning community, establish cross-cultural communication, and provide
classroom instruction that has cultural congruity (Gay, 2002). I will go into further detail about
each of the five elements in the remaining section of this literature review.
Gay’s (2002) first element argues that culturally responsive teachers must develop a
cultural knowledge base to meet the needs of ethnically diverse students. She discusses that
teachers often possess inadequate knowledge about the ethnic backgrounds of the students whom
they serve. She expresses that teachers may be informed about high-profile minority contributors
but often lack information about specific ethnic groups, especially Asians and Native Americans.
Culturally responsive teachers understand the specific cultural contributions and characteristics

30
of ethnic groups, which may include traditions, values, learning styles, and communication styles
(Gay, 2002). She suggests that schooling can become more engaging and interesting to students
if teachers understand their cultural backgrounds.
In the second element of culturally responsive teaching, Gay (2002) suggests that
teachers need to design culturally relevant curriculum. This can be accomplished through
understanding the formal instructional plans required by the government and determining the
strengths and weaknesses of such plans using a multicultural lens (Gay, 2002). She
acknowledges that trends exist in the traditional curriculum because it does not acknowledge the
controversies and atrocities that have been faced by ethnic minorities in history. These trends
have avoided issues such as racism, hegemony, and powerlessness. Gay (2002) explains that,
“culturally responsive teaching reverses these trends by dealing directly with controversy;
studying a wide range of ethnic individuals and groups; contextualizing issues within race, class,
ethnicity, and gender; and including multiple kinds of knowledge and perspectives” (p. 108).
Along with working within the formal instructional school plans, Gay (2002) indicates
that culturally responsive teachers must be critically conscious of the symbolic societal
curriculum that exists. The symbolic curriculum includes the artifacts and symbols that are used
in schools to teach knowledge, skills, and moral values to students. Culturally responsive
teaching uses the symbolic curriculum to disseminate information about cultural diversity to
students. The societal curriculum is the portrayal of ethnic minorities in the mass media, which
can often present inaccurate and/or prejudicial knowledge to students as they engage and interact
with mass media. Culturally responsive teaching ensures a critical analysis of the messages being
presented in the media for both teachers and students by being critical consumers of the
information being presented (Gay, 2002).

31
The third element of culturally responsive teaching is the idea of becoming culturally
caring and building a classroom learning community. Cultural caring places the teacher and
students in a partnership where the teacher is action-oriented and focuses on the setting high
expectations for students (Gay, 2002). Culturally responsive teachers hold the beliefs that
ethnically diverse students are intellectually capable of achieving and they implement teaching
strategies that support ethnically diverse students through validating their culture.
Gay (2002) asserts that creating a classroom climate conducive to ethnically diverse
students is critical to their success. She adds that culturally responsive teachers use students’ own
culture to increase their academic achievement; she refers to this as cultural scaffolding. Further,
to build classroom community, teachers should understand the work styles of various ethnic
groups that are typically rooted in group functioning, which is opposite of the traditional
classroom instruction that is highly focused on the individual (Gay, 2002).
Gay (2002) explains the fourth element of culturally responsive teaching is effective
cross-cultural communications. By communicating with ethnically diverse students, teachers will
have a better understanding of what students know. She also suggests that ethnic communication
styles are different and that teachers often fail at working to understand these styles due to fear of
stereotyping or placing generalizations. Communication structures in schools are often at odds
with the communication styles of ethnically diverse students. Gay (2002) explains that groups of
students of color engage in communication that is highly active, involves the participants being
highly engaged, and the role of speaker and listener are fluid and interchangeable. She adds that
ethnic group communication styles are in contrast to typical classroom communication structures
where the teacher dominates the communication, and the students are required to be passive

32
recipients of information through a topic-centered method of organizing information (Gay,
2002).
The final component in culturally responsive teaching is the development of culturally
congruent classroom instruction. Gay (2002) argues that teaching ethnically diverse students
should be multiculturalized because culture is deeply embedded. She suggests that teachers can
implement a variety of instructional strategies to support students in the classroom. Some
strategies include the use of topic chaining, peer coaching, movement, music, and dramatic
teaching elements (Gay, 2002). Culturally responsive teachers should configure their teaching
styles to match the learning styles of the ethnic and cultural groups they serve (Gay, 2002).
Culturally responsive teaching should be included in mathematics, language arts and science as
these subjects hold as high status in educational settings. Gay (2002) advocates that teachers
possess a variety of multicultural examples to use in the teaching of ethnically diverse students.
Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy
Paris (2012) critiques culturally relevant and responsive pedagogies. He argues that due
to the historically implemented deficit-based practices, cultures of marginalized populations have
been lost (Paris, 2012). He questions making curriculum relevant or responsive and whether such
pedagogy allows for students to maintain their cultural heritage and value the differences across
cultures.
Paris offers culturally sustaining pedagogy as new a terminology that considers the everevolving nature of youth culture in society. Culturally sustaining pedagogy “seeks to perpetuate
and foster—to sustain—linguistic, literate, and cultural pluralism as part of the democratic
project of schooling” (p. 95). Paris explains that cultural practices and language are ever
changing among and must be sustained through pedagogy in both traditional and evolving ways

33
based upon the lived experiences of today’s youth. Culturally sustaining pedagogy works support
multilingualism and multiculturalism for teachers and students (Paris, 2012)
Paris and Alim (2014) build upon the work of Paris (2012) by highlighting that students
live in a pluralistic society and that culturally sustaining pedagogy creates a shift from traditional
asset pedagogies by focusing on pluralistic outcomes. They explain the importance of culturally
diverse youth being able to communicate in dominant American English but indicate that such
communication should not come at the expense of the communication styles present in their own
heritage. Paris and Alim (2014) suggest that monolinguals and monoculturals are becoming a
shrinking population, thus culturally sustaining pedagogy exists to honor the cultural heritage
and practices of communities of color to provide access to power in a world that continues to
change.
Such a shift is accomplished by achieving equity and access through utilizing the
contemporary heritage of youth (Paris & Alim, 2014). Working with youth hip-hop culture, Paris
and Alim (2014) highlight the varying minority groups that are present within the hip-hop
culture. They describe a fluidity of the relationships between the minority groups and how they
all exist within the hip-hop culture and that each group brings their own cultural practices to the
hip-hop community. Paris and Alim (2014) also identify that inequities and regressive practices
exist, such as homophobia and racism. Culturally sustaining pedagogy works to help create a
critical consciousness among students where they critique such inequities and practices.
Culturally sustaining pedagogy seeks to address the idea that the meaning of being part of
a specific minority group continues to shift, so pedagogy must stray away from becoming static
and instead evolve along with culture (Paris & Alim, 2014). The cultural assets of youth must be
sustained while preparing them for pluralistic outcomes.

34
Ladson-Billings (1995, 2009), Gay (2002), Paris (2012) and Paris and Alim (2014)
indicate that utilizing students’ cultures can be highly effective and valuable for the teaching of
African American and other ethnic minority students, groups who have been historically
marginalized in society. Ladson-Billings (1995, 2009), Gay (2002), Paris (2012), and Paris and
Alim (2014) all stress the importance of knowing the students’ cultural backgrounds to
implement pedagogical practices that are relevant and responsive to those cultures. Whereas
Ladson-Billings and Gay focus upon the cultures that students are born into (i.e., African
American culture), Paris and Paris and Alim focus on the cultures that are generated by the
students themselves (i.e., hip hop culture). In the next section of this literature review I explore
empirical literature that provide real classroom context for the theories that have been offered on
culture-based teaching practices.
Empirical Literature on Culture-based Teaching
Ladson-Billings (1995), Gay (2002), Paris (2012) and Paris and Alim (2014) make the
case for the importance of using students’ culture for classroom instruction. In this section I
examine empirical literature that highlights the implementation of culture-based teaching
practices. By reviewing empirical literature on culture-based teaching, I demonstrate how the
theories manifest themselves in practice between teachers and students.
Milner (2011) conducted a 2-year qualitative study to understand how a teacher built his
own cultural competence about his students using culturally relevant pedagogical practices. The
research sought to understand how the teacher built cultural competence in ways that allowed for
more effective teaching of his students. Additionally, the research investigated how the teacher
built relationships with his students to develop his own cultural competence. A community
nomination process was used to select the site. Milner (2011) solicited nominations from

35
practicing teachers enrolled in his university courses as well as people in the supermarket and a
school official at the district office. Bridge Middle School was a consistent recommendation as
one of the better middle schools in the district. The study site was an urban Title I school located
in the southeastern portion of the United States and was home to a large population of students
from low socioeconomic backgrounds.
The participant was a White, male science teacher who had been selected as teacher of
the year within the school through nominations of many of his school’s colleagues. The
participant had 3 years of teaching experience in the school and was nominated by the school’s
principal. Milner (2011) conducted semi-structured and informal interviews along with
classroom observations and document analysis. He conducted research 1 to 2 days per week for a
period of half a day each time. When unable to observe, Milner had the teacher share his plans
and materials. At the time of the study, Milner had been researching at the school for 2 academic
years, for a total of 19 months.
Milner (2011) found that the teacher was able to build cultural competence because he
created and maintained meaningful and authentic relationships with his students, thus getting to
learn more about them. The teacher was able to respond to the individual needs of the students
because he understood their interests. Through data collection, the research identified that the
teacher made consistent attempts to give attention to the needs of each student. The teacher
focused on providing students with multiple opportunities to demonstrate mastery of content and
consistently challenged students in the classroom for them to learn academic content.
Additionally, minimal interruptions or cultural conflicts were observed during the teacher’s
instruction. When conflicts did arise, the teacher used them as an opportunity to build his own

36
cultural competence by working to understand the cultural differences and tensions that were
present between him and his students.
Milner (2011) also found the teacher used what students expected and their perception of
him to build his cultural competence. Many students expressed a feeling of not knowing their
teacher, thus being disconnected from the teacher and the classroom experience. By listening to
the thoughts of his students, the teacher created opportunities for students to get to know him.
One example of this was through the sharing of personal narratives about his life with his
students. The teacher used the personal narratives as a way to get students to share more about
themselves. As the teacher began to share personal stories with students, in turn the student
reciprocated and began to divulge information about themselves and their own personal and
cultural backgrounds. This in turn allowed the teacher to build additional cultural competence
about his students.
Interview responses revealed a finding that the teacher addressed issues related to identity
and race in the classroom. The teacher understood that not acknowledging race created issues
related to incongruence and barriers to student learning in the classroom (Milner, 2011).
Although the teacher did not share the same race as his students, he used his cultural competence
about his students, along with rural childhood upbringing, to build a connection to the struggles
and experiences that his students faced in their lives. These shared struggles allowed students to
better connect with their teacher and see that he was not using students’ race against them.
Finally, the teacher used a communal approach to unite himself with students (Milner,
2011). The teacher expressed that his students were like a family, so they would not allow each
other to fail, even amidst the problems that arose in a family. Using this approach created an
environment where students held each other accountable and allowed the teacher to build

37
additional cultural competence. By building his own cultural competence about his students, the
teacher was understand more about who his students were in relation to their backgrounds. He
used his cultural competence to build authentic relationships with his students, teach in a
congruent manner and create a sense of responsibility for his students (Milner, 2011).
Camangian (2015) used the framework of a humanizing pedagogy and conducted a 10-
month, action research study to explain teaching practices that utilized students’ realities,
ideologies and ways of communicating their understanding of the world. He sought to
understand teaching practices that disrupted dehumanization as well as the practices that teachers
enacted to engage students in a humanizing education (Camangian, 2015). The study was
conducted in a South Los Angeles high school, located in a community with a prominent street
gang. The school had a 66 percent Black population with the remaining 33 percent of students
being Latino. Academically, the school performed at bottom of the state performance index.
Camangian collected data using field notes, student work, classroom video and student
interviews. A focal class period of 12th grade English students was selected, and data were
collected on a near everyday basis. Three students were selected from the focal classroom and
their interactions, essay responses, and discussions were analyzed. These students were selected
based upon three criteria. First, they demonstrated ideological growth and critical analysis of
their community’s social issues (Camangian, 2015). Next, these students, “Transitioned
effectively between lived experience, social theory, and academics and the challenges of
everyday life” (p. 430). Finally, the selected students were academically at-risk and were
disengaged from school prior to data collection.

38
Camangian (2015) found that teachers can work to engage dispossessed youth through a
humanizing pedagogy by (a) agitating students politically, (b) arousing students’ critical
curiosity, and (c) inspiring self and socially transformative behavior.
Agitation occurred when students engaged with course content that connected to the
social issues they dealt with in their daily lives. Camangian (2015) explained that agitation,
“incited mixed emotions, even cognitive dissonance, while opening up the space for them to
negotiate this independently through individual assignments, and collaboratively with their
classmates” (p. 433). An example of this was when students were asked to describe what they
stood for, the roots of their stance, and its effect on their community. Through class discussions,
the students realized their community had been underdeveloped and overexploited (Camangian,
2015). By the teacher using an agitating assignment, students challenged each other’s thoughts
and engaged in reflective dialogue about issues and challenges that faced their community.
Arousal was a product of the agitation that the teacher created. Camangian (2015)
highlighted that arousal centered on having students learn more about their unsettledness. He
explained that teachers must allow for students to study interests within their communities and
learning must be connected to the experiential knowledge students bring to the learning
environment. Camangian (2015) accomplished this by having students read provocative texts and
develop philosophies for social change.
One example was a student who argued the case of attractiveness of Black people in the
context of White supremacist thought and his community. Another example was highlighted in a
student’s essay response about the Eurocentric views of communities of color and the influence
of the media and popular culture on the construction of those views. Camangian (2015) found

39
that socially relevant and provocative assignments helped to arouse students’ curiosities and
engage them in academic content.
The last method of working with dispossessed youth was to inspire self and socially
transformative behavior (Camangian, 2015). As a teacher who inspired, he was able to identify
problems with reality, liberate voices, and foster hope in conditions that otherwise seemed
hopeless. He worked with students to develop their ability to appeal to the morals of their
listeners as well as awaken the critical consciousness of others (Camangian, 2015).
The inspiration was evidenced in the final presentations that two students gave in the
study. Both students presented works to their peers that were rooted in community and societybased issues current in their lives. One example was a student’s oral presentation of a poem that
described the powerlessness that existed among colonized people. Another example described
the limited resources that existed in one student’s community and competition for those
resources among the people of the divided community. Each of the presentations worked to
disrupt the dehumanization and call for solidarity among the listeners (Camangian, 2015)
Freidus (2020) conducted a one-year study in a New York middle school that prided itself
on being anti-racist. Freidus (2020) utilized the pedagogical goals of culturally relevant,
responsive, and sustaining pedagogies - academic success, cultural competence, critical
consciousness as the foundation for the study. Freidus sought to understand how a New York
middle school implemented asset-based pedagogies in culturally and linguistically diverse
classrooms. Although the school primarily served students of color, it was beginning to diversify
as more White students began to move into the neighborhood. The study was particularly
interested in how a school decentered whiteness in classrooms where White students were

40
present (Freidus, 2020). The middle school’s response to the 2016-2017 elections served the
basis for data collection.
Freidus conducted interviews of school staff and students. Observations were also
conducted in classrooms and other school spaces along with document analysis. The school was
led by a principal who sought out teachers who were committed to the antiracist philosophy of
the school. Teachers were provided professional development on the roots of racism, however.
teachers reported that professional development but rarely was tied to instruction (Freidus,
2020). Additionally, teachers expressed that limited opportunities exist to collaborate or receive
coaching support, so they all used different materials that varied in quality. Freidus found that
teachers often attempted to push back against the privilege of students from advantaged students
but made concessions in the classroom. For example, a white boy claimed to feel uncomfortable
around a Latina girl due the type of jokes she told in the classroom. His parents called a meeting
and demanded a seat change. Although the teacher expressed the need for the student to interact
with others unlike himself, the student pushed back during the meeting and his seat was changed.
In response to the 2016 election, Freidus (2020) found the school’s support of culturally
diverse students before and after the 2016 election took place primarily outside of the classroom.
Teachers saw this work as more relational than instructional. Discussions about election related
topics were had in advisory periods, after school or extracurricular spaces (Freidus, 2020). Even
when election-related topics could have developed a critical consciousness in the students,
teachers continued to implement the lessons that were planned weeks in advance. Freidus (2020)
found the school and teachers were dedicated and had intentions of developing their students’
cultural competence and critical consciousness, missed opportunities and struggled to tie these

41
goals to academic learning. Their pedagogical choices continued to center whiteness and did not
treat racism as a legitimate topic of discussion in the classroom.
Thomas and Berry (2019) conducted a qualitative metasynthesis in order to understand
teacher practices, classroom interactions and student experiences with culturally relevant
pedagogy (Ladson Billings, 1994) and culturally responsive teaching (Gay, 2010) in
mathematics. After reviewing over 1,200 studies using their inclusion and exclusion criteria, 12
studies were selected and coded. Thomas and Berry found 5 findings that focused on teacher
practices, classroom interactions and student experiences with culturally relevant pedagogy and
culturally responsive teaching in mathematics.
First, Thomas and Berry (2019) found that caring was demonstrated in teachers creating
positive learning environments and taking an active role in seeking out knowledge about learners
and communities. In mathematics, caring was demonstrated by making the content accessible
and empowering learners. Second, Thomas and Berry (2019) found that context was
demonstrated in teachers gaining knowledge of their students’ home lives, communities, and
neighborhoods. Teachers would integrate mathematics instruction into their knowledge of
student context in order to build bridges between mathematics and students’ home lives.
Third, Thomas and Berry (2019) identified cultural competency as teachers developed
knowledge and skills based on various forms of communication and funds of knowledge.
Teachers utilized this knowledge of culture by incorporating in into their teaching practices. This
occurred through music, movement, discourse, and storytelling. Fourth, Thomas and Berry
(2019) found that teachers must have high expectations for their learners and themselves. These
teachers revised their teaching based on their learners needs, interests and understandings as they
related to mathematics. These teachers served as warm demanders who established learning

42
environments that held students accountable, empowered them to take an active role in their
learning and were culturally connected to students’ lived experiences.
Finally, Thomas and Berry (2019) found that culturally relevant pedagogy and culturally
responsive teaching were more likely to occur when a teacher possessed high confidence in
teaching mathematics along with a high self-efficacy and belief that instruction should be student
centered, open-ended, inquiry-based, highly interactive and based on learner’s needs and
interests.
The equity pedagogies of culturally relevant, culturally responsive, culturally sustaining,
and humanizing demonstrate practices that are grounded in an understanding of the needs of
students from low SES, historically marginalized backgrounds. Utilizing such pedagogy allows
for students to construct knowledge through an altering of the teacher-student relationship, where
students work towards skills that allow for them to become agents of change in society (Banks &
Banks, 1995). A teacher’s ideological positioning is influential to the pedagogical practices they
implement. In the next section, I present my conceptual framework that describes the tentative
theory that informed my methods.
Conceptual Framework
In this section I present the conceptual framework that served as the foundation for my
study. I used deficit and equity teacher ideologies and deficit and equity pedagogies to
demonstrate how teachers created positive or negative learning experiences for low SES students
from historically marginalized communities. Figure 3 represents my conceptualization of the
continuum of teaching low SES students from highly marginalized communities within the
context of deficit and equity.

43
Figure 3 highlights that the teacher exists on a continuum between deficit and equity. To
the left of the continuum are two red-colored circles. These circles represent deficit. The darker
red circle lists tenets of deficit ideology, while the lighter red circle lists examples of pedagogical
practices associated with a deficit ideology. A teacher to the far left of the continuum would
carry deficit ideology and implement deficit pedagogies. The right side shows two green-colored
circles. These circles represent the equity side of the continuum. The darker green circle lists the
tenets of equity ideology, and the lighter green circle lists pedagogical practices associated with
an equity ideology. A teacher to the far right of the continuum would carry equity ideology and
implement equity pedagogies. The center of the continuum would be a teacher who either carries
a deficit ideology but implements equity pedagogies or a teacher who carries equity ideology but
implements deficit pedagogies with students. A teacher’s position on the continuum is not static
as their ideologies and pedagogical practices are influenced by their beliefs. Since beliefs can
change, the teacher’s position on the continuum can also change.
Teacher-student interactions are also represented in the conceptual framework figure. The
bi-directional arrow from the teacher to the student represents and the interactions that occur
between the teacher and student. When the teacher’s beliefs are enacted into deficit and/or equity
pedagogies, the interactions that occur between the teacher and student will influence the
educational experience of the student. The student may achieve or behave in a manner that is
based upon the interactions a student has with a particular teacher and his/their ideology and
pedagogical practices. For example, the use of deficit pedagogies may reveal negative teacherstudent relationships, a lack of student interest in the subject matter or teacher-dominated
instruction. However, a teacher’s use of equity pedagogy may yield a positive teacher-student
relationship.

44
Figure 3
Conceptual Framework
Contributing Beliefs to Deficit Teacher Ideology
Drawing on research by Gorski (2011) and Milner (2011), teachers can carry a deficit
ideology that is rooted in conscious and unconscious beliefs about the backgrounds of the
students they teach. These beliefs are centered on blame and deficiency, classism, and idea that
low SES students from highly marginalized communities are others who need fixing.
Under their deficit ideology, teachers blame students and parents for their academic and
behavior struggles. Teachers express that parents have little value for their students’ education
and do not seek opportunities to be involved in their child’s schooling. However, the societal
inequities and conditions that exist for low SES student populations are ignored and teachers
continue to focus on what they feel is wrong with students and their upbringing. A deficit
ideology is also based upon deficiency and the belief that low SES, historically marginalized
students come to school lacking the knowledge necessary to participate in educational process.

45
Such deficiencies are believed to be a result of the students’ cultures, intelligence, family
backgrounds and morality.
Teachers who operate through a deficit ideology see low SES students from historically
marginalized communities as part of a lower class that is responsible for its own struggles and
experiences. This belief stems from stereotypes that portray marginalized groups in negative
ways, such as the culture of poverty myth that has become widely accepted by society and
continues to contribute to the stereotypical beliefs by those in middle- and upper-class groups.
Contributing Beliefs to Equity Teacher Ideology
Research has demonstrated that teachers who enact equity pedagogies also hold specific
beliefs about the low SES students from historically marginalized communities whom they serve
(Ladson-Billings, 1995; Gay, 2002; Milner, 2011; Paris (2012); Paris & Alim (2014)). In this
conceptual framework, I refer to the beliefs within equity pedagogies as equity ideology.
Under an equity ideology, teachers believe that all low SES students from historically
marginalized communities have the capabilities and potential to achieve academic excellence.
These teachers focus on students’ backgrounds and the assets that students bring to school. They
also believe in the practice of mining to engage students in the learning process. These teachers
also believe in shifting the traditional relationship between teacher and student by working in
partnership with their students. Additionally, teachers who possess an equity ideology assume
the responsibility for ensuring that low SES students from historically marginalized communities
receive the education they deserve. This ownership of responsibility may include the seeking out
of a community of stakeholders that work collectively to ensure student success.

46
Deficit Pedagogy
Drawing on a multitude of research perspectives, I will present the pedagogical practices
that teachers employ when carrying a deficit ideology (Espinosa & Laffey, 2003; Gorski, 2011;
Hatt, 2011; Haberman, 1991; Milner, 2011; Rist, 1970; Valencia, 1997). Teachers who carry a
deficit ideology hold low expectations of low SES students from historically marginalized
communities and thus provide them with a less rigorous, “watered down” curriculum. These
practices manifest themselves in simply giving directions, monitoring seatwork, reviewing
assignments, punishing noncompliance, asking questions, and settling disputes. Teachers believe
that such low expectations are sufficient due to their belief that students are inherently deficient
and incapable of performing when presented with rigorous curriculum. These pedagogical
practices can lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy for students whereby the low expectations of
teachers combined with their watered-down curriculum yield low academic performance on the
part of students. Additionally, such pedagogical practices allow for the continuation of the
achievement gap that exists between low SES students from historically marginalized
communities and their more affluent and privileged peers.
A teacher’s deficit pedagogy is also evident in the stratification of students in the
classroom. Teachers can use grouping techniques that focuses instruction solely on the groups of
students the teacher believes can achieve. This manner of grouping students can result in the
teacher focusing her instruction solely on those students whom the teacher believes are capable
of learning. Such stratification takes away some students’ opportunity to learn from the teacher
due to some students being forced to teach and learn from each other without teacher guidance
and support. Additionally, students who receive little instruction can feel ostracized and decide
to withdraw themselves from the schooling experience altogether. Deficit pedagogy can also

47
establish a teacher-student relationship where the teacher is seen as in charge and students are
not capable of teaching since their job is to learn.
Equity Pedagogy
Contrary to the pedagogies under a deficit ideology, Research by Banks & Banks (1995),
Ladson-Billings (1995, 2009), Gay (2002), Milner (2011), Paris (2012), Paris and Alim (2014)
and Camangian (2015) support the concept of equity pedagogies in the classroom. Teachers
using equity pedagogy work to create learning environments where students work in conjunction
with the teacher and their peers to construct and contest knowledge. This involves a shift in the
traditional relationship between the teacher and student where the students are provided with
opportunities to transmit knowledge. These learning environments are focused on individual
achievement rather than competition between students. This facilitates the acquisition of content
knowledge along with the students’ capability to create societal change. Teachers also have an
authentic understanding of students’ cultural backgrounds and use those backgrounds as a
vehicle for instruction.
Teachers who use equity pedagogy hold high expectations of all students regardless of
their ethnic background or socioeconomic status. These teachers understand that holding high
expectations is essential to ensuring that marginalized students receive the same rigor of
instruction that is traditionally afforded to their wealthier and White peers. Additionally, equity
pedagogy integrates students’ culture into the curriculum. Teachers work to understand the
culture of the students they teach and incorporate their cultural knowledge into their classroom
practice. Such pedagogy allows the content to become relevant to students’ lives and they see
part of themselves in learning, something that is traditionally absent in schools that serve low

48
SES students from highly marginalized populations. This pedagogy provides validation of the
students’ culture and can create a better sense of student connectedness to schooling.
Teachers who implement equity pedagogy work to authentically know their students.
This occurs by teachers sharing information about their own personal lives and taking an interest
in learning about their students’ interests and personal backgrounds. Such actions build a cultural
competence on the part of the teacher, which can be used during classroom instruction to
facilitate discussion of academic content. Knowing their students also creates a sense of trust
between the teacher and students and can yield academic commitment for students. Additionally,
under equity pedagogy, teachers build trust and connections with students by facilitating
discussions around shared struggles. Teachers using equity pedagogy also understand the
detrimental practices that occur within cultures that contribute to the further marginalization of
other minority members in the culture itself. These teachers work to facilitate learning
environments centered on discussions and activities that allow students to confront those
detrimental practices. Such learning environments assist in students’ developing a critical
consciousness.
My conceptual framework is based upon a synthesis of literature on deficit teacher
ideology and equity pedagogies including culturally relevant, responsive, sustaining and
humanizing. I argue that teachers can carry ideologies on a continuum from deficit to equity or
somewhere in between. Such ideologies may influence the pedagogical practices a teacher
enacts. A teacher’s use of deficit-based pedagogies continues to marginalize students from low
SES, historically marginalized backgrounds. When pedagogical practices are equity-based, low
SES, historically marginalized students engage in a positive school experience. The possibility
exists for a teacher to carry a deficit ideology but enact pedagogical practices that are rooted in

49
equity or vice versa. Regardless of ideological stance, the use of equity pedagogies is ideal for
the teaching of low SES students from historically marginalized communities, as they integrate
the students’ cultures, backgrounds, and experiences within the academic content and
relationship with the teacher. This framework guided the methods described in chapter 3. A
revised conceptual framework, reflecting the new tentative theory I generated after analyzing my
data, appears at the end of chapter 4.

50
Chapter Three: Methods
This chapter focuses on the methods that were implemented in my study. This study
employed qualitative methods to examine the perceptions and pedagogical practices of two
elementary school teachers who taught in students from low SES, historically marginalized
communities. Qualitative research focuses on specific people, including their orientations,
beliefs, and meanings as significant parts of the study (Maxwell, 2013). Qualitative research is
utilized to understand the meaning of a particular phenomenon and how people interpret their
experiences (Merriam, 2009). Beliefs are also grounded in a specific context of the participants
(Maxwell, 2013). Qualitative research places an emphasis on rich descriptions rather than
numbers and the research draws on interviews, observations, and documents as the primary
means of data collection (Maxwell, 2013). Qualitative methods were most appropriate to answer
the following research questions:
1. What beliefs do two elementary school teachers hold about their low SES students
from historically marginalized communities’ academic and behavior capabilities?
2. How do two teachers who have been recognized as demonstrating equity
pedagogy in classrooms serving low SES students from historically marginalized
communities address the academic and behavior capabilities of their students
through their pedagogy?
Research Design
This study employed a multiple case study approach. A case study is a bounded system
with in-depth description and analysis (Merriam, 2009). In a case study, the unit of analysis is
the focus of the study (Merriam, 2009). Two elementary teachers served as the units of analysis
for my study, providing two bounded systems. I selected these cases because I was interested in

51
understanding the way teachers who taught the same population of students expressed beliefs
and ideologies and enacted pedagogical practices with their students. I set out to understand
where these teachers existed on the continuum of teaching low SES low SES students from
historically communities.
Sample and Population
This case study took place in a public elementary school that served low SES students
from historically marginalized communities. I used purposeful sampling to select a study site that
allowed me to obtain the most relevant and useful information for my study. Purposeful
sampling is based upon what the researcher seeks to understand, thus a sample is selected where
the researcher can learn the most information (Merriam, 2009). Selection criteria must be
established that describe the parameters to which a study site can be selected (Merriam, 2009).
Such criteria must be aligned to the purpose of the study (Merriam, 2009).
Setting
I selected the setting for the study by identifying districts who served students low SES,
historically marginalized communities. Using convenience sampling, I called and scheduled a
meeting with the Director of Categorical Programs in my district of employment as she was my
supervisor in my role as a categorically funded resource teacher. Her department was responsible
for addressing the needs of students from low SES, historically marginalized communities
through the Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP). This director had a strong reputation in
the district in advocating for students who were from low SES, historically communities and
their families. She had also taken doctoral level coursework in Diversity. I shared with her the
purpose of my study, site criterion, participant criterion and research questions. She then guided
to towards a neighboring school district and particularly Liberty Elementary School as she had

52
served as the principal the year prior and was familiar with the school demographics,
neighborhood, and teaching staff.
Liberty Elementary School met the setting criteria for my study as it was public
elementary school that served a majority population of students from low SES backgrounds..
This was essential to understand how teachers worked with students from low SES backgrounds.
87% of Liberty students received free or reduced lunch, which demonstrated that a large majority
of the students were of low socioeconomic status, one of the areas of focus in my research
questions. Liberty Elementary’s student demographics also met the criteria of serving students
from historically marginalized communities as the ethnicity breakdown was approximately 85%
Latine, 5% African American, 4% White, 3% Filipino, 2% Asian, 1% other (CDE, 2017).
Liberty’s subgroups were comprised of 87% socioeconomically disadvantaged, 45% homeless,
26% English learners, 15% students with disabilities (CDE, 2017).
After I verified Liberty Elementary met the setting criteria, The Director of Categorical
Programs provided me the contact information for the Principal of Liberty Elementary School,
whom she had previously supervised as an instructional coach prior to her promotion to the
principal position. After being granted permission by the institutional review board (IRB), I
called the principal of Liberty Elementary School to set up a meeting to discuss my study.
During our meeting, I provided her with the purpose of my study, site criterion, participant
criterion and research questions. The principal called me a few days later and agreed to allow my
study to take place at her school.
Participants
The participants in my study were two elementary school teachers who taught low SES
students from historically marginalized communities. I used purposeful sampling to identify key

53
participants who fit my selection criteria by asking for referrals to others who fit the selection
criteria (Merriam, 2009). I began the process of selecting these two teachers by emailing the
Principal of Liberty Elementary School the nomination checklist for prospective study
participants. This checklist listed tenets of equity pedagogy from my conceptual framework that
teachers implemented in their classrooms. The principal completed the checklists for two
teachers with all tenets of equity pedagogy checked off. After I received the nomination
checklists, I contacted the two teachers via phone to provide an overview of the study. After the
teachers agreed to take part in the study, the two teachers completed informed consent forms
prior to data collection.
Instrumentation and Data Collection Procedures
My study employed the use of interviews and observations as methods of data collection
to understand teachers’ perceptions and examine teachers’ communication and feedback with
low SES students from highly marginalized communities. My conceptual framework served as
the foundation for the questions and points of observation that were included in my interview
and observation protocols.
Interview
For this study, I conducted one formal, semi-structured interview and one unstructured
interview with each elementary school teacher. I conducted the formal, semi- structured
interview prior to observing each teacher. The semi-structured protocol asked each teacher the
same initial set of questions. The participants were able to provide open-ended responses and I
used probing questions that were dependent on the individual responses of the teacher. Utilizing
the probing questions allowed me to follow-up on a question already asked to clarify or gain
additional information from the participant (Merriam, 2009). My interview protocols drew upon

54
various types of questions such as opinion/value, knowledge, and hypothetical (Merriam, 2009).
The initial interviews took an average of 30 minutes respectively.
I used an unstructured protocol to interview each teacher after I completed my
observations. The unstructured protocol was utilized to follow-up on what I documented during
the observations. This second interview allowed me to address specific occurrences from my
observations, while giving the participants an opportunity to describe their thought processes or
intentions behind the observed practices. For example, one teacher was asked, “What does that
(work) mean to you in the context of the classroom?” Another teacher was asked, “How do they
(students) respond to knowing about your personal life?” The unstructured interviews lasted
between 20 and 30 minutes each. Interviewing the participants provided data that highlighted
where each teacher existed on the continuum between equity and deficit ideology. The teachers’
interview responses also helped me understand how each teacher made meaning of their
ideological stance.
Observation
Observations take place in the setting where the phenomenon occurs and provide the
researcher with a firsthand encounter with the phenomenon of study (Merriam, 2009).
Observations allow for recording of behavior as it occurs, which can then be used as a reference
point for follow-up in an interview (Merriam, 2009). Some areas that can be observed include
physical setting, participants, activities and interactions, conversation, subtle factors, and
observer’s own behavior (Merriam, 2009). My observations focused on the pedagogical practices
from my conceptual framework including the teachers’ expectations, grouping, rigor of
curriculum, use of student cultural backgrounds and the addressing of detrimental practices by
students. I also focused my observations on the way teachers permitted their students to

55
construct, contest and disseminate knowledge to the teacher and their peers. I looked to see if
students were allowed a voice in the classroom or whether the learning environment was
dominated by the actions of the teacher.
I conducted approximately 6 to 9 hours of classroom observation depending on the case,
until I reached saturation. I observed at different times during the instructional day over the span
of 3 months. My observations took place across the various academic subjects, settings, and
times. For example, I observed instruction during the first block on the day, after morning recess
and after lunch. I also observed whole group and small group instruction at the rug area and
teacher table. I wrote rich and descriptive observation notes that captured pedagogy,
student/teacher interactions and low incidence occurrences. This helped to discipline my
subjectivity as an observer without making pre-judgments of the participants.
Bogdan and Biklen (2007) explain that observer comments assist in stimulating critical
thinking on the part of the observer. As I observed, I wrote observation comments that assisted
me in making meaning about what I saw. For example, I wrote, “The classroom is so quiet when
the teacher talks.” At the conclusion of each observation, I incorporated my observer comments
into my reflective journal entry.
Data Analysis
Merriam (2009) describes analysis as the process of making sense of one’s data. The data
for this qualitative study included reflective memos, teacher interview transcriptions, and field
notes from classroom observations. My iterative process of data analysis began during the data
collection. After completing each interview and observation, I wrote reflective memos to
organize my thoughts, make initial sense of the interview and observations and ask initial
questions of the data. For example, after an observation I wrote my memo about the limited

56
negative interactions between the teacher and students in addition to the use of multiple
redirections by the teacher. My reflective memos helped me to revisit the occurrences and ask
myself questions of the data. I also used the reflective memos to identify areas of follow-up for
subsequent interviews and observations. I used analytic tools throughout data analysis to
stimulate the inductive process and avoid standard ways of thinking (Corbin & Strauss, 2008).
My analytic tools included: making comparisons, drawing upon personal experience,
questioning, and looking at emotional expression (Corbin & Strauss, 2008).
I made comparisons by noting teachers’ responses during interviews and their actions
during subsequent classroom observations. These comparisons helped me to triangulate the data
and determine whether the data was consistent. I also asked myself questions as I made
comparisons to the two teachers and their routines with students. For example, I asked, “How do
the two teachers incorporate student input into their lessons?” and “What did I observe in one
classroom that was not seen in the other?”. I noted the verbal and non-verbal reactions of
students to their teachers’ instructions and comments. This allowed to me deepen my
understanding of the teacher to student interactions and relationships.
I used each interview transcript and set of observation field notes to begin my cycle of
coding and analysis once I left the field. Coding involves the making of notations next to parts of
the data that assist in answering a research question (Merriam, 2009). I used open coding as I
proceeded through each interview transcript and observation field note. Open coding allows the
researcher to be open to anything that may come from the data (Merriam, 2009). I used a priori
codes during my initial cycle of coding. A priori codes are developed prior to data collection
(Merriam, 2009). My a priori codes were derived from my conceptual framework and included:
high expectations, culture in curriculum, establish connections, and critical analysis. As I read

57
through the interview transcripts and observations field notes, I also underlined and highlighted
empirical codes. Empirical codes are thoughts, phrases, or words that emerged from my data
(Merriam, 2009). Examples of empirical codes were “holds students accountable,” “works to
gather information,” “seeks out additional supports,, “lacks parent support.”
After my open coding, I used axial coding to begin creating categories (Corbin & Strauss,
2008). After a priori and empirical codes were added to my codebook, I used typicality to count
the codes that had been repeated. This led to revision of the codebook as I developed new codes
and categories. For example, multiple empirical codes from teacher interviews emerged in
relation to “parents”. This was not reflected through the a priori codes I initially developed from
my conceptual framework, which I accounted for as a new category.
An in depth and iterative analysis of the categories lead to the selection of themes that
emerged from the data set. After I had selected the themes, I worked to identify how the themes
were related, if at all. This analysis occurred for each case in isolation and across cases to
understand the commonalities and differences of each teacher’s beliefs and enactment of
pedagogical practices. I then worked to interpret the data and represent the data in a narrative
that presented my study’s findings.
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations are actions that bound what a researcher can learn and cannot be controlled
by the researcher. Delimitations are actions taken by the researcher intentionally or inadvertently,
which also bound what the research can learn. Delimitations are within the researcher’s control.
Limitations
Although qualitative research is not meant to be used to generalize, one limitation of this
study is that the findings cannot be generalized to other populations or other settings. I was also

58
limited in the time I had to conduct interviews and observations. Another limitation is the selfreporting of the participants in their interviews. As the researcher I cannot be certain that
interview responses are accurate, since the participants control what they decided to share.
Another limitation was the nominators and their knowledge of equity; therefore I was dependent
on their interpretation of what constituted equity pedagogy in their selection of the teachers I
studied. I could not control how they interpreted the tenets of equity pedagogy or their
perceptions of the needs of low SES students from historically marginalized communities. As a
result, the nominees may have been selected based on their work reputation or the opinion of the
nominator. Finally, as a novice researcher, I was limited in my experience in constructing
checklists and questions, facilitating interviews, and engaging in field observations.
Delimitations
As an educator who worked directly with low SES students from historically
marginalized communities and the primary instrument of data collection, I brought biases and
perspectives with me that could have influenced the way I designed the study. I also limited what
I was able to learn because I was a novice researcher. More specifically, my sampling impacted
what I was able to learn as I relied on one individual’s knowledge of equity to refer me to a
nominator and teacher participants. Additionally, I did not screen my teacher participants prior to
interviewing and observing them. Asking screening questions or observing the teachers prior to
data collection could have positioned me to solicit additional nominee choices. I also created the
interview protocol based on my conceptual framework, which translated to the questions. I also
created the observation protocol, which influenced how I focused my attention and the data I
collected during observations. With more experience, I may have been better positioned to
design more robust interview protocols, ask good probing questions, and document better field

59
notes. Additionally, when it came to data analysis, I was analyzing data for the first time. Finally,
I only spent 6 to 9 hours in each classroom respectively, therefore I may have missed instances
where the teachers more completely demonstrated equity pedagogy.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Merriam (2009) highlights that qualitative studies use human beings as the primary
instrument of data collection and analysis. I applied a few strategies to ensure that my findings
were ones that represent the actual reality of my interview and observation data. Merriam (2009)
explains one method of increasing the credibility of the data is triangulation. Triangulation uses
multiple sources of data that can be crosschecked with each other (Merriam, 2009).
Triangulation can add to the validity of a study when themes are based upon several data sources
(Creswell, 2009). I used interviews and observations as means to investigate teachers and their
perceptions of and interactions with students. My observations followed up my interviews to see
the teachers’ perceptions and beliefs manifested in the teachers’ natural setting. Informal and
follow-up interviews after the observations provided me with the teachers’ explanations and
meaning making regarding what I observed. Triangulating the data allowed me to identify
consistencies and inconsistencies in my data collection that I could explore further.
As the primary instrument of data collection, I utilized reflexivity throughout my data
collection. Merriam (2009) describes reflexivity as the process of a researcher critically
reflecting as the human instrument. At the time of data collection, I was an elementary teacher
who grew up attending schools in low SES neighborhoods. I am a member of a historically
marginalized group and I have very strong feelings about what effective teaching should look
like, what our students need from their teachers and the benefits of providing students with the
ideal learning environments that meet their academic and behavioral needs. As I interviewed

60
teachers, I ensured that I was capturing their perceptions without injecting my own personal
biases into their meaning making. I asked clarifying questions to ensure that I gathered the most
accurate data and limited my own interpretations of participant responses. Some examples
included, “Tell me more about that” and “Can you give an example.” As an observer, I recorded
exactly what I saw in front of me without making judgments or allowing my own beliefs about
teaching influence what I recorded. In my study I continuously evaluated whether my biases
were hindering my data collection by writing reflective memos after interviews and observations.
I presented the findings by using rich, thick descriptions. Merriam (2009) highlights that
rich descriptions describe the context, participants and activities involved. Utilizing detailed
descriptions adds to the validity of a study by providing the reader with results that are more
realistic (Creswell, 2009). Rich thick descriptions can also assist in the transferability of the data
to individuals whose context fit that of the study (Merriam, 2009). I wrote reflective memos
where I asked myself questions and made connections to the participants’ actions and responses
to my knowledge of the of deficit and equity tenets. I also talked with my dissertation chair
during data analysis to gain an additional perspective and to ensure my own personal lens did not
dominate the analysis process.
Ethics
Interviewing and observing individuals present ethical issues on the part of the researcher
(Merriam, 2009). I applied strategies that ensured my study was conducted in an ethical manner.
I referred to the policies of the university IRB to protect potentially vulnerable populations
(Creswell, 2012). I also submitted my study to IRB and received approval. Participants were
informed their participation was voluntary and data would not be used for evaluative purposes by
me or their principal. During data analysis, I worked to ensure an accurate interpretation of the

61
information collected, to not falsify, suppress, or invent findings (Creswell, 2012). I used
pseudonyms when presenting my study’s findings so that participants’ identities are confidential
(Creswell, 2012). The data will be kept for a period of 5 to 10 years at which point it will be
discarded (Creswell, 2012).
My study sought to understand how teachers of low SES students from highly
marginalized communities perceived their students’ academic and behavior capabilities and how
such perceptions were communicated to students through pedagogical practices and feedback. I
specifically focused on understanding how such pedagogy and feedback was rooted in equity or
deficit ideologies. By conducting in depth, semi-structured interviews, and observations with two
elementary school teachers, I increased my understanding of how such ideology is manifested in
teacher – student interactions. I also gained a deeper understanding of how the teachers made
meaning of their ideologies and pedagogical practices.

62
Chapter Four: Findings
The purpose of this dissertation was to investigate the perceptions held by teachers who
work in schools that serve students from low SES, historically marginalized backgrounds and
how such perceptions are communicated to those students through teachers’ pedagogical
practices. The following research questions were developed to guide my study:
1. What beliefs do two elementary teachers hold about their low SES students from
historically marginalized communities’ academic and behavior capabilities?
2. How do two teachers who have been recognized as demonstrating equity
pedagogy in classrooms serving low SES students from historically marginalized
communities address the academic and behavior capabilities of their students
through their pedagogy?
I conducted a qualitative study conducting case studies of two elementary school teachers
at the same public elementary school in the southeastern section of Los Angeles County. One
was a kindergarten through fifth grade Resource Specialist Program (RSP) teacher and the other
teacher taught third grade in a general education classroom. For each case study, I conducted
interviews and classroom observations. I will begin by describing the school site where the
dissertation study was conducted. I will then present the findings from each case as they relate to
my research questions. Finally, I will present a cross case analysis. The findings demonstrate
teachers’ beliefs and actions based on my interviews and observations. The study did not account
for each teacher’s context, which would provide insight to why the teachers’ acted in the ways
they did. To protect the participants, all names will be presented as pseudonyms.

63
Case Study # 1: Mrs. Garcia, Liberty Elementary School
Mrs. Garcia was a Resource Specialist Program (RSP) teacher at Liberty Elementary
School, located in the southeastern section of Los Angeles County. Liberty served students in
grades transitional kindergarten through fifth grade with a total enrollment of 389 students (CDE,
2017). The student body ethnicity breakdown consisted of approximately 85% Latino, 5%
African American, 4% White, 3% Filipino, 2% Asian, 1% other (CDE, 2017). Liberty’s
subgroups were comprised of 87% socioeconomically disadvantaged, 45% homeless, 26%
English learners, 15% students with disabilities (CDE, 2017). Liberty students scored
approximately 40% proficient or above in ELA and 35% proficient or above in math on the
smarter balanced assessment (CDE, 2017). The school had general education classrooms, a
special day classroom and a resource specialist program in addition to an academic support
teacher.
Mrs. Garcia had previously taught students in a self-contained, special day class at
Liberty prior to becoming the RSP teacher. This was her first year as an RSP teacher and she was
hired into the position after the start of the school year. Mrs. Garcia, an early career teacher was
Latina and attended school in the same district she worked in. Her childhood elementary school
was located just a few blocks from Liberty. Her classroom was in the center of campus in a wing
between two general education third grade classrooms. Mrs. Garcia saw small groups of students
throughout the instructional day ranging from students with mild to moderate learning
disabilities to students diagnosed with Autism. All of Mrs. Garcia’s students were enrolled in
general education classrooms and ranged from kindergarten through fifth grade. Mrs. Garcia was
supported by an instructional assistant who also worked with small groups of students. Mrs.
Garcia’s classroom, which she referred to as the learning center, had three small group tables, a

64
rug space with moveable whiteboard, two desktop computers, and various flexible seating items
available to students.
In answering my two research questions, two findings emerged from the data.1.) Mrs.
Garcia held a combination of deficit and equity beliefs. 2.) Mrs. Garcia made attempts at equity
pedagogy absent of her students’ backgrounds. The data revealed that Mrs. Garcia held a
combination of deficit and equity beliefs about her students. She made assumptions that her
students came to school with backgrounds that were potential barriers to their learning. She also
believed that she knew her students’ personal and cultural backgrounds and she had a
responsibility for holding herself and students accountable for learning in the classroom.
However, Mrs. Garcia did not articulate how her knowledge of students’ backgrounds and
cultures were integrated into her pedagogical practices in the classroom and whether her
students’ input served as a basis for her perceptions and assumptions about them. Furthermore,
Mrs. Garcia did not communicate that she understood how such backgrounds and cultures could
be leveraged in the classroom. Her pedagogy demonstrated an ability to facilitate an environment
where knowledge was constructed and contested between herself and students. She was able to
serve as a solicitor of knowledge and allowed for students to transmit knowledge. However, Mrs.
Garcia failed to leverage her knowledge of students’ background and experiences during
instruction as she focused more on making the content relevant to her own background and
experiences and less on ensuring that pedagogy was relevant and responsive to her students.
Finding 1: Mrs. Garcia Held a Combination of Deficit and Equity Beliefs
In my conceptual framework, I argue that teachers can carry a deficit ideology or equity
ideology when working with low SES students from historically marginalized communities.
Under deficit ideology, teachers believe their students need “fixing” and focus on what they feel

65
is wrong with students and their upbringing. Teachers can believe that such deficiencies are a
result of students’ cultures, intelligence, family backgrounds, or morality. Under the equity
ideology, teachers hold beliefs that all students are capable of academic excellence, their
backgrounds are important and are assets. These teachers own the responsibility of ensuring that
low SES students from historically marginalized communities receive the quality education they
deserve and that is typically afforded to their White and more affluent peers.
In the next section, I will present the interview data that demonstrates Mrs. Garcia’s
beliefs about teaching her students were rooted in aspects of both deficit and equity ideologies. I
will speak to the following themes in my analysis:
• Theme # 1 Deficit Beliefs: Mrs. Garcia Held Deficit Assumptions With a Primary
Focus on Fixing her Students
• Theme #2 Equity Beliefs: Mrs. Garcia Believed in Using Students’ Background
Knowledge and Culture
• Theme #3: Equity Beliefs: Mrs. Garcia Owned the Responsibility for Student
Learning.
Theme # 1 Deficit Beliefs: Mrs. Garcia Held Deficit Assumptions With a Primary Focus on
Fixing her Students
Growing up and attending school in the same neighborhood as Liberty and being a Latina
herself, Mrs. Garcia expressed a belief that she knew about her students’ lives and upbringing.
Mrs. Garcia articulated a belief that students being from the Latine culture, a historically
marginalized group, meant that students could come to the school setting with constraints and
limitations. Mrs. Garcia indicated she used her knowledge about her students’ backgrounds and
cultural characteristics as her cultural knowledge base for connecting with them. Gay (2002)

66
suggests that culturally responsive teachers understand the specific cultural contributions and
characteristics of ethnic groups, which may include traditions, values, learning styles, and
communication styles. From an equity ideological perspective, Mrs. Garcia believed that she
possessed knowledge about her students’ home lives and upbringing and that it was important.
However, being that her students were predominantly Latine and she herself a Latina from the
neighborhood in which she taught, she made deficit assumptions about their home lives and
upbringing without input from her students. She shared,
For me, it makes me aware that there are certain dynamics that my students are going to
have. They will come from working families. They might come from single parent
households. They might come from ... Most of them will have brothers and sisters. If
they’re the older sibling, they’re going to ... Predominantly Latino cultures, they place a
lot of responsibility on the older sibling to take care of the younger ones and, like I said,
the biggest one is that the working families. Especially our demographics here, most of
our students they come from working households, so it’s not just mom or dad who’s
working, it’s both parents are working. They’re having to stay here for the after-school
program because parents don’t get off work until 5, 5:30 or they’re having to come in
here for preschool daycare, so work is pretty ... Work is always on their mind. I think it’s
a daily thing that they go through in their lives, so it’s something that they relate to. They
will come from working families. They might come from single parent households. They
might come from ... Most of them will have brothers and sisters. If they’re the older
sibling, they’re going to ... Predominantly Latino cultures, they place a lot of
responsibility on the older sibling to take care of the younger ones.

67
Here, Mrs. Garcia articulated her assumptions of students’ cultural backgrounds and
characteristics. Valencia (1997) argues that those who carry deficit thinking see low SES parents
as being uninvolved and non-participative in the education of their children. Mrs. Garcia’s
assumptions were based in a deficit belief that parents of her students were less involved and
connected to their child’s education. Mrs. Garcia’s perceptions about her students’ common
home and schooling experiences were based on assumptions of the alignment between her own
background and their background. Mrs. Garcia believed these assumptions created an awareness
on her part as the teacher for the type of experiences her students would bring with them to the
classroom. She also held a belief that she was able to relate to her students due to assumptions
she made about their backgrounds. Mrs. Garcia did not indicate whether her assumptions were
based upon input from her students. Mrs. Garcia instead projected identities and notions onto her
students without investigating. This practice became evident throughout Mrs. Garcia’s interview
responses and was carried forth during the observed interactions with her students.
In describing her students’ characteristics, personalities, and attitude toward schooling,
Mrs. Garcia shared,
Yeah. From what I can gather when they come in here, they’re usually happy to be in
school. It’s a time for them to see their peers. Sometimes they do come in tired, at times
hungry. Sometimes you can tell that it’s just not a good day for them. But most of the
time, I would say that they are happy to be here and they’re engaged and pretty attentive
to whatever they’re doing.
Here, Mrs. Garcia again made deficit assumptions about her students and their dispositions when
they entered her classroom based on her perceptions of their home lives and upbringing. She did
not express how she gathered information and whether the students provided input as to their

68
dispositions of being happy, hungry, tired etc. or how she was able to justify these dispositions as
true. Without gathering such input from students, Mrs. Garcia’s assumptions were based solely
on her own interpretations.
Mrs. Garcia also articulated a belief that her students’ academic struggles were often
manifested as classroom behavior issues and she believed it was important to be honest with her
students about their academic deficiencies. She shared,
Well, a lot of times, what we see in the classrooms is that there’ll be some sort of
behavior concerns. Because what’s being taught in the classroom is just way over their
head. So here in the RSP setting, again I just address it head-on, and I let them know you
are right and you’re not imaging things. You are behind, but we gotta work hard. We
gotta work a little bit harder. And when you’re in here, it’s not time for us to play, it’s not
time for us to ... were gonna have time for that at the end of the year once you’re caught
up, but its catch-up time. Were gonna learn these skills so you can go to your classroom
and then try and learn those skills. So, it gets, what I notice is when students do
understand those foundation skills we talked about, they’re able to then catch up pretty
quickly. So once the math is down and basic addition, subtraction, we’re able to learn the
multiplication facts, we’re able to address division. And by the time they know it, they
kind of are following along in their class.
Here, Mrs. Garcia’s sentiments are consistent with the idea that students from low SES,
historically marginalized backgrounds need fixing. Gorski (2011) argues that deficit ideology
ignores the societal conditions that exist, including racism and economic injustice, and instead
focuses on fixing disenfranchised people instead of addressing the systemic issues. Mrs. Garcia

69
saw her role as one where she needed to fix foundational skill deficits of her students to catch
them up with their peers. This was evidenced in the further explanations by Mrs. Garcia.
During a discussion about the concept of classroom “work,” Mrs. Garcia shared,
Yeah, for me on a personal level it’s a big word because I know that I’m dealing with
students that are grade levels behind. So, for me there’s a sense of urgency. So, if I could
I would literally just have them come in work, work, work, work. You know? Because I
want them to catch up and I want them to—You know I know the statistics, I know what
happens to a student when they’re behind on their reading after third grade. I know their
chances of especially if you’re a male being incarcerated goes up. That starts in the third
grade. So, for me, there’s a sense of urgency. I want to help them catch up. I want to help
them get to their correct, right reading level. I want to do everything that I can to help
them not be another statistic.
Here, Mrs. Garcia continued to demonstrate the notion of fixing students and she explained the
connection she made between classroom work, or students’ academic tasks and her perception of
larger systemic issues (i.e., going to prison or being a “statistic”) that were present in society for
the population of students she served. Ladson Billings (1995) argues that teachers need to
recognize and understand the social inequities to engage with students in the work of developing
a critical consciousness. Mrs. Garcia’s thoughts demonstrate a belief in fixing the deficiencies in
her low SES students from historically marginalized communities. She believed that her students
should focus on their “work” to become better positioned in their future to be less likely to
experience societal inequities or pressures that existed. Mrs. Garcia was not recognizing the
socio-political consciousness and she did not articulate whether she created or utilized students’

70
work tasks to develop their critical consciousness or to allow them to see themselves and cultures
as part of the learning.
Mrs. Garcia also shared,
I’m big on like the learning to learn skills and showing me when you come in here, it’s an
open space so you’re open to share what’s going on in your life. But at the same time,
were gonna get some work done. And I’m flexible as to the approach, I’m more of big
picture, flexible towards the approach of getting there. So sometimes students come in
and you can just tell it’s not a good day for them. So, I still hold them accountable to do
their work, but you know what maybe you don’t want to work as a group today. Or
maybe you want to lounge and finish your work. I’m flexible about it so the approach of
getting to the goal is flexible. But I always hold them accountable.
Ladson Billings (1995) emphasizes that effective culturally relevant teachers work toward
meeting students’ academic and affective needs. Here, Mrs. Garcia expressed that she created a
flexible classroom space where students had various options to complete their academic tasks.
She expressed her belief that student engagement in academic tasks was at the center of her
practice while providing multiple avenues in which such academic tasks could be completed.
Although Mrs. Garcia was able to articulate aspects of her flexible approach to student work
completion, she fell short of articulating of how she created spaces for students to share parts of
themselves and their lives. Mrs. Garcia’s beliefs demonstrated a primary focus on accountability
for classroom work tasks and student affective needs.

71
Theme #2 Equity Beliefs: Mrs. Garcia Believed in Using Students’ Background Knowledge
and Culture
In my conceptual framework, I argue teachers who implement equity pedagogy work to
authentically know their students by learning about their students’ interests and personal
backgrounds. This builds a cultural competence on the part of the teacher, which can be used
during classroom instruction to facilitate discussion of academic content. Although Mrs. Garcia
expressed some beliefs about her students that were rooted in a deficit ideology, she also
expressed an equity belief in the importance of gathering background information about her
students as learners and individuals to utilize within her learning environment.
When asked to share how she utilized her knowledge of the students Latine cultures in
her classroom instruction, Mrs. Garcia shared,
I try to be sensitive to understanding that not every student that is here is going to come
... Even though they’re Latino, they may not all be from a Mexican heritage, so I do try to
be sensitive to that. If were talking about a birthday celebration, maybe were going to talk
about quinciñeras and then I’ll know from the students themselves. “Oh, yeah, I went to
my cousins,” “Oh, I went to,” dah-dah-dah. Then one of them will say, “We don’t really
do that. We do sweet 16s.” Then I realize that they’re more ... Maybe they’re second or
third generation.
Here, Mrs. Garcia also expressed a belief that being Latino did not inherently mean that all her
students were similar. She recognized that her students’ cultural backgrounds and experiences
might differ based upon their ethnicity. However, she did not share the connection between her
knowledge of her students’ varying cultures and how she utilized it for instruction. Further
responses from Mrs. Garcia did not express the use of students’ culture as a vehicle for

72
instruction, but instead she focused more on students’ outside of school experiences and personal
preferences. For example, Mrs. Garcia shared,
Oh, yeah. That’s [student background knowledge] so important to me. Super pivotal. I
think if they’re ... If the students aren’t ... If the students can’t identify with what they’re
seeing or what they’re hearing, then you’re going to lose them and that’s true for any of
us. If were watching something on TV, if were reading something, most of the time were
going to watch things were interested in because it somehow applies to us or makes us
feel a certain way or were going to read something that’s of interest to us, because it taps
into our personal lives or something that were interested in and it’s the same thing with
students. If were not linking things to their background, to their personal history, to their
personal knowledge or something that they’re familiar with, were going to lose them
within the first 2 minutes, so I see that as very important.
Here, Mrs. Garcia explained how she valued their background knowledge to ensure that she was
making the content interesting to them. She recognized that they would not stay interested in the
content as learners if they did not feel a connection to it. Mrs. Garcia spoke to keeping the
content interesting for students based upon their background knowledge but did not refer to
valuing their cultural upbringing and experiences. Thus, her beliefs seem to focus more on
making content more interesting for students rather than making it relevant, responsive, or
sustaining of students’ cultures. Gay (2002) explains that culturally responsive teachers work to
acquire factual information about the particular aspects of ethnic groups, which can then be used
to make learning more stimulating and representative of ethnically diverse students. Although
Mrs. Garcia said she spent the time working to make learning meaningful through student
background knowledge, such knowledge was not based upon information about the students’

73
culture characteristics. Instead, a more surface level understanding of students’ personal lives
and interests were the focus of the teacher.
Mrs. Garcia also shared,
I try to get involved in their lives. Just because I want them to come in and feel
comfortable too. I want them to come in and feel that this is a place where they can talk
to me about those type of things. There’s time for work but I want them to also feel like
they can speak and tell about what’s going on in their lives.
Here, Mrs. Garcia placed an importance on connecting with her students by bringing their lives
into the learning environment and validating their experiences and backgrounds during
discussions. Mrs. Garcia expressed the importance of developing a relationship between herself
and students where meaningful conversations occurred between them and where students
possessed a sense of comfort with their teacher and classroom. Mrs. Garcia believed she was
better able to connect with her students if she knew what was going on in their lives, but she did
not link students’ life experiences to their cultural backgrounds. Ladson-Billings (1995) explains
the importance of culturally relevant teachers ensuring that students’ academic and affective
needs are met and that a teacher’s primary responsibility is to ensure academic success for
students. Mrs. Garcia focused on creating a comfortable classroom climate but did not articulate
how she connected students’ lives and backgrounds to the instruction in the classroom.
Additionally, she expressed,
I feel like it is part of my job, and it’s my attempt at building a relationship. Actually, for
me, it’s just collecting data. So if I hear a student that went to a baseball game then I just
make a mental note, he really likes baseball, so then when I have to relate anything,

74
maybe if it’s something that they don’t want to do, I try to remember all those stories and
all those different things to say, like, “Okay, I know they like this, I know they like that.”
She also shared, “When we meet at the rug, I bring in their conversations. I encourage them,
Cedric wants to be a teacher, so I encourage that.” Here, Mrs. Garcia demonstrated how her
belief in taking an interest in students as individuals was connected to her pedagogical practice.
She believed she connected with her students by intentionally noting and using students’
individual interests and goals to motivate her students or relate the content to them. Although her
reasoning was not specifically connected to the students’ cultural backgrounds, this practice of
bringing in students’ conversation kept the students as the center and focus and drivers of her
classroom decisions.
Mrs. Garcia’s interview responses demonstrated that she sought to take an interest in her
students’ lives to build relationships with her students that lead to a classroom climate where
students were comfortable in and connected to their learning environment. She made “mental
notes” of student information, so that she knew things that were interesting to this student. She
kept that information as a representation of who her student was and what they were invested in,
which she could then bring into classroom discussions. By engaging in conversations, listening
to her students, and making mental notes, Mrs. Garcia believed she able to use her knowledge of
her students as points of instructional motivation in the classroom. Mrs. Garcia recognized the
importance of “knowing” her students, but she made assumptions of who the students were. Mrs.
Garcia did not articulate that she used what she knew about her students to address their
academic or behavior characteristics. However, she did believe that her role as the teacher was
responsible for ensuring that students were learning in her classroom.

75
Theme 3: Equity Beliefs—Mrs. Garcia Assumed the Responsibility for Student Learning.
In my conceptual framework, I argue that the teachers who hold an equity ideology
believe all students are capable of academic excellence and assume the responsibility for
ensuring that students from low SES, historically marginalized communities receive the
education they deserve. This ownership of responsibility may include working with a community
of stakeholders to ensure student success. Mrs. Garcia believed that she was responsible for
ensuring her students were learning in the classroom.
In a discussion about students coming to school underprepared, Mrs. Garcia shared,
I think it doesn’t necessarily reflect on the students. We can’t ... It’s good to hold students
accountable, but when it comes to their learning, we need to hold adults accountable. If
the students are coming in under prepared, then what does that say about our school and
what does that say about our teachers? I would say to that, we need to look at those root
causes of what’s going on. Not just blame the student.
Here, Mrs. Garcia expressed a belief that adults needed to be held accountable for student
learning. She also recognized that students from low SES, historically marginalized communities
are blamed for their achievement. Mrs. Garcia expressed an understanding of her role as a
teacher in the school system and the need to question and explore root causes (i.e. school and
teachers) that contribute to student preparedness. Mrs. Garcia’s responses demonstrate beliefs
that are contrary to the deficit ideology where teachers blame students and parents for their
academic and behavior struggles and ignore the societal inequities and conditions that exist for
students (Valencia, 1997).
During a discussion of low SES, historically marginalized students being labeled as lazy,
Mrs. Garcia shared,

76
Yes, students are disengaged. Yes, students maybe don’t want to do your lesson. Yes,
maybe students don’t want to be there that day, but what is it that I’m doing? How am I
not speaking to them, because in the same way that I could speak English to a student that
is a ... That doesn’t know English, when I don’t speak my students’ language as far as
what they’re into, technology, when I don’t implement those things in my lessons, then
I’m not speaking their language either, so there’s a huge disconnect.
Here, Mrs. Garcia reflected on her practice as a teacher. When she said, “What is it that I’m
doing?, How am I not speaking to them?,” she demonstrated an assumed responsibility for their
learning by asking questions of her own teaching rather than focusing on students and their
behaviors. She focused on making her instruction more relevant and responsive to her students
by integrating her students’ interests. When Mrs. Garcia said, “I’m not speaking their language,”
she recognized a potential disconnect between herself and students if her practice was not
relevant and responsive to them.
Finding 2: Mrs. Garcia Made Attempts at Equity Pedagogy
In my conceptual framework, I also argue that teachers can implement deficit or equity
pedagogy in the classroom with their students. Teachers who implement deficit pedagogy do so
via low expectations of students, teaching a less rigorous, watered-down curriculum and relying
on stratification of students in the classroom. Equity pedagogy teachers hold high expectations of
all students regardless of their ethnic background or socioeconomic status, integrate students’
culture into the curriculum, build trust and connections with students by facilitating discussions
around shared struggles. These teachers understand and challenge the detrimental practices that
occur within cultures that contribute to the further marginalization of other minority members in
the culture itself. Equity teachers facilitate learning environments students where learning is

77
constructed and contested. This occurs within a teacher to student relationship where student
input is accepted, validated, and utilized in the classroom. In the next section, I will present
observation data that demonstrates how Mrs. Garcia’s beliefs were carried forth through
pedagogical practices with her students.
In the next section, I will present observation data that demonstrates how Mrs. Garcia’s
beliefs were carried forth through pedagogical practices with her students. I will speak to the
following themes in my analysis:
• Theme 1: Equity Pedagogy: Mrs. Garcia Facilitated Opportunities to Construct and
Contest Knowledge
• Theme 2: Failure to Leverage Students’ Backgrounds, Experiences, and Culture
Theme 1: Equity Pedagogy: Mrs. Garcia Facilitated Opportunities to Construct and Contest
Knowledge
In my conceptual framework, I assert that teachers who implement equity pedagogy work
to create learning environments where students work in conjunction with the teacher and their
peers to construct and contest knowledge. Students can serve as teachers and transmit knowledge
in these learning environments. These teachers also work to authentically know their students.
This occurs by teachers sharing information about their own personal lives and taking an interest
in learning about their students’ interests and personal backgrounds. Such actions build a cultural
competence on the part of the teacher, which can be used during classroom instruction to
facilitate discussion of academic content.
Mrs. Garcia demonstrated an ability to facilitate a classroom environment where
knowledge was constructed and contested between the teacher and students. An example of this
took place as students worked to complete math problems in small group rotations. Mrs. Garcia

78
explained that students would be using their iPads to record their problem-solving strategy to a
subtraction problem. Mrs. Garcia used an iPad to demonstrate the recording process and students
were then sent off in partner pairs around the room to begin their tasks. Mrs. Garcia began to
walk around the room to question each group.
Mrs. Garcia walks to over to Sarah and Ralph’s group.
Mrs. Garcia: What does Sarah think?
Ralph: Addition is easier than subtraction.
Mrs. Garcia then walks over to the Eduardo and Mia’s group. Eduardo writes 13-7 on the
table.
Mrs. Garcia: Do you agree Mia?
Larry: (from another group across the room) Can we create like a newscast?
Mrs. Garcia: Of course you can, turn on your iPad to record.
Ralph: Can we go outside?
Mrs. Garcia: Sure!
Mrs. Garcia notices that Jerry is beginning to fall asleep and walks over to him.
Mrs. Garcia: Jerry we are not going to sleep, if you’re tired you can go to the office to
sleep. I know you are tired, but you had a lot of good things to say. What
would you do?
Jerry: (Begins to count on his fingers) 13, 14, 15, 16.
Mrs. Garcia: That’s it! You got it bud! How do you want to record?
Jerry begins to write his answer on the table.
Jerry: I would tell him to count up, because it takes less time.

79
Mrs. Garcia: Okay guys let’s get ready to head back to our group, I cannot wait to
watch those.
Mrs. Garcia and students walk over and sit on the rug area.
Mrs. Garcia: Let’s go ahead and recap what you and your partner came up with. Rachel
can you share?
Rachel: My recommendation was to count up from the little number to the big
number.
Mrs. Garcia: Ralph what was your recommendation?
Ralph: My recommendation was if you get stuck with subtraction, start with a
number line.
This discussion continued with Mrs. Garcia requiring all groups to share their problemsolving recommendations that were recorded earlier in the lesson on their iPads or in
writing.
Here, Mrs. Garcia’s students were expected to demonstrate their understanding of academic
content by explaining their new problem-solving strategies to Mrs. Garcia and their peers. Banks
and Banks (1995) argue that equity pedagogy changes the traditional relationship between the
teacher and student. The teacher shifts from being the center and transmitter of knowledge to the
student. The students construct knowledge with integrated opportunities to reflect. Mrs. Garcia
encouraged discourse between students by allowing for peer discussions and opportunities where
students co-constructed learning in small peer groups with her as a facilitator of the learning
environment. Consistent with her interview response, Mrs. Garcia allowed students the flexibility
to decide on how their academic task would be completed. Even when a student was
academically disengaged, Mrs. Garcia provided the student with the choice to either go to the

80
office to or complete their academic task. The student chose academics over leaving the
classroom and was successful in the task.
Another example of Mrs. Garcia facilitating the construction and contesting of
knowledge occurred during a lesson on subtraction strategies. As four students entered the
classroom one morning, Mrs. Garcia was taping word problems around the classroom and
labeling them (i.e., #1, #2, #3). The students grabbed their red folders and then sat down at the
small group table.
Larry: It’s my birthday!
Mrs. Garcia: Do you want a birthday crown? Today we are going to finish our
worksheet then do some peer-group work.
The two students walk down to the rug area.
Mrs. Garcia: Yesterday, Ralph said that we can’t subtract a big number from a little
number.
Mrs. Garcia then wrote 15-13=2 on the easel.
Mrs. Garcia: We can be efficient by counting up instead of backwards when numbers
are close together. How do you guys feel about these strategies?
The students then walked back over to the small group table. Mrs. Garcia read a problem
aloud from the worksheet.
Mrs. Garcia: Go ahead and make a choice and explain why, remember we can start
with, “I would choose…or I think, because…I like to see this thinking
time and focusing. If focusing had a sound, I would hear it.
Mrs. Garcia then began to call on students to share their thinking.
Priscilla: I would choose 7+2 to count on because it’s easier.

81
Larry: I agree, because two is a smaller number.
Mrs. Garcia: Good Larry, I agree because it’s easier to count on to two.
Mrs. Garcia then sent to students off to work on answering math problems in groups.
Ladson-Billings (2009) explained that teachers create a community of learners who become
responsible for one another and work collaboratively in the classroom. Students are provided
with the opportunities to serve as teachers in an environment that is focused on individual
achievement rather than competition between students (Ladson-Billings, 2009). Here, Mrs.
Garcia utilized a student’s knowledge that he constructed from the previous day (subtracting a
bigger number from a smaller number) to anchor the lesson. She continued to facilitate the
construction of knowledge by having students select an answer, explain their thinking, and share
with their classmates. Students were given the opportunity to contest knowledge with each other
by choosing whether to agree or disagree with their classmates and working collaboratively in
groups to solve additional math problems.
Classroom observations also demonstrated that Mrs. Garcia facilitated an environment to
construct and contest knowledge by the way she reinforced her behavioral expectations. Mrs.
Garcia followed through on her instructional demands to ensure that students were actively
engaged in academic tasks. This occurred by consistently redirecting students back to the
learning objectives set for the day or providing a reinforcing incentive that students could attain
after learning goals and understanding had been demonstrated.
Theme 2: Failure to Leverage Students’ Backgrounds, Experiences, and Culture
In my conceptual framework, I assert that teachers who implement equity pedagogy work
to authentically know their students. This occurs by teachers sharing information about their own
personal lives and taking an interest in learning about their students’ interests and personal

82
backgrounds. Such actions build a cultural competence on the part of the teacher, which can be
used during classroom instruction to facilitate discussion of academic content. Although Mrs.
Garcia facilitated a classroom environment where knowledge was constructed and contested, the
data also revealed that her classroom practices did not allow her students’ backgrounds,
experiences, or cultures to be shared unless it was on her terms.
During interviews, Mrs. Garcia expressed that students’ background knowledge was
important and indicated that she brought in students’ conversations about their lives into her
lessons, however her practice indicated a lack of utilizing her students’ input for instruction.
Without addressing her students’ need of sharing their interests and backgrounds in the
classroom and without utilizing her knowledge of her students’ backgrounds, she did not access
their experiences or assets. Mrs. Garcia believed she established connections with her students
by sharing information about her own personal life with them. During an interview example,
Mrs. Garcia shared,
I think it helps. I don’t mind sharing. I try not to of course tell them ... I’m not going to
talk to them about my problems, but I try to let them know that I come from a similar
background. For me that’s important, and that’s one of the main reasons why I like
serving these demographics, because I can relate on a personal level.
She also stated,
They always ask questions about my husband because he’s in the military and they’ve
seen him in uniform. So, there were very curious about him when they met him. So, I
knew that was kind of like a hook.
Here, Mrs. Garcia demonstrated her understanding of the demographics of the children she
served and how she believed she was positioned to relate to her students personally by sharing

83
information about herself and family with them. There is no evidence that she attempted to
develop her cultural competence from her students as she was focused on her own experiences
without providing a space for students to share their experiences with her and one another. Gay
(2002) and Milner (2011) both suggest that teachers who connect to their students’ personal
experiences do so by drawing out the students’ experiences whereas here, Mrs. Garcia focused
exclusively on her own experiences.
An additional example was,
So just last week we were talking about a soup, like my mom makes Albondigas and then
this kid was talking about how his brother loves Albondigas soup, so then of course I
said, “Oh, I’ve never liked it because my mom forced me to not get up from the table
until I finished it,” and so we were able to bond. I think they all kind of had a good time
hearing that story, so it helps me relate to them, and relationship is so important.
Here, Mrs. Garcia indicated that she believed it was important and helpful for students to
understand her as an individual and the experiences and backgrounds she brought to the
classroom environment to establish a relationship with her students. Milner (2011) found that a
teacher sharing personal narratives developed their cultural competence and created a space
where students shared more about themselves with the teacher. Again, Mrs. Garcia failed to
foster the space she had indicated she wanted to create, one in which the students believed that
she wanted to understand and know who they were in relation to her. In this example, Mrs.
Garcia used the discussion of a culturally relevant discussion topic with her students as an
opportunity to sustain a positive affective environment and not to further develop her cultural
competence or an additional vehicle for academic instruction.

84
Classroom observations demonstrated consistency with Mrs. Garcia’s beliefs that sharing
personal information with students was important to her instruction. One example occurred
during a shared reading discussion,
Mrs. Garcia: Can I share a story? My husband had a male barber, but he moved. We
stopped to see a new barber shop, but the barber was woman. My husband
was so nervous but he was so happy with his haircut. How can we relate
that to the story?
S1: It’s like today that boys think girls can’t do what boys can.
S2: This girl in baseball had the same problem; kids were yelling “easy out”
but she hit the ball and I told her good job, nice try.
Here, Mrs. Garcia demonstrated another attempt to use a personal context during
instruction, however, when presented with a student response, Mrs. Garcia did not engage in
deep discussion nor ignite a critical consciousness around the topic. Ladson-Billings (1995)
asserts that teachers can aim to develop a critical consciousness in their students by critiquing the
inequities that exist in society (i.e., norms, values, morals). Gay’s (2002) conception of designing
relevant curricula requires that teachers work to reverse curricular trends by addressing
controversies and contextualizing issues related to race, class, ethnicity, and gender. Mrs.
Garcia’s discussion remained at surface level and was kept solely within the context of the story
being read, even though her students brought input and interest to the discussion that could have
activated a critical consciousness in the students.
During an occasion as students were entering the classroom to begin their lesson, one
student asked, “Can we talk about our weekend?” Another student stated, “Can we write about
our weekend?” when given time to choose a writing topic. Mrs. Garcia responded to students by

85
requiring them to continue focusing on their work tasks without acknowledging their attempts to
be heard and seen.
By ignoring students’ attempts for input, Mrs. Garcia missed potential opportunities to
develop her cultural competence or build a cultural knowledge base about her students. Milner
(2011) suggests teachers can build their cultural competence by fostering meaningful
relationships with students, which allows for getting to know the students. Although
opportunities were presented for Mrs. Garcia to foster relationships and take an interest in her
students via her students’ requests and input, Mrs. Garcia failed to leverage her students’
backgrounds, experiences and cultures. She either re-directed or did not acknowledge or followup on the students attempts. Therefore, she did not foster the space she had indicated she wanted
to create, one in which the students believed that she wanted to understand and know who they
were in relation to her.
Case Study # 2: Mrs. Johnson, Liberty Elementary School
Mrs. Johnson was a third grade, general education teacher at Liberty Elementary. During
the previous school year, she taught a second/third grade combination class. Mrs. Johnson had
been working at Liberty since she began her teaching career 20 years prior to the interviews and
observations. Her classroom was in the center of campus in a wing between a general education
third grade classroom and the resource specialist room. Upon walking into the classroom, all
student desks were placed in rows that directly faced the front of the classroom with one single
student desk located next to the front door.
In answering my two research questions, two findings emerged from the data.1.) Mrs.
Johnson’s Beliefs Were Primarily Deficit in Nature. 2.) Mrs. Johnson’s Pedagogical Practices
Reflected Deficit Pedagogy. The data revealed that Mrs. Johnson had a context neutral mindset

86
and held deficit beliefs and assumptions about her students’ parents as well as the students
themselves. Mrs. Johnson believed her students lacked the academic skills necessary to be
successful in school because her students’ parents sent them to school underprepared and with
limited, relevant experiences. While Mrs. Johnson acknowledged the social context of her school
and recognized potential challenges her students faced in their outside of school lives, she did not
account for her students’ social contexts, background experiences, or cultures in the way she
designed learning opportunities for them. She held the students to the same academic and
behavioral expectations to which she believed she was held to growing up.
Due to her deficit beliefs about her students’ abilities and their parents’ involvement in
schooling, she saw it as her responsibility to ensure that her students learned. Mrs. Johnson
believed it was her job to hold her students to high expectations by placing demands on them.
However, her expectations were focused on behavior compliance and less on academic
instruction. Mrs. Johnson did not articulate how she utilized her students’ cultural backgrounds
in her instruction and she focused primarily on teaching her students life lessons during her
instruction.
In the next section, I will present the interview and observation data that demonstrates
Mrs. Johnson’s beliefs about her students’ parents and her students as well as how the
pedagogical decisions she made that were rooted in a context neutral mindset and a deficit
ideology. I will speak to the following themes in my analysis:
• Theme #1: Mrs. Johnson Held a Context Neutral Mindset.
• Theme #2: Mrs. Johnson Held Deficit Beliefs About her Students’ Parents.
• Theme # 3: Mrs. Johnson Held Deficit Beliefs About Her Students.

87
Theme #1: Mrs. Johnson Held a Context Neutral Mindset.
Milner (2010) explains that teachers must understand the differences, complexities, and
nuances inherent in what it means to teach in urban, suburban, and rural environments. Although
Mrs. Johnson recognized and acknowledged that her students’ parents were faced with
challenging life circumstances, she still held a context neutral perspective about them when it
came to how she taught them. Mrs. Johnson’s beliefs about her students’ parents reinforced the
opportunity gaps that exist for students from low SES, historically marginalized backgrounds
(Milner, 2010).
Mrs. Johnson recognized and provided examples of the daily systemic challenges faced
by her students and their parents. She shared,
Yeah, I know one Mom just switched her shift to graveyard so the little girls at her
sister’s house, she comes and picks her up at 6 in the morning, they go back home and
change and then she brings her. So, things like that, that they can’t help that, they can’t
change that.
She also shared,
My new student, yeah I only got him February 21st. So just those coming in tardy, they
come in kind of frazzled, they don’t wake up early, they might have to do multiple drop
offs and half of them always seem they are just still so tired. So going to bed late, I don’t
think they have much of a 7:30 brush your teeth, pajamas, bedtime. I don’t think they
have that structure at home from what I see that they come in so tired.
In both instances, Mrs. Johnson points to the context specific constraints that her students and
their families face, such as challenges in childcare (“the little girls at her sister’s house”),

88
transportation (“multiple drop offs”), and adequate conditions for school readiness (“half of them
always seem they are just still so tired,” “I don’t think they have that structure”).
While she was able to name these contextual conditions, Mrs. Johnson did not see her
instructional design and decision-making as connected to her students’ social context. Instead,
she projected a set of assumptions onto her students’ parents without consideration of the social
context. For example, in discussing homework, Mrs. Johnson shared,
Even at 3rd grade. It sounds harsh, but I don’t think they’re hearing these messages at
home. I have about five that there’s no homework, very, very little homework gets turned
back in. I have probably another 10 that you can see there’s no parent supervision of
doing the homework because they come back all wrong, which is fine. We correct it in
class. My homework is very, very minimal, like 15 minutes, 10, 15 minutes, and then
read. I think it’s just those clear boundaries. This is what we’re going to do. This is how
were going to do it. If you’re not doing it, there’s a consequence.
She also shared,
From the 20 years that I’ve been here, it seems it comes from home. The understanding
education is extremely important, because just helping with homework has diminished
drastically, drastically. Just the philosophy that education is most important thing in your
life, and support at home. Some of them, you can tell they’re just not spoken to. They
don’t get 5,000 words a day. I have one student. He does not speak Spanish, and mom
does not speak English, so I don’t know how that works at home, but he’s very low
academically. He has been screened, but he didn’t qualify. I don’t know. I think it’s
nothing I can do as a teacher to fix the lack of learning the lessons. I think it’s more
systematic.

89
In the examples above, Mrs. Johnson used student completion of homework as the measure of
her parents’ involvement (“I don’t think they’re hearing these messages at home”) and value for
their children’s education (“there’s no parent supervision of doing the homework,” “it seems it
comes from home. The understanding education is extremely important, because just helping
with homework has diminished dramatically, drastically,” “some of them you can tell they’re
just not spoken to”). Instead of using her knowledge to construct learning opportunities, she
placed blame on the parents when students did not complete homework or completed it
incorrectly (“It’s nothing I can do as a teacher to fix the lack of learning the lessons.”). Mrs.
Johnson did not acknowledge the potential barriers, socioeconomic challenges or cultural
contexts that were present. Milner (2010, 2012) explains that context neutral mindset among
educators do not allow them to recognize deep-rooted and ingrained realities embedded in a
particular place, such as a school. This type of mindset promotes the continuation of the status
quo among our students from low SES, historically marginalized backgrounds. Although Mrs.
Johnson expressed an understanding that her students may have been staying overnight with a
relative or that parents may have struggled with establishing a routine and structure in the home,
she punished students who did not complete homework (“This is how were going to do it. If
you’re not doing it, there’s a consequence.”). She did not incorporate what she knew into her
approach to homework.
Theme #2: Mrs. Johnson Held Deficit Beliefs About her Students’ Parents.
I argue in my conceptual framework that teachers’ beliefs are enacted deficit and/or
equity pedagogy. Under deficit ideology, teachers believe their students need “fixing” and focus
on what they believe is wrong with students and their upbringing. Teachers can believe that such
deficiencies are a result of students’ cultures, intelligence, family backgrounds, or morality.

90
Under the equity ideology, teachers hold beliefs that all students are capable of academic
excellence and their backgrounds are important and are assets. These teachers own the
responsibility of ensuring that low SES students from historically marginalized communities
receive the quality education they deserve and that is typically afforded to their White and more
affluent peers.
Mrs. Johnson, a teacher of Mexican descent who did not speak Spanish, shared that she
was taught in strict learning environments growing up. She held the belief that most of her
students came to school underprepared and lacking academic and behavioral skills from homes
where parents failed to provide their students with structures and routines. Therefore, she
believed that her role was to prepare her students for what they might encounter in her
conceptualization of what her students would face in society and the real world.
Mrs. Johnson’s interview responses were consistent with a deficit belief about her
students’ parents. For example, she shared,
What I think personally, I don’t think kids are talked to enough. Don’t think there’s
enough communication with an adult, there’s not, “sit down and read with your child.”
There’s not “How else could the character solve the problem?” The parents don’t have
those skills to push and peel off layers with their students, they’re not spoken to. The
spoken word or the monkey see, monkey do they’re just not around their parents for
whatever reasons either they’re working, or they’d rather be on the iPads.
At another point she said,
Gosh. The ones that have parental support, which means parents expose them to things,
they talk to them, they help with homework, so expose them to things as in going to

91
museums, going to restaurants, taking them for a drive and just explaining the names of
the streets, or “This is why we’re going.” Just that talking to explaining things.
In both responses, Mrs. Johnson focused on her perceptions of what her students’ parents were
not doing in the home. From her perspective, parents didn’t talk with their children enough,
“Don’t think there’s enough communication with an adult” or “they’re not spoken to.” They do
not have enough modeling of the thinking skills valued in school, “There’s not ‘How else could
the character solve the problem.” Instead, their parents are not around “either they’re working, or
they’d rather be on the iPads.” Her responses are consistent with Valencia’s (1997) assertion that
teachers project onto parents of low SES students that they do not value education and thus do
not instill such value in their children. Resulting in this belief, low SES parents are viewed as
uninvolved and non-participative in their children’s education (Valencia, 1997). Mrs. Johnson’s
belief was that little communication took place between her students and parents and that her
students’ parents lacked the necessary skills to involve themselves in their students’ education
(“The parents don’t have those skills to push and peel off layers with their students.”).
Additionally, she held the deficit belief that her students’ parents had failed to expose their
children to things and experiences (e.g., museums, “taking them out for a drive” or “This is why
we’re going”). Mrs. Johnson did not explain how she “knew” about students’ experiences at
home and instead appeared to be based on assumptions about parental supervision, establishing
boundaries, homework help and home support. Her assertions are consistent with deficit
ideology where social conditions including racism and economic injustice are ignored and
instead the focus becomes fixing disenfranchised people and not addressing the systemic issues
(Gorski, 2011).

92
Theme #3: Mrs. Johnson Held Deficit Beliefs About Her Students.
Milner (2011) explains that teachers with a deficit perspective believe that students of
color lack the skills and knowledge that are necessary for success in learning, which can be
detrimental to the classroom learning progress of students of color. Throughout her interview,
Mrs. Johnson explained that her students came to her behind in their academic abilities. She held
a deficit belief that her students were not able to break down their work, comprehend their
reading nor focus and persevere through the challenges of their academics. Mrs. Johnson also
expressed that her students seemed to hold little value for the importance of comprehending their
reading. These beliefs influenced the way in which she taught academic skills her to students.
For example, in response to an interview question asking her to share about her students’
characteristics and range of abilities, Mrs. Johnson shared,
Academically according to what Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) says is
grade level and those things, I have about five percent on grade level, so out of my 26
students that four to five that are, and the rest are 1 year behind. I have one 2 year and
then several that are 4 years behind, they are working at kindergarten level.
Her response reflected a focus on the “fact” that of her 26 students, only five percent were on
grade level. The rest were anywhere from 1 to 4 years “behind.” She focused on the fact that they
were “working at a kindergarten level” as a statement of their ability. She supplemented this
characterization with a believe that “They don’t have the tools to break it down to learn,” or the
“Ability to focus, even if they can decode and can read, that perseverance.” She coupled their
performance on the DRA with a lack of “the tools to break it down to learn,” or “Ability to focus
… perseverance,” even when identifying a strength (“decode and can read”). She further
communicated,

93
Where they don’t see the connection that you have to learn the reading skills to then learn
in science so when you say its reading, you’ll get “Ugh” and I don’t allow them to moan,
you can’t moan. So, they don’t see that, that in order to learn science you have to be a
better reader.
In this response she suggested that it was the students who “don’t see the connection” between
reading skills and learning science, as though that was something the students were expected to
bring with them instead of something she was responsible for assisting them with. She
consistently pointed to their failure to already know (“they don’t see that”) or to have the “right”
response to learning (“Ugh” and I don’t allow them to moan, you can’t moan.”).
A teacher’s deficit belief can be expressed as low expectations for her students and
manifest as pedagogical practices that impede her low SES students from historically
marginalized communities’ opportunities to learn (Milner, 2011). Mrs. Johnson shared did not
demonstrate an awareness of her responsibility to find ways to meet her students where they
were or to enact a range of pedagogical approaches to foster learning opportunities for her
students. For example, she pointed to a student’s inability to learn rather than her responsibility
to teach when she said,
It’s not so much the decoding, its comprehension, comprehension. One little girl
yesterday the question said what detail is in both articles and the articles were reading
were two different ones. She circles both and writes two and then circles two answers.
What detail is in both articles? And I get how she sees both as two but the understanding
of it so it’s that and I don’t know how else to teach comprehension, because you can’t
possibly teach every scenario a question’s is going to be asked.

94
In this example, Mrs. Johnson indicated that it was the student who could not determine how to
respond to the requirement that she identify the detail “in both articles,” and instead the student
“circles both and writes two and then circles two answers.” Her response, “What detail is in both
articles?” suggested her consternation that the student could not complete the activity. She went
on to acknowledge how the student saw these “both as two” but did not take responsibility as she
said, “I don’t know how else to teach comprehension, because you can’t possibly teach every
scenario a question’s going to be asked.” The problem was the student and not her approach to
instruction.
She also shared,
If I were to say, “Okay were going to write two paragraphs on being an animal owner, pet
owner,” you would think I asked them to write a thesis. That is daunting to them, to have
to write two paragraphs is just ... Part of it I think it’s me because I’m like they can’t
handle it and so we’ve just been working on perfecting that one paragraph, one paragraph
and you see how they struggle, they still can’t write sentences some of them, so I don’t
want to overload them and them not like writing. So, it’s a fine, it’s like if I give them too
much, they’re going to hate writing but yet they need to be pushed to get that stamina.
In this example, Mrs. Johnson’s pedagogical decisions were rooted in low expectations for her
students. When the student struggled to comprehend the question or expressed disinterest in the
academic tasks of the teacher, Mrs. Johnson expressed low expectations by suggesting the
content was too difficult and providing a more watered-down academic expectation, such as
writing one paragraph instead of the required two. The result of Mrs. Johnson’s deficit beliefs
and low expectations are consistent with Rist’s (1970) idea of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Mrs.
Johnson’s low academic expectations for her students was likely to yield low academic

95
performance. Ladson-Billings (1995) explained that culturally relevant teachers’ responsibility
was to ensure their students experience academic excellence, which can occur by providing
scaffolds to ensure additional access to learning. Here, Mrs. Johnson did not express a belief in
her role as the teacher to provide her students with in-class supports, scaffolds or access when
they struggled. Instead, she lowered academic expectations, provided a low-level curriculum,
and saw it as other school staff or programs responsibility to provide academic support to her
students.
In discussing academic supports for her students, Mrs. Johnson shared,
We do have a, I don’t know what she’s even called, she’s not a staff member, she’s a
tutor, a college tutor, she comes regularly. So, I have the student that gets half an hour a
day, there’s RSP, a couple that get pulled out for RSP, we have another work study
program where we get some extra time and that’s three times a week again with the lo, lo,
lo. We have computer lab where I can send ten kids and so that leaves me with ten or 15.
So, that time they’re working on iReady, so we have iReady here, which is awesome
because you can go in and do all those extra lessons, its tailored, but its taken us a couple
years to get training and now once you can navigate its much faster to go, “Oh this kid’s
prefixes,” put an extra lesson in iReady. Then small groups. But that’s very hard because
as soon as you’re with the group, just the mischief and the chaos and I know I’m one of
the strictest teachers here so if it’s hard for me to do small groups, or do other teachers
just have a higher level of tolerance of misbehavior, I don’t.
Here, Mrs. Johnson took little responsibility for her students’ academic learning. Winfield (1985)
explained that teachers can act as referral agents and assume no responsibility for their struggling
students’ learning, believe that struggling students are incapable of achieving the in the

96
traditional classroom and often refer struggling students to other settings including special
education. Mrs. Johnson’s responses, “We get some extra time and that’s three times a week
again with the lo, lo, lo,” and “We have computer lab where I can send ten kids and so that
leaves me with ten or 15,” demonstrated her belief that academic intervention programs and
other site personnel were responsible providing instruction and remediation to her struggling
students. Mrs. Johnson did express a belief in providing teacher-led, small group to her at-risk
students however she believed that misbehaviors of other students would interrupt such
instruction making it hard for her to implement. Mrs. Johnsons deficit beliefs about her students’
academic abilities and her low academic expectations influenced her views about the type of
instruction students would receive. Her focus centered less on ensuring that her students
experienced academic excellence and more on their classroom behavior and the lessons she
needed to teach them about their behavior.
Finding: Mrs. Johnson’s Pedagogical Practices Reflected Deficit Pedagogy
I argue in my conceptual framework that teachers’ beliefs are enacted as deficit and/or
equity pedagogy. Teachers who implement equity pedagogy hold high expectations of all
students regardless of their ethnic, racial, linguistic background or socioeconomic status. These
teachers understand that holding high expectations is essential to ensuring that marginalized
students receive the same rigor of instruction that is traditionally afforded to their White and
more affluent peers. A teacher’s use of equity pedagogy may yield a positive teacher-student
relationship where students are highly invested in the content and actively engaged in the
learning environment (Ladson-Billings, 1995). This type of student-teacher relationship and
investment in learning can help students experience academic success, develop cultural
competence, and a critical consciousness (Ladson-Billings, 1995). Implementing equity

97
pedagogy also allows the teacher to build their own cultural competence and become culturally
caring (Gay, 2002; Milner, 2011) Utilizing equity pedagogy allows for students to construct
knowledge as the teacher-student relationship is altered, and students work towards skills that
allow for them to become agents of change in society (Ladson-Billings, 1995).
Contrary to the tenets of equity pedagogy, deficit pedagogy is teacher dominated
instruction and focuses on fixing students with little opportunity for student input (Gorski, 2011,
Haberman, 1991, Milner, 2011). Deficit pedagogy may yield a lack of student interest in the
subject matter as the academic expectations are low and the curriculum is watered down (Milner,
2011). These pedagogical practices include simply giving directions, monitoring seatwork,
reviewing assignments, punishing noncompliance, asking questions, and settling disputes
(Haberman, 1991). Additionally, deficit pedagogy focuses on teaching basic skills through
directive instructional practices that are based upon the belief that low SES students from
historically marginalized communities need controlling and basic skills are a prerequisite for
living and learning. Teachers who implement deficit pedagogy see their relationship with their
students as one where the teacher is in charge and students are not capable of teaching since their
job is to learn (Haberman, 1991).
Mrs. Johnson’s beliefs about her classroom environment reflected tenets of deficit
pedagogy. She held low academic and behavior expectations as she believed that her students
needed and benefitted from a strict classroom environment where their behavior complied with
her structure and classroom routines. Her focus centered on teaching basic skills—the behaviors
she deemed to be socially appropriate in her classroom. Her beliefs about pedagogy also focused
on controlling the classroom environment—not providing students with autonomy or
independence by telling them exactly what to do and how to do it. Mrs. Johnson also focused on

98
punishing noncompliance—assessing consequences for students who did not comply with her
rules and procedures. For example, Mrs. Johnson shared,
I’m very strict, you have to sit a certain way, you have to raise your hand a certain way so
I kind of ...I think all my teachers were very strict and so I teach the way I was taught and
I think well if I became successful this is the way to make them successful and also I
have 1 year with these kids, and if I can teach them that the way you sit presents yourself
a certain way, I gotta get that lesson in because it’s also a lot of life lessons. Simple
things like covering your mouth when you yawn, cover your mouth when you sneeze.
Takes me months, so manners. If they’re noisy during center time, I just make my list of
names, and they don’t go out to recess. They have to sit with their heads down for 5 or 10
minutes, depending on how long I’m doing something.
Mrs. Johnson demonstrated her low expectations, reflecting deficit pedagogy, when she said,
“I’m very strict, you have to sit a certain way, you have to raise your hand a certain way,”
because she communicated her belief that the students could not be trusted to sit or raise their
hands on their own. In Mrs. Johnson’s statement, “Simple things like covering your mouth when
you yawn, cover your mouth when you sneeze” she demonstrated her belief that the students
lacked basic behavior skills, again revealing her low expectations and use of deficit pedagogy as
she dominated the environment of the classroom and did not provide students with the
opportunity for input. By taking responsibility for teaching students to cover their mouths when
yawning Mrs. Johnson reinforced her belief that her students came to her classroom not knowing
how to behave to her standards and implying that they were not being taught these behaviors at
home.

99
Mrs. Johnson also demonstrated a deficit pedagogy approach to her students when she
discussed the way she punished students who did not comply with her expectations. When Mrs.
Johnson shared,
If they’re noisy during center time, I just make my list of names, and they don’t go out to
recess. They have to sit with their heads down for 5 or 10 minutes, depending on how
long I’m doing something.
she demonstrated her willingness to punish noncompliance and control the classroom
environment by controlling her students’ independence. By keeping students in the classroom
with their heads down at recess, Mrs. Johnson communicated that discussion and the
construction of knowledge between her students was not encouraged nor welcomed in her
classroom. Additionally, by keeping her students in the classroom during recess, Mrs. Johnson
asserted herself as the person who was in charge. Her recess consequence served as her method
of punishing noncompliance and fixing her students classroom behaviors –if her students stayed
in during their recess time, they would no longer be noisy during center time.
In another instance Mrs. Johnson shared,
I just hope that it comes through that everything is done on purpose. It’s not to be mean
or to be strict. It’s all purposeful. There’s a method to this strictness, and you do what I
say when I say. It is strict. They’re only allowed to get up and get a tissue. That’s it,
because then you’re disrupting that person’s education, and that’s not fair. Hopefully it
eases. They learn in spite of me, and they understand that I care. Otherwise, I wouldn’t be
here in Norwalk. I can go to the La Mirada side, which is the more affluent. They don’t
need me. These kids need me. They need to learn manners. They need to learn education
is important.

100
When Mrs. Johnson shared, “there’s a method to this strictness, and you do what I say when I
say” she demonstrated deficit pedagogy by giving directions and establishing herself as the
person in charge of the classroom. She believed that students were required to do whatever she
said when she said it, which is consistent with deficit pedagogy by communicating that she was
not interested in taking any input from her students. When Mrs. Johnson shared, “they need to
learn manners, they need to learn education is important,” she demonstrated deficit pedagogy as
she held the students to low academic expectations. Her focus was not on providing them
instruction to meet grade-level standards. Instead, she believed in teaching basic skills such as
manners and the importance of education. By focusing on teaching manners, Mrs. Johnson
projected onto students that they had not been taught how to socialize or behave prior to coming
to her classroom. Her beliefs projected onto her students a lack of manners along with an
assumption that held a low regard for education and its importance. When Mrs. Johnson shared,
“they’re only allowed to get up and get a tissue” and “that’s it because when you’re disrupting
that person’s education and that’s not fair,” she further demonstrated her belief in deficit
pedagogy and the need to control the classroom environment by monitoring student seat work.
Mrs. Johnson believed that controlling the classroom to the point where her students had to stay
in their seats except for getting up for a tissue allowed all the students in her class to learn during
center time. She believed that if students were up and moving around the room then other
students’ education was being disrupted. Mrs. Johnson believed that she was able to make
learning fair in that way.
During the 6 hours across 3 days that I conducted classroom observations, Mrs.
Johnson’s pedagogical practices were consistent with deficit pedagogy and strict behavior
compliance. One example of deficit pedagogy and strict behavior compliance occurred when the

101
class began worked on a poem worksheet when the students entered the classroom after the
morning recess.
Mrs. J: Take out your spring rain poems.
Students take out folders from their desks and pull out a poem worksheet.
Mrs. J: What a rough week, your teacher has been out for so many trainings.
Mrs. Johnson walks over to the anchor chart on the wall near the front door.
Mrs. J: Turn and tell your partner an example of a past tense verb.
The class is brought back together to share responses. Mrs. Johnson then assigns students
to finish writing their poems (circling nouns, verbs, and adjectives in different colors).
Mrs. Johnson calls students who are finished with their poems to the rug areas, while the
rest of the class works independently at their desks.
S1: (seated at the rug) What does the word slicker mean?
Mrs. Johnson begins to look at her phone and then types onto her laptop. She then turns
the screen of the laptop and shows a picture of a slicker to the students on the rug.
Joe is looking at the picture of the slicker from his desk.
Mrs. J: Joe it’s not going to get done if you don’t move your pencil!
Other students begin coming down to the rug area.
Here, Mrs. Johnson demonstrated deficit pedagogy when she said, “Joe it’s not going to get done
if you don’t move your pencil. Mrs. Johnson focused on monitoring the student’s seatwork and
then punished the student for noncompliance when he was not working at his seat as he seemed
listen in to the discussion taking place on the rug between Mrs. Johnson and his classmates. The
lesson was teacher dominated and the academic expectations of the class were also low. Mrs.
Johnson focused on reviewing the assignment and asking questions of the students on the rug,

102
while the remainder of the class who had not completed the worksheet worked without any
instructional support from Mrs. Johnson and were punished publicly if they did not comply with
her strict, behavior expectations.
Another example of deficit pedagogy and strict behavior compliance occurred as the class
returned from recess. Students entered the classroom with folders and binders in their hands and
Mrs. Johnson passed out half sheets of paper with questions written on them.
Mrs. Johnson: Pass up your green reading logs, I’ll give you prizes after lunch, after I
check. I like the way Casey and Ben are on their half sheets.
Mrs. Johnson walks around the classroom and stops at one table.
Mrs. Johnson: Green reading log?
None of the students at the table had a green reading log on their desk.
Mrs. Johnson: This table doesn’t have reading logs, that means no fun Friday unless you
have an emergency, which means blood or hospital.
Here, Mrs. Johnsons practice demonstrated deficit pedagogy as she focused fixing the students
who did not have reading logs by punishing them and taking away their fun Friday. When Mrs.
Johnson said, “I’ll give you prizes after lunch, after I check,”, she focused on reviewing
assignments. She communicated a lack of trust for her students who had turned in the reading
logs by reminded them that she would be checking before giving them a prize. When Mrs.
Johnson said, “This table doesn’t have reading logs, that means no fun Friday unless you have an
emergency, which means blood or hospital,” she continued to punish noncompliance for her
expectations. There was no discourse or attempt by Mrs. Johnson to determine the reasons why
some of her students did not turn in a reading log. Instead, she predetermined what she deemed

103
acceptable (i.e., blood or hospital) and she made it clear that she would not consider the students’
backgrounds, experiences, or contexts.
An additional example of deficit pedagogy and strict behavior compliance took place
while Mrs. Johnson sat in the front of the classroom and reviewed a story with her class about
polar bears.
Mrs. J: All right let’s go over our Three Bears story.
Mrs. Johnson places a copy of the story on the document camera and projects on the
screen behind her.
Mrs. J: Joe, I already saw you don’t have anything underlined. I can identify the
important details in the text by underlining it.
Mrs. Johnson begins reading the story, underlining and circling words as she reads.
Mrs. J: I underline the important details. Polar bears can run thirty miles per hour, the
cars on Fremont Road. Polar bears weigh one pound. Do you know how much you
weighed as a baby? Victor and Jessica, you have newborns at home, right? How much
did you weigh?
Mrs. J: I’m going to give an important detail. Point to the evidence in the text with your
finger. We have a red star on our flag. Why? Landen, because Texas gave it to us.
Thats my little Texas connection for Landen and Joe. Turn to your partner and
explain why polar bears can live in cold climates, it needs to be a complete
sentence. If you don’t have complete sentences, it would not be full credit, always
try to do your best.
When Mrs. Johnson said, “Landen, Texas gave it to us” and “Victor and Jessica, you have
newborns at home right? How much did you weigh?” she attempted to make the learning

104
relevant to some of her students by connecting the content to their backgrounds. However, she
did not provide her students with opportunities to answer her questions nor engage in deeper
discourse about the content Mrs. Johnson attempted to relate to them. Here, she used her
knowledge about her students in a superficial way, without bridging such knowledge to the
learning. This example also demonstrated further manifestations of deficit pedagogy as the
academic expectations were low and the lesson was teacher directed and focused on asking
questions of the students. When Mrs. Johnson said, “Turn to your partner and explain why polar
bears can live in cold climates, it needs to be a complete sentence. If you don’t have complete
sentences, it would not be full credit, always try to do your best,” she did not focus on students
utilizing complete sentences as a high academic expectation. Instead, Mrs. Johnson focused on
students not receiving full credit as the reason why they should use complete sentences in their
schoolwork.
These types of interactions between Mrs. Johnson and her students were typical over the
course of three observation days, 2 weeks apart ranging from approximately 1.5–2 hours in
length and across content areas. Mrs. Johnson would utilize a worksheet activity, followed by
questioning of the students for correct answers with little to no discourse between the students
and teacher. Those students who either failed to complete, attend to the worksheet review, or put
their names on their paper would be given a punishment, such as a loss of recess or a verbal
correction in front of their classmates.
Cross Case Analysis
This section presents a cross case analysis of the beliefs held by two teachers who
worked in a school that served students from low SES, historically marginalized backgrounds
and how such beliefs were communicated to those students through the enactment of the
teachers’ pedagogical practices. In my conceptual framework, I asserted that teachers carry

105
ideologies on a continuum from deficit to equity or somewhere in between. Teachers can carry a
deficit ideology that is rooted in conscious and unconscious beliefs about the backgrounds of the
students they teach. These beliefs are centered on blame and deficiency, classism, and the idea
that low SES, highly marginalized students are an “other” who need fixing.
Under their deficit ideology, teachers blame students and parents for the students’
academic and behavior struggles. Teachers express that parents have little value for their
students’ education and do not seek opportunities to be involved in their child’s schooling
(Valencia, 1997). However, the societal inequities and conditions that exist for low SES student
populations are ignored and teachers continue to focus on what they feel is wrong with students
and their upbringing (Gorski, 2011). A deficit ideology is also based upon deficiency and the
belief that low SES students from historically marginalized communities come to school lacking
the knowledge necessary to participate in educational process (Gorski, 2011). Such deficiencies
are believed to be a result of the students’ cultures, intelligence, family backgrounds and
morality. Such ideologies may influence the pedagogical practices to which a teacher enacts. A
teacher’s use of deficit-based pedagogies continues to marginalize students from low SES,
historically marginalized backgrounds. When pedagogical practices are equity-based, low SES
students from historically marginalized communities engage in a positive school experience.
Regardless of ideological stance, the use of equity pedagogies is ideal for the teaching of low
SES students from historically marginalized communities, as it integrates the students’ cultures,
backgrounds and experiences within the academic content and relationship with the teacher.
The following patterns emerged from Mrs. Garcia’s and Mrs. Johnson’s interview and
observation data:
• Assumptions about students’ backgrounds, experiences, and upbringing

106
• Beliefs about teacher’s role in the classroom
• Enactment of pedagogy (attempts at equity vs. deficit)
I will address the similarities and differences of each teacher as I present each pattern.
Assumptions About Students’ Backgrounds, Experiences, and Upbringing
Mrs. Garcia and Mrs. Johnson both expressed an understanding of their students’
backgrounds, experiences, and upbringings through their interviews. Mrs. Garcia blamed
students out of school challenges and conditions for the students’ academic performance and
behavior, whereas Mrs. Johnsons deficit beliefs about her students’ backgrounds, experiences,
and upbringing focused on her students’ parents and her perception of their lack of actions in
preparing their children for learning. Gorski (2011) and Milner (2011) argue that teachers deficit
ideology is rooted in conscious and unconscious beliefs about the backgrounds of the students
they teach. These beliefs are centered on blame and deficiency, classism, and the idea that low
SES, highly marginalized students are an “other” who need fixing. Valencia (1997) described
that teachers may hold the belief that parents of low SES students do not value education and
thus do not instill such value in their children. Resulting in this belief, low SES parents are
viewed as uninvolved and non-participative in their children’s education (Valencia, 1997).
Mrs. Garcia held deficit beliefs and assumptions that her students came to school with
backgrounds that were potential barriers to their learning. Mrs. Garcia grew up in the Liberty
Elementary neighborhood and projected onto her students the types of experiences they brought
to the classroom. She also believed that she knew her students personal and cultural
backgrounds. Her assumptions projected identities and notions onto her students without
investigating on her part. Mrs. Garcia assumed she knew her students because she was from the
same community. She decided who her students were and where they were from. Such

107
assumptions were negative in nature. An example of this was in her descriptions of her students’
home lives,
For me, it makes me aware that there are certain dynamics that my students are going to
have. They will come from working families. They might come from single parent
households. They might come from ... Most of them will have brothers and sisters. If
they’re the older sibling, they’re going to ... Predominantly Latino cultures, they place a
lot of responsibility on the older sibling to take care of the younger ones and, like I said,
the biggest one is that the working families. Especially our demographics here, most of
our students they come from working households, so it’s not just mom or dad who’s
working, it’s both parents are working. They’re having to stay here for the after-school
program because parents don’t get off work until 5, 5:30 or they’re having to come in
here for preschool daycare, so work is pretty ... Work is always on their mind. I think it’s
a daily thing that they go through in their lives, so it’s something that they relate to.
Although Mrs. Garcia seemed to possess factual knowledge about her students’ backgrounds,
experiences, and upbringings, she generalized and viewed their home lives from a deficit
ideology. When Mrs. Garcia shared, “They’re having to stay here for the after-school program
because parents don’t get off work until 5, 5:30,” her beliefs were consistent with deficiency and
classism as she assumed that her students would come from working families who must place
their students into after school programs. Rather than see a connection to a potential benefit of
attending an after-school program for the students or the way the parents might be taking
advantage of a school resource, Mrs. Garcia saw her students’ attendance in these programs in a
deficient and classist way since they did not go home right after school like other students.

108
When Mrs. Garcia shared, “Work is always on their mind. I think it’s a daily thing that
they go through in their lives, so it’s something that they relate to,” she again assumed about her
students and families. Rather than seeing a connection to the value her students’ parents placed
on hard work, instead she viewed it in a deficient way as something that her students had to go
through as part of their daily lives. She implied that her students would work in her classroom
because it was something they could relate to because her students had working parents. LadsonBillings (2009) explains the ideal teacher serves as a conductor who holds the belief that students
are capable of excellence and assume the responsibility to ensure that students achieve such.
These teachers see the responsibility for educating students as a shared one that includes a
variety of stakeholders in the education of children, including parents, community members and
the students (Ladson-Billings, 2009). Mrs. Garcia’s beliefs were potential barriers to student
success as they played out in classroom learning expectations. She expected her students to come
to the classroom ready to engage in learning without accounting for her role in designing
relevant curriculum or activities. Absent in her response was whether she created high
expectations for her students or gathered student input in planning for classroom work. Mrs.
Garcia saw her students working family backgrounds as a burden they carried with them, thus
expecting them to perform for her in the classroom.
Mrs. Johnson also held deficit beliefs about her students’ backgrounds, experiences, and
upbringings, specifically focused on her students’ parents. Mrs. Johnson believed her students’
parents did not put forth actions that prepared their children for learning in her classroom. She
believed that little communication occurred between her students and parents and that her
students’ parents lacked the necessary skills to involve themselves in their students’ education.
Her deficit beliefs centered on her assumption that parents failed to expose their children to

109
things and experiences. These assumptions were expressed without indicating whether her
beliefs were based upon input from her students or their parents,
Gosh. The ones that have parental support, which means parents expose them to things,
they talk to them, they help with homework, so expose them to things as in going to
museums, going to restaurants, taking them for a drive and just explaining the names of
the streets, or “This is why we’re going.” Just that talking to explaining things.
Mrs. Johnson’s beliefs were consistent with a deficit ideology as she placed blame on her
students’ parents and made assumptions that some students did not have parental support at
home. She focused on actions that she believed parents should do with their children for them to
be successful in her classroom while ignoring systemic issues and their social context. Mrs.
Johnson did not acknowledge nor recognize any contributions of her parents that may have
served as assets to their children’s schooling experience. Mrs. Johnson’s beliefs blamed her
students’ parents for what she perceived as a lack of parental participation and involvement. She
believed that such a lack of parental actions made it more challenging for her to teach her
students.
Beliefs About Teachers’ Role in the Classroom
Both Mrs. Garcia and Mrs. Johnson held beliefs about their role in classroom pedagogy.
Although Mrs. Garcia held deficit beliefs and assumptions about her students’ backgrounds,
experiences and upbringings, her beliefs about pedagogy focused on using her knowledge of
students’ backgrounds and experiences along with gathering input from students during
instruction. Mrs. Garcia’s beliefs about pedagogy focused on creating an affective environment
where students felt comfortable to learn. Mrs. Johnson believed her students came to her lacking
the necessary skills to learn successful in school because her students’ parents sent them to

110
school underprepared and with limited, relevant experiences. Her beliefs about pedagogy were
less focused on academic instruction and more on behavior compliance, maintaining a strict
environment and teaching life lessons to her students.
Ladson-Billings (1995) explains the importance of teachers ensuring that students’
academic and affective needs are met and that a teacher’s primary responsibility is to ensure
academic success for students. Banks and Banks (1995), Bennet (2001) and Ladson-Billings
(1995) argue for the shift of traditional relationship between the teacher and student where
pedagogy and construction of knowledge occur from students to teacher and vice versa.
Mrs. Garcia’s beliefs about her role in pedagogy focused on creating an affective
environment where students would feel comfortable to share things about themselves with her.
She felt that a comfortable classroom environment allowed space for students to share about their
lives and in turn Mrs. Garcia would be able to have students complete work.
I try to get involved in their lives. Just because I want them to come in and feel
comfortable too. I want them to come in and feel that this is a place where they can talk
to me about those type of things. There’s time for work but I want them to also feel like
they can speak and tell about what’s going on in their lives.
There’s so many variables that come ... When a student, like I said, if a student comes to
school hungry, tired, under slept, with family problems ... I had a student, a few weeks
ago whose brother had just gotten arrested. If I have ... If I don’t allow those things to
come out in my classroom, then I’m going to judge that student based on production. I’m
not going to judge the student based on their own ... Wow, in spite of this going on in
their family, they were still able to make this progress. We need to be able to have a

111
classroom that students feel comfortable in, but they’re still accountable to produce work
at the end of the day.
While Mrs. Garcia acknowledged that her students’ input was important to her in the
classroom, she focused solely on the affective environment and creating a classroom space that
felt comfortable and safe for students to share things about themselves. She did not connect
students’ input to her design of pedagogy nor construction of knowledge between herself and the
students. Ladson Billings (1995) explains that teachers must not only ensure that students
experience academic excellence, but they must facilitate the development of a cultural
competence where students maintain their cultural integrity. Mrs. Garcia’s description of her
students’ input was based on difficulties that students may have been experiencing in their lives
such as hunger or family problems. She did not share the student input that was rooted in their
cultures, which could serve as a vehicle to design relevant activities and maintain students’
cultural integrity.
Mrs. Johnson believed her role in pedagogy centered on students following her
complying her strict set of expectations and learning life lessons. She believed that her students
would learn in the classroom and in life if they followed exactly what she said and did. Mrs.
Johnson believed this approach to pedagogy demonstrated a care for her students. Mrs. Johnson
shared the explanation of her classroom control,
I just hope that it comes through that everything is done on purpose. It’s not to be mean
or to be strict. It’s all purposeful. There’s a method to this strictness, and you do what I
say when I say. It is strict. They’re only allowed to get up and get a tissue. That’s it,
because then you’re disrupting that person’s education, and that’s not fair. Hopefully it
eases. They learn in spite of me, and they understand that I care.

112
Mrs. Johnson viewed herself as a teacher who was purposeful in her practice of exerting
control over her students for all students to receive an education. Ladson Billings (1995) explains
that teachers must not only ensure that students affective needs are met, but student must
experience academic excellence and teachers must facilitate the development of a cultural
competence. Her belief about the affective environment of her classroom was to control and limit
disruptions to students’ education. For example, when Mrs. Johnson shared that she was strict
and students were only allowed to get up a get a tissue, she believed such practice demonstrated
her care for the education of the other students in her classroom. When Mrs. Johnson shared that
her students did what she said when she said it, she revealed her lack of value in the teacher to
student construction and contesting of knowledge. She believed she possessed the knowledge of
what was right without a need to solicit input from her students. Mrs. Johnson did not share
whether such a strict classroom environment yielded academic success or cultural competence
for her students.
Enactment of Pedagogy
Mrs. Garcia and Mrs. Johnson enacted pedagogical practices consistent with tenets of
equity and deficit pedagogy. This was evident in way the teachers interacted with their students
and their implementation of instructional practices. Mrs. Garcia worked to implement equity
pedagogy by making attempts to know her students’ backgrounds, sharing personal information
about herself and providing some opportunities for her students to construct and contest
knowledge. Her pedagogical delivery was often teacher to student in nature. Mrs. Johnson’s
pedagogical practices were primarily deficit in nature and primarily teacher to student with little
to no opportunities for students to construct knowledge with one another. She focused
instructional time on teaching her students non-academic life lessons and rules that she believed

113
students needed to learn to be successful in their future. Mrs. Johnson’s academic expectations
for her students were low and she rarely used students’ cultures as a vehicle for learning.
Mrs. Garcia made attempts to implement equity pedagogy by making attempts to know
her students’ backgrounds and sharing personal information about herself and her students
during instruction. In equity pedagogy, the traditional relationship between the teacher and
student is altered and creates a shift from the teacher being the center and transmitting
knowledge to the student and instead allows for student construction of knowledge, where
knowledge and reflection are integrated (Banks & Banks, 1995). Mrs. Garcia’s pedagogical
practices provided opportunities for students to construct knowledge with one another.
Classroom observations demonstrated that provided her students with opportunities to engage in
discourse and problem solving with her and peers. Mrs. Garcia also shared stories that were
related to her cultural backgrounds and upbringings during classroom discussions. Mrs. Garcia
greeted her students, asked them superficial questions and made affective comments about their
backgrounds and interests. Mrs. Garcia’s pedagogy lacked a connection of students’ cultural
backgrounds to the academic content as she did not integrate her own knowledge of her students
to make the learning meaningful and relevant to them in a consistent way. Mrs. Garcia’s
pedagogy was not intentionally designed around her students. Additionally, Mrs. Garcia did not
leverage classroom discussions and student input as a means for students to construct and contest
knowledge with one another around culturally relevant curriculum.
Mrs. Johnson’s enactment of pedagogy was primarily deficit in nature as she focused her
class time on teacher to student instruction that focused on non-academic life lessons. Students in
Mrs. Johnson’s classroom had little to no opportunities to construct or contest knowledge with
one another. The cultural backgrounds of Mrs. Johnson’s students were rarely used a vehicle for

114
learning. Classroom observations demonstrated that Mrs. Johnson reviewed assignments and
monitored her students’ completion of seatwork. Additionally, Mrs. Johnson would remind her
students of the potential rewards and punishments they would receive if they did not behave or
respond in a manner that was consistent with her expectations. Mrs. Johnson asked her students
questions about academic content but would not provide opportunities for them to engage in
discourse with one another. When Mrs. Johnson knew something about a student’s background
or experience, she shared it aloud with class without giving the student an opportunity to engage
with her. Her pedagogy lacked high expectations for her students as she focused on rewards and
punishments for completing worksheets. Mrs. Johnson’s pedagogy also lacked a connection of
students’ cultural backgrounds to the academic content as she did not integrate her own
knowledge of her students to make the learning meaningful and relevant to them in a consistent
Revised Conceptual Framework
In this section, I present my conceptual framework, which was revised in response to my
data collection, analysis, and further investigation of the literature. Maxwell (2013) explains that
a conceptual framework is a model of a tentative theory of the phenomena and subject to revision
as a result of new information. My initial conceptual framework was generated from literature
centered on deficit ideology, equity ideology, deficit pedagogy, and equity pedagogies.

115
Figure 4
Revised Conceptual Framework
In figure 4, I present my revised conceptual framework. Figure 4 represents my
conceptualization of teaching low SES students from highly marginalized communities within
the context of deficit and equity. I continue to argue that a teacher’s beliefs and pedagogical
practices are exist on a continuum from deficit to equity. I also argue that changes in beliefs and
pedagogy can shift a teacher’s placement on the continuum. As a result of this study, I have
come to believe that a location of a teacher’s beliefs and practices are not static and do not exist
in a vacuum. Teachers can behave in ways that are a combination of beliefs. This figure is not
meant to indicate that a teacher will remain in one place. The context in which a teacher is
situated shapes and informs a teacher’s beliefs and actions. There is a reciprocal relationship
between a teacher’s beliefs and their actions.

116
Deficit Teacher Ideology
My revised conceptual framework continues to argue that teachers can carry a deficit
ideology that is rooted in conscious and unconscious beliefs about the backgrounds of the
students they teach. These beliefs are centered on blame and deficiency, classism, and idea that
low SES students from highly marginalized communities are others who need fixing (Gorski,
2011; Milner, 2011). These teachers blame students and parents for their academic and behavior
struggles and express that parents have little value for their students’ education. They believe
parent do not seek opportunities to be involved in their child’s schooling and ignore the societal
inequities and conditions that exist for students. The top red circle in figure 4 has been revised to
reflect my study findings that indicated deficit teacher ideology is reflected in the assumptions
teachers make about their students without any investigation on the part of the teacher.
Equity Teacher Ideology
Consistent with my original conceptual framework and research (Ladson-Billings, 1995;
Gay, 2002; Milner, 2011; Paris (2012); Paris & Alim (2014)), I argue equity ideology teachers
believe that all low SES students from historically marginalized communities have the
capabilities and potential to achieve academic excellence. These teachers focus on students’
backgrounds and the assets that students bring to school, engage in the practice of mining, and
believe in shifting the traditional relationship between teacher and student by working in
partnership with their students. These teachers assume the responsibility for ensuring that low
SES students from historically marginalized communities receive the education they deserve.
Deficit Pedagogy
My revised conceptual framework continues to argue that deficit pedagogy involves
teaching a less rigorous, “watered down” curriculum, which can lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy

117
for students whereby the low expectations of teachers combined with their watered-down
curriculum yield low academic performance on the part of students. Deficit pedagogy is also
evident in the stratification of students in the classroom. These grouping techniques focuses
instruction solely on the groups of students the teacher believes can achieve. Deficit pedagogy
also establishes a teacher-student relationship where the teacher is seen as in charge and students
are not capable of teaching since their job is to learn (Espinosa & Laffey, 2003; Gorski, 2011;
Hatt, 2011; Haberman, 1991; Milner, 2011; Rist, 1970; Valencia, 1997). The bottom red circle in
figure 4 has been revised to reflect my study findings and additional literature that indicated
deficit practices manifest themselves in monitoring seatwork, punishing noncompliance and
basic skill instruction.
Equity Pedagogy
Consistent with my original conceptual framework and research Banks & Banks (1995),
Camangian (2015) Freidus (2020), Gay (2002), Ladson-Billings (1995, 2009), Milner (2011),
Paris (2012), Paris and Alim (2014) and Thomas & Berry (2019), I argue teachers using equity
pedagogy work to create learning environments where students work in conjunction with the
teacher and their peers to construct and contest knowledge. This involves a shift in the traditional
relationship between the teacher and student where the students are provided with opportunities
to transmit knowledge. Teachers also have an authentic understanding of students’ cultural
backgrounds and use those backgrounds as a vehicle for instruction. I originally argued that
teachers who use equity pedagogy hold high expectations of all students regardless of their
ethnic background or socioeconomic status. I have revised my conceptual framework to argue
that these teachers hold high expectations of their students and themselves (Thomas & Berry,
2019). Additionally, I now argue these cultivate learning environments that hold students

118
accountable by empowering them to take an active role in their learning. These teachers are
warm demanders who are culturally connected to students’ lived experiences (Thomas & Berry,
2019). Teachers work to understand and integrates students’ culture into the curriculum, thus
allowing the content to become relevant to students’ lives and they see part of themselves in
learning.
These teachers work to authentically know their students. This occurs by teachers sharing
information about their own personal lives and taking an interest in learning about their students’
interests and personal backgrounds. Such actions build a cultural competence on the part of the
teacher, which can be used during classroom instruction to facilitate discussion of academic
content. Knowing their students also creates a sense of trust between the teacher and students and
can yield academic commitment for students. Additionally, under equity pedagogy, teachers
build trust and connections with students by facilitating discussions around shared struggles. I
originally argued that teachers using equity pedagogy also understand the detrimental practices
that occur within cultures that contribute to the further marginalization of other minority
members in the culture itself. These teachers work to facilitate learning environments centered
on discussions and activities that allow students to confront those detrimental practices. Such
learning environments assist in students’ developing a critical consciousness. I have revised my
conceptual framework to argue that teachers who implement equity pedagogy must center such
discussions inside classroom spaces in order to achieve academic achievement, cultural
competence and critical consciousness and avoid centering whiteness (Freidus, 2020).
In my revised conceptual framework, Figure 4 also adds a larger yellow rectangle that
represents the teachers’ personal beliefs, backgrounds, and experiences they bring with them to
school. I argue that such beliefs, backgrounds, and experiences influence the ideological stance

119
and pedagogical practice with students. My revised conceptual framework also adds an
additional student circle along with arrows between the students to indicate classroom
interactions as one where students are provided with the opportunity to construct and contest
knowledge with their teacher and peers. A smaller yellow rectangle has been added to reflect the
classroom experience that mediates the construction and contesting of knowledge. Finally, the
bottom green circle has been revised to include the opportunities that teachers create to construct
and contest knowledge.
This revised conceptual framework was informed by my study and provides a theory of
the phenomena I researched. After examining and refining the concepts, I now argue that
teachers come to school with personal beliefs, assumptions, backgrounds, and experiences that
influence their placement on the continuum of deficit to equity along with the tenets of deficit or
equity pedagogy they implement in classrooms. I also argue that students need frequent
opportunities to construct and contest knowledge through curriculum that is responsive to who
they are to develop academic success, cultural competence, and a critical consciousness.

120
Chapter Five: Discussions, Implications and Future Research
This dissertation investigated elementary teachers’ perceptions of their low SES,
historically marginalized students’ academic and behavior capabilities. The study also
investigated how teachers’ perceptions of their students were communicated to students through
the teachers’ pedagogical practices. A qualitative, multi-case study was used to address these
research questions:
1. What beliefs do two elementary school teachers hold about their low SES students
from historically marginalized communities’ academic and behavior capabilities?
2. How do two teachers who have been recognized as demonstrating equity
pedagogy in classrooms serving low SES students from historically marginalized
communities address the academic and behavior capabilities of their students
through their pedagogy?
The data I collected to answer these research questions included two interviews with each
teacher totaling one hour per teacher and three classroom observations of the course of various
school days and times. Observation hours totaled six to nine hours respectively. This data
provided insight as to the beliefs and practices of two teachers recognized for implementing
equity pedagogy in classrooms that served students from low SES, historically marginalized
backgrounds. In my conceptual framework, I argued that teachers can carry ideologies on a
continuum from deficit to equity or somewhere in between, which may influence the pedagogical
practices to which a teacher enacts. Equity-based pedagogical practices allow low SES,
historically marginalized students engage in a positive school experience.
The use of equity pedagogies is ideal for the teaching of students from low SES, historically
marginalized communities, as it integrates the students’ cultures, backgrounds and experiences

121
within the academic content and relationship with the teacher. Although these two teachers were
recognized by experienced and reputable colleagues for their implementation of equity
pedagogy, the data revealed that both teachers both teachers fell short of expressing and
implementing the tenets of equity pedagogy. These teachers were not able to provide meaningful
opportunities for their students in the classroom as the instruction was void of students’ cultural
backgrounds and experiences and teacher dominated. Teachers who carry and equity ideology
and implement equity pedagogy are the most ideal for low SES, historically marginalized
students as their practices create a more positive schooling experience. Although it is still
possible for students to learn in classrooms where equity is limited, students may engage in a
negative schooling experience. In this chapter, I will review the data findings and offer
implications for practice, educational policy, and educational research.
Summary of the Findings
Mrs. Garcia was a Resource Specialist Program (RSP) teacher from a Latine background
who grew up in the same neighborhood in which she taught. She believed she knew about her
students’ backgrounds and experiences and could connect with them. Although she made
attempts at equity pedagogy, her beliefs were at times rooted in deficit ideology. She believed
that it was her job to fix her students as she made assumptions about their home lives and
upbringings as she projected onto her students who they were without their input. Although Mrs.
Garcia expressed some beliefs about her students that were rooted in a deficit ideology, she also
expressed an equity belief in the importance of gathering background information about her
students as learners and individuals to utilize within her learning environment. However, Mrs.
Garcia’s classroom practices mainly focused on creating an affective environment where her
students felt comfortable in the classroom. She rarely allowed students to share information

122
about themselves and did not plan or implement pedagogical practices based on her student’s
cultures, nor her knowledge about their backgrounds and experiences.
Mrs. Johnson was a general education third grade teacher who had been teaching at
Liberty for the entirety of her twenty-year career. She believed she held her students to the same
expectations that were held of herself growing up. Mrs. Johnson held deficit beliefs about her
students’ background and upbringings. She also held deficit beliefs about her students’ parents.
Although she expressed an understanding of the potential barriers that her students faced in their
learning, Mrs. Johnson’s beliefs about her pedagogical practices were neutral to her students’
context. She projected onto her students what she believed they needed to learn to be successful.
Mrs. Johnson implemented deficit pedagogy as her classroom environment was focused on
students complying with her strict set of behavioral expectations and related consequences.
Mrs. Johnson believed that she taught her students life lessons that would position them
to be successful in her conception of the real world. Her pedagogy was absent of her students’
cultural backgrounds and provided little to no opportunities for her students to construct or
contest knowledge with their peers or teacher.
Implications and Recommendations
This dissertation explored two teachers’ beliefs about their students from low SES,
historically marginalized backgrounds. It examined their implementation of deficit and equity
pedagogies along with the interactions between the teachers and their students. Findings from the
study revealed that both teachers believed they were implementing practices that would prepare
their students for a successful future, however their beliefs were rooted in a deficit ideology and
assumptions they projected onto students and their families. Both teachers expressed knowledge
of their students’ cultural backgrounds and experiences, but failed to plan and implement

123
pedagogical practices that were rooted in students’ cultural backgrounds and experiences. In the
following section, I will discuss the emerging implications from these findings and their
relationship to teacher practice, educational policy, and the body of research.
Practice
The teachers who are most likely to teach low SES, historically marginalized students are
the least likely to look like them or share their culture and experiences (Milner, 2011). These
teachers are more likely to be White and from a higher socioeconomic status. These differences
often result in teachers who carry a deficit perspective about the kids they come to teach (Milner,
2011). Equity pedagogy meets the needs of students from low SES, historically marginalized
backgrounds. Equity teachers must acknowledge and confront the conscious and unconscious
beliefs they hold about students from low SES, historically marginalized backgrounds and
examine the biases they may hold. Low SES and ethnic minority students often experience
mismatches between home and school cultural expectations (Bennett, 2001). Teachers often
lower expectations of low SES and ethnic minority students due to the teachers’ lack of
knowledge of students’ cultural styles and differences, such as communication, learning and
values.
Equity teachers must hold high academic and behavior expectations for all students
regardless of their backgrounds or experiences and spend time building a cultural knowledge
base about the students they teach to design culturally relevant curriculum and develop their own
cultural competence. This allows for meaningful learning to occur in classrooms of low SES,
historically marginalized students. Equity teachers focus their pedagogy on skill acquisition and
teaching students to become agents of social change in society (Banks & Banks, 1995). Equity
teachers must see themselves as responsible for ensuring students achieve academically by

124
shifting from teacher-centered instruction to facilitation of an environment where knowledge is
constructed and contested between the students and teacher. (Banks & Banks, 1995; LadsonBillings, 2009). Equity teachers must reflect on their practice and ensure that students’ academic
and affective needs are met (Ladson Billings, 1995).
Policy
Existing research has indicated that teachers’ ideologies influence the pedagogical
practices they implement in classrooms. (Haberman, 1991; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Gay, 2002;
Bartolomé, 2008; Gorski, 2011; Milner, 2011; Paris, 2012; Paris & Alim 2014). Existing
research has also indicated the practices under equity pedagogy are effective in meeting the
needs of students from low SES, historically marginalized backgrounds (Ladson-Billings, 1995;
Gay, 2002; Milner, 2011; Paris, 2012; Paris & Alim 2014; Camangian, 2015). Equity pedagogy
is a shift in the teaching practices that have been traditionally enacted with students from low
SES, historically marginalized backgrounds.
A shift is needed in the approach to educating teachers. As teachers prepare to work in
schools that serve low SES, historically marginalized students, teacher preparation programs must
ensure their candidates placed into clinical experiences with mentor teachers who serve as models
for equity teaching. Teacher preparation programs must address classroom climate in coursework
with a focus on creating a strong affective environment with high academic and behavioral
expectations for students. These programs must also train teacher candidates in implementing
pedagogies that are relevant to who their students are.
This dissertation study found that two teachers who were highly recognized for
implementing equity pedagogy were not fully equipped to do so. School districts who serve low

125
SES, historically marginalized students need to shift in their delivery of professional
development to teachers and administrators. Such professional development should focus on:
1. Acknowledging, confronting, and reflecting on the ideologies teachers carry and how
such ideologies are rooted in teachers’ conscious and unconscious beliefs.
2. Providing teachers with strategies that support the practices of mining, building
relationships with students and building a cultural knowledge base on the part of the
teacher.
3. Designing meaningful instruction that is relevant and responsive to students’ cultural
backgrounds and experiences.
4. Creating learning environments and structures that meet both affective and academic
needs of students.
5. Providing ongoing time and spaces for teachers to engage in reflection on their
ideologies and pedagogy.
6. Providing school administrators with greater knowledge of the tenets of equity
pedagogy.
7. Providing protected time to school administrators so they may observe teachers and
provide them with support to improve their practice.
Research
This study highlighted the beliefs and pedagogical practices of two teachers who were
recognized for demonstrating equity in classrooms serving low SES, historically marginalized
backgrounds. I employed measures to ensure an accurate presentation of the data, however there
were limitations. First, adjusting the nomination process with a revised, open-ended checklist
could have yielded a more accurate sampling. Second, spending more time observing both

126
teacher’s pedagogy would have provided a more convincing understanding of their practice. I
was able to determine the teacher’s beliefs about their low SES, historically marginalized
students’ abilities and how their pedagogy existed on the deficit and equity continuum. I was not
able to determine how the teachers utilized their knowledge of students’ backgrounds and
experiences to intentionally enact equity pedagogies in their classrooms.
A body of theoretical and empirical research exists that explain the pedagogical practices
that fall under equity pedagogy. Additional research is needed that highlights teachers who are
effective at developing an authentic understanding of their students’ backgrounds and
experiences Additional research is also needed that pays specific attention to teachers who
effectively design and implement pedagogy that is directly connected to teachers’ knowledge of
their students’ backgrounds.

127
References
Aguirre, F. P. (2005). Mendez v. Westminster school district: How it affected Brown v. Board of
Education. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 4(4), 321–332.
Bartolomé, L. I. (2008). Ideologies in education: Unmasking the trap of teacher neutrality.
(2008). New York: P. Lang
Bennett, C. (2001). Genres of research in multicultural education. Review of Educational
Research, 71(2), 171–217.
Blume, H., & Ceasar, S. (2014, June 14) California teacher tenure and seniority system is struck
down. The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from
http://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-teacher-lawsuit-20140611-story.html
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory
and methods. Pearson Allyn & Bacon.
California Department of Education. (2023). CAASPP test results for English language
arts/literacy and mathematics. Retrieved from
https://caasppelpac.ets.org/caaspp/DashViewReportSB?ps=true&lstTestYear=2023&lstTestType=
B&lstGroup=1&lstSubGroup=1&lstSchoolType=A&lstGrade=13&lstCounty=00&l
stDistrict=00000&lstSchool=0000000
Camangian, P. R. (2015). Teach Like Lives Depend on It Agitate, Arouse, and Inspire. Urban
Education, 50(4), 424-453.
Cooper, P. M. (2003). Effective white teachers of black children teaching within a community.
Journal of Teacher Education, 54(5), 413–427.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory. Sage.
Creswell, J. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches.
Sage.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement. Education policy
analysis archives, 8, 1.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Sykes, G. (2003). Wanted, A national teacher supply policy for
education: The right way to meet the" highly qualified teacher" challenge. Education
Policy Analysis Archives, 11, 33.
Espinosa, L. M., & Laffey, J. M. (2003). Urban primary teacher perceptions of children with
challenging behaviors. Journal of Children and Poverty, 9(2), 135–156.

128
Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education,
53(2), 106–116.
Gorski, P. C. (2011). Unlearning deficit ideology and the scornful gaze: Thoughts on
authenticating the class discourse in education. Counterpoints, 152–173.
Haberman, M. (1991). The pedagogy of poverty versus good teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(4),
290–294.
Hatt, B. (2011). Smartness as a cultural practice in schools. American Educational Research
Journal, 49(3), 438–460.
Howard, T. (2019). All Students Must Thrive. Transforming Schools to Combat Toxic Stressors
and Cultivate Critical Wellness. International Center for Leadership in Education.
Keefer, N. (2017). The persistence of Deficit Thinking Among Social Studies Educators. Journal
of Social Studies Education Research, 8(3), 50–75.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2009). The Dream-keepers: Successful teachers of African American
children (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American
Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491.
Liu, A. (2011). Unraveling the myth of meritocracy within the context of US higher education.
Higher Education, 62(4), 383–397.
Maxwell, J. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Sage.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. JosseyBass.
Milner, H. R., & Tenore, F. B. (2010). Classroom Management in Diverse Classrooms. Urban
Education, 45(5), 560–603.
Milner, H. R. (2011). But good intentions are not enough. White Teachers, Diverse Classrooms:
Creating Inclusive Schools, Building on Students' Diversity, and Providing True
Educational Equity, 56
Milner, H. R. (2011). Culturally relevant pedagogy in a diverse urban classroom. The Urban
Review, 43(1), 66–89.
Milner, H. R. (2012). Beyond a Test Score: Explaining Opportunity Gaps in Educational
Practice. Journal of Black Studies, 43(6), 693–718.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0021934712442539

129
Morgan, H. (2012). Poverty-stricken schools: What we can learn from the rest of the world and
from successful schools in economically disadvantaged areas in the US. Education,
133(2), 291–297.
Noguera, P. (2019). Equity isn’t just a slogan. It should transform the way we educate kids.
Retrieved from https://holdsworthcenter.org/blog/equity-isnt-just-a-slogan/
Ogbu, J. U. (1987). Variability in minority school performance: A problem in search of an
explanation. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 18(4), 312–334.
Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy a needed change in stance, terminology, and
Paris, D., & Alim, H. S. (2014). What are we seeking to sustain through culturally sustaining
pedagogy? A loving critique forward. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 85-100.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Sage.
Rist, R. (1970). Student social class and teacher expectations: The self-fulfilling prophecy in
ghetto education. Harvard Educational Review, 40(3), 411–451.
Strunk, K. O. (2014). The Vergara ruling is a victory for California public school students, but
further reforms are still needed to protect students’ rights to a high quality education.
LSE American Politics and Policy.
Thomas, C. A., & Berry III, R. Q. (2019). A Qualitative Metasynthesis of Culturally Relevant
Pedagogy & Culturally Responsive Teaching: Unpacking Mathematics Teaching
Practices. Journal of Mathematics Education at Teachers College, 10(1), 21–30.
https://doi.org/10.7916/jmetc.v10i1.1668
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP), 1990, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009,
2011, 2013, 2015 and 2017 Mathematics Assessments. (2020). Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d14/tables/dt14_222.12.asp
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Teacher and
Principal Survey (NTPS) “Public School Teacher Data File,” 2017-18. Retrieved
from
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2020/2020103/index.asp#:~:text=At%20the%20same%20ti
me%2C%20in,Alaska%20Native%20(61%20percent)
Valencia, R. (1997). The evolution of deficit thinking: Educational thought and practice. Falmer
Press.
Valenzuela, A. (2010). Subtractive schooling: US-Mexican youth and the politics of caring.
Suny Press.

130
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers. The Art and Method of Qualitative Interview
Studies. New York.
Winfield, L. F. (1986). Teacher beliefs toward academically at risk students in inner urban
schools. The Urban Review, 18(4), 253–268.

131
Appendix A: Teacher Pre – Observation Interview Protocol
Date: __________________________ Teacher Name: _________________________
Grade Level _______
Time Started: _________________ Time Completed: ___________________ Duration:
_____________
(Introduction) My name is Michael Williams and I am a doctoral candidate in the USC Rossier
School of Education.
(Purpose) Thank you for taking the time to assist me with my dissertation research. The
information you provide today will be helpful in me further my understanding of my research
topic. The purpose of this interview is to collect data about the abilities and capabilities of
students who attend schools in low socioeconomic and high need areas. As a teacher and
someone who interacts with these students on a daily basis, I am interested in understanding your
perspective on this topic.
(Timeframe) This interview should last approximately one hour.
(Recording) With your permission, this conversation will be tape recorded in order for me to
transcribe the responses. At any time if you would like me to stop the recording, please let me
know and I will do so. Your name and information will be kept completely confidential.
(Questions) Are there any questions before we begin the interview?
(Consent Form) **Have participant sign consent form**
1. How would you describe the students you teach?
Probe: What are their characteristics?
Probe: Tell me about the range of abilities of these students.
2. Can you tell me about the expectations you have for your students when they come to
school?
3. In your experience, what are your students’ greatest academic strengths?
Probe: What are some examples that illustrate the academic strengths of your students?
4. In your experience, what are your student’s greatest academic challenges?
Probe: What are some examples that illustrate the academic challenges of your students?
5. In your experience, what behavioral challenges have you seen from your students?
6. Can you describe the typical behaviors you encounter with your students?
Probe – Where do you think those behaviors stem?
7. What are some examples as to how you incorporate your students’ background
knowledge into your teaching?
8. How do you incorporate your students’ cultures into your teaching, if at all?
9. What supports do you have in place to assist your students in their areas of need?
Probe: What types of interventions do you have in place?
10. Some would say that your students come to school underprepared and lacking the
knowledge needed for school, what do you think about that? Why do you think someone
would say that?
11. If you could give advice to a new teacher about working with a low SES population of
students like the ones at this school, what would you tell them?
Probe: What expectations would you say to have?
Probe: How should the new teacher prepare for their lesson delivery?
12. Is there anything else you’d like to add?

132
Possible probes:
• Can you tell me more about that?
• Could you give an example?
• What does that look like in your classroom?

133
Appendix B: Classroom Observation Protocol
Date: __________________________ Teacher Name: _________________________
Grade Level _______
Time Started: _________________ Time Completed: ___________________ Duration:
_____________
Classroom Layout
Deficit Pedagogy (D) low expectations, watered down curriculum, blaming std., basic academic
tasks, lack of std. engagement, ability grouping, neg tchr-std interactions
Equity Pedagogy (E) high expectations, std. culture embedded, building upon std. input, tchr.
connections with std., addressing detrimental cultural practices
Time:
______________________________________________________________________________
____________
______________________________________________________________________________
____________
______________________________________________________________________________
____________
Time:
______________________________________________________________________________
____________
______________________________________________________________________________
____________
______________________________________________________________________________
____________
Time:
______________________________________________________________________________
____________
______________________________________________________________________________
____________
______________________________________________________________________________
____________
Observer Comments:

134
Appendix C: Nomination Checklist for Prospective Study Participants
Nominator Name: _______________________________
Position: ______________________________________
Nominee Name: ________________________________
This study seeks to understand how teachers interact with their students and utilize equity
pedagogical practices with their students. The following criteria are necessary in order for
a teacher to be selected as a prospective study participant:
____ The teacher believes that all students are capable of academic excellence.
____The teacher engages all students in learning regardless of socioeconomic status or ethnic
background.
____The teacher integrates students’ background experiences and cultures into his/her pedagogy.
____The teacher takes ownership and responsibility for student learning and works diligently to
ensure that students improve.
____The teacher holds high expectations for all students.
____The teacher establishes connections with his/her students and knows them on a personal
level.
____The teacher engages in critical conversations with students about race and societal
inequities.
____ The teacher challenges problematic, culture-based practices that are detrimental to
students’ character development.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Equity pedagogy practices have been researched and recognized as ideal for low socioeconomic status (SES) students from historically marginalized communities. To understand how teachers implement equity pedagogy, this study addressed the following research questions: What beliefs do two elementary school teachers hold about their low SES students from historically marginalized communities’ academic and behavior capabilities? How do two teachers who have been recognized as demonstrating equity pedagogy in classrooms serving low SES students from historically marginalized communities address the academic and behavior capabilities of their students through their pedagogy? This study examined beliefs and practices of two teachers who were recognized for implementing equity pedagogy at one public elementary school. One teacher taught in a self-contained classroom, while the other was a Resource Specialist Program teacher. The qualitative data for this study included teacher interviews and classroom observations. The findings indicated that both teachers made assumptions about the academic and behavior capabilities of their students, held differing beliefs about their roles as teachers, and enacted pedagogy with varying tenets of deficit and equity. Teachers must confront their conscious and unconscious beliefs and implement equity pedagogy that is relevant and responsive to the backgrounds and experiences of low SES students from historically marginalized communities.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Elementary teachers’ perceptions of gender identity and sexuality and how they are revealed in their pedagogical and curricular choices: two case studies

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

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

PDF

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

PDF

Classrooms beyond the binary: elementary teachers gendered beliefs and classroom practices

PDF

Proactive advising and serving as an institutional agent: how academic advisors identify the needs of and support historically marginalized students navigating college

PDF

Impact of elementary grade teachers practicing radical love in Florida classrooms

PDF

A teacher's use of data to support classroom instruction in an urban elementary school

PDF

Using culturally relevant pedagogy to deepen students' socio-political consciousness: an action research project

PDF

The beliefs and related practices of effective teacher leaders who support culturally and linguistically diverse learners

PDF

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

PDF

Supporting world language teachers to develop a culturally sustaining curriculum and reflect on its enactment

PDF

Which grain will grow? Case studies of the impact of teacher beliefs on classroom climate through caring and rigor

PDF

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

PDF

Perceptions of inclusion: high school students diagnosed with learning disabilities and their level of self-efficacy

PDF

The relationships between teacher beliefs about diversity and opportunities for culturally and linguistically diverse students, reflectiveness, and teacher self-efficacy

PDF

Disrupting cis-heteronormativity: creating safe and affirming conditions for racially marginalized LGBTQ+ students through a critical reflection coaching group

Asset Metadata

Creator Williams, Michael Jamal, Jr. (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Educational Leadership

Degree Conferral Date 2024-05

Publication Date 03/13/2024

Defense Date 01/24/2024

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

Tag beliefs,elementary: teaching,equity,marginalized,OAI-PMH Harvest,pedagogy,teachers

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Garcia, John Jr. (committee chair), Slayton, Julie (committee chair), Samkian, Artineh (committee member)

Creator Email mrmichaelwilliams09@gmail.com,willi9@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113851030

Unique identifier UC113851030

Identifier etd-WilliamsMi-12695.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-WilliamsMi-12695

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Williams, Michael Jamal, Jr.

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20240319-usctheses-batch-1129 (batch), 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 author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

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

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu