University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Critical hope for culturally responsive education: an improvement study

(USC Thesis Other)

Critical hope for culturally responsive education: an improvement study

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Critical Hope for Culturally Responsive Education: An Improvement Study
by
Wendy Lynn Windust

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

August 2022

© Copyright by Wendy Windust 2022
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Wendy Windust certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Dr. Lawrence Picus
Dr. Kenneth Yates
Dr. Darline Robles, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2022

iv
Abstract
This improvement study adapted the gap analysis problem-solving framework (Clark & Estes,
2008; Rueda, 2011) as the conceptual framework to identify the performance gaps that keep
Anglia Naxos Community School (ANCS, a pseudonym) from reaching its performance goals
and to analyze the obstacles educators face when trying to implement culturally responsive
practices. The gap analysis examined three factors: school leader and classroom educator
knowledge and skills, motivation, and the organizational factors that act as barriers to
organizational change. The study methodology was a qualitative case study that included
interviews, observations, and document analysis for data collection. Based on the study’s
findings, research-based solutions addressed the organization’s performance challenges. In
addition, an improvement plan and evaluations were suggested using the New World Model
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Keywords: international schools, culturally responsive education, instructional coaching,
professional development, professional learning communities

v
Dedication
I dedicate this dissertation to my father, David, who, at the rich age of 71, met his life-long goal
of finishing his doctoral studies. I know you have gone home at last to your real country. Further
up and further in!

vi

Acknowledgments
I would like to thank and acknowledge my husband, Jason, my partner in learning and
life. To Indi, thank you for supporting your parents as we steadily worked to become double Dr.
Windusts. It’s your turn now! To my mother, Linda, “we’ve got this!” I’d also like to thank
Monica and Darnell, my co-conspirators and support team who sustained me with critical hope
during this project of love that became all we could talk about, think about, dream about. I look
forward to continuing to make good trouble with you. To Jane, my teaching and thought partner:
thank you for your sustaining support. To my dissertation committee, Dr. Darlene Robles, Dr.
Kenneth Yates, and Dr. Lawrence Picus, thank you for your guidance. Dr. Robles, I am eternally
grateful for your equity-centered conversations and inspiration, and I’m excited about our next
collaboration. To Dr. Yates, I thank you for your unwavering commitment to our team and our
study. Most importantly, I acknowledge my students, who continue to partner with me to learn
how to become more culturally responsive: this is for you.

vii

Table of Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ........................................................................................................................................ v
Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................... v
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................... x
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... xii
Preface .......................................................................................................................................... xiv
Chapter One: Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................. 3
Importance of Addressing the Problem ............................................................................... 4
Organizational Context and Mission ................................................................................... 4
Organizational Performance Status ..................................................................................... 6
Organizational Performance Goal ....................................................................................... 8
Stakeholders’ Performance Goals ....................................................................................... 9
Stakeholder Groups for the Study ..................................................................................... 10
Purpose of the Project and Questions ................................................................................ 12
Conceptual and Methodological Framework .................................................................... 13
Definitions ......................................................................................................................... 14
Organization of the Study .................................................................................................. 17
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ......................................................................................... 18
The Historical and Contemporary Role of Racism in American Education ..................... 18
Foundations of Culturally Responsive Education ............................................................. 25
Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................... 31
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences ............................... 32

viii
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 56
Conceptual and Methodological Framework .................................................................... 56
Assessment of Performance Influences ............................................................................. 58
Participating Stakeholders and Sample Selection ............................................................. 67
Data Collection and Instrumentation ................................................................................. 68
Data Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 70
Trustworthiness of Data .................................................................................................... 70
Role of Investigators .......................................................................................................... 71
Chapter Four: Results and Findings .............................................................................................. 72
Participating Stakeholders ................................................................................................. 73
Determination of Assets and Needs .................................................................................. 75
Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes .................................................................... 75
Results and Findings for Motivation Causes ..................................................................... 91
Results and Findings for Organization Causes ................................................................ 100
Summary of Validated Influences ................................................................................... 135
Summary .......................................................................................................................... 138
Chapter Five: Recommendations and Evaluation ....................................................................... 140
Purpose of the Project and Questions .............................................................................. 140
Recommendations to Address Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization
Influences ........................................................................................................................ 141
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan ............................................................. 178
Limitations and Delimitations ......................................................................................... 200
Recommendations for Future Research ........................................................................... 202
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 204
References ................................................................................................................................... 206
Appendix A: Interview Protocols ................................................................................................ 231

ix
Appendix B: Observation Protocols ............................................................................................ 235
Appendix C: Document Analysis Protocols ................................................................................ 250
Appendix D: Informed Consent/Information Sheet .................................................................... 256
Appendix E: Recruitment Email ................................................................................................. 257
Appendix F: Immediate Evaluation Tool .................................................................................... 258
Appendix G: Delayed Evaluation Tool ....................................................................................... 260

x
List of Tables
Table 1: Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Goals 9
Table 2: Summary of Assumed Knowledge Influences on Stakeholders’
Ability to Achieve the Performance Goal
40
Table 3: Summary of Assumed Motivation Influences on Stakeholders’
Ability to Achieve the Performance Goal
47
Table 4: Summary of Assumed Organization Influences on Stakeholders’
Ability to Achieve the Performance Goal
54
Table 5: Summary of Knowledge Influences and Method of Assessment 59
Table 6: Summary of Motivation Influences and Method of Assessment 62
Table 7: Summary of Organization Influences and Method of Assessment 65
Table 8: Demographic Information of Interviewed Participants (N=11) 73
Table 9: Demographic Information of Observed Research Participants (N= 3) 74
Table 10: Knowledge Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data 135
Table 11: Motivation Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data 136
Table 12: Organizational Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data 137
Table 13: Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations 144

xi
Table 14: Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations 156
Table 15: Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations 168
Table 16: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes 180
Table 17: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation 182
Table 18: Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors 183
Table 19: PLC Questions Explored Through a Culturally Responsive Lens 191
Table 20: Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program 195
Table 21: Components to Measure Reactions to the Program

198

xii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Clark and Estes Gap Analysis Process Framework 57
Figure 2: Multi-Tiered Approach to CRILI Professional Learning 188

xiii

Long live the rose in the concrete
when no one else even cared.

—Tupac Shakur

They tried to bury us; they didn’t know we were seeds.

—Mexican Proverb

xiv
Preface
Except for Chapter Four, all chapters of this dissertation were jointly authored by the
researchers using a team approach. The researchers are listed alphabetically and reflect equal
contributions. While jointly authored dissertations are not the norm of most doctoral programs, a
collaborative effort reflects real-world practices when addressing disparities that affect
historically marginalized groups and interrogating the systems of power that shape policies and
practices. To meet their mission of engaging innovative thinking to achieve educational equity,
the USC Graduate School and the USC Rossier School of Education have permitted our inquiry
team to carry out this shared venture.
The dissertation is part of a collaborative project of three doctoral candidates: Darnell
Fine, Monica Gonzalez and Wendy Windust. As doctoral students, we met with educators at
Anglia Naxos Community School (a pseudonym; ANCS) to help the school improve its
development and implementation of culturally responsive practices. However, being that ANCS
is a community made up of over 10,000 educators, parents, and students, the process for
examining and addressing the problem was too large for a single dissertation. As a result, the
dissertations produced by our inquiry team collectively address the needs of ANCS (see Fine,
2022; Gonzalez, 2022).
1

Chapter One: Introduction
The word “institution” may conjure the image of concrete in one’s mind. Perhaps because
institutions are just that: concretized ideas that take up permanent residence in society. They are
mechanisms for cementing laws and practices that govern and shape how one sees the world.
Through the use of institutions, the formalization of hegemonic power structures such as white
supremacy are solidified and difficult to eradicate within society. Watson (2015) explains how
researchers can stay within these hegemonic structures of white supremacy even as they argue
against them. She further suggests that while researchers may study, deconstruct, and talk about
the problem of white supremacy, they must also “uplift solution[s] of practice” (Watson, 2015, p.
12). These solutions of practice are grounded in what Duncan-Andrade (2009) calls critical hope,
which allows those marginalized by hegemonic institutions to “emerge in defiance of socially
toxic environments as the ‘roses that grow from concrete’” (p. 186).
The researchers in this study use the terms critical and hope with purpose. While there
have been calls to ban critical race theory in K–12 schools in the United States (Morgan, 2022)
as well as in American schools abroad (Weale, 2022), Taylor (2021) argues that a critical analysis
of race offers hope for educators wishing to disrupt racism in American schools domestically and
abroad. So, while the researchers in the study do not teach critical race theory to K–12 students,
they borrow from Bell’s (1995) original inquiry when they ask, “Why should anyone be afraid of
critical race theory in the first place?” If being critical is about critiquing systems of oppression
and critical hope is the undying belief that people have the power to dismantle social systems of
oppression that dehumanize them, “What is wrong with being critical when engaging in
culturally responsive practices?”
2

This study is grounded in critical hope, where schools must exhibit the “solidarity to
share in others’ suffering, to sacrifice self so that other roses may bloom, to collectively struggle
to replace the concrete completely with a rose garden” (Duncan-Andrade, 2009, p. 186).
Education is a practice of freedom (hooks, 2014), and schools must maintain hope that white
supremacy is not insurmountable (hooks, 2003). Classroom educators and school leaders cannot
do this work alone and must share the belief that, together, they can solve the problems they
face.
Epistemologies of critical hope are not just a way of knowing but also a way of
democratizing educational communities as sites of shared inquiry that produce knowledge and
inspire action. As such, the researchers in this study–representing a wide variety of stakeholders
from classroom educators to school leaders–have engaged in shared inquiry with the hope of
improving culturally responsive practices in schools. Both classroom educators and school
leaders should not only ask, “How have I helped concretize ideologies and institutions that
inhibit the growth of marginalized people?” but also, “How will I commit myself to creating and
growing learning communities that are culturally responsive?”
As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. (1968) once said, “The ultimate tragedy is not the
oppression and cruelty by the bad people, but the silence over that by good people.” To speak up
and take action against oppressive educational policies and practices, culturally responsive
practices will help educational organizations move beyond the claimed goals of diversity, equity,
and inclusion. It will encourage critical hope and consciousness by assessing and reframing
normative practices, curriculum, and assessments as starting points for educational reform (Gay,
2010). Culturally responsive education centers on students as “resources to honor, explore, and
extend” (Paris, 2012, p. 94) through cultural knowledge, experience, and perspectives (Gay,
3

2010) and is focused on improvement and innovation that is inclusive of academic success,
cultural competence, and sociopolitical consciousness (Ladson-Billings, 1995a). Freire (1970)
states, “Any system that deliberately tries to discourage critical consciousness is guilty of
oppressive violence. Any school which does not foster students’ capacity for critical inquiry is
guilty of violent oppression” (p. 74). This study hopes to end the practices of violent oppression,
promote critical consciousness, and ensure a culturally responsive education for all students.
Background of the Problem
The problem is not the absence of culturally responsive education, as the Eurocentric
curriculum was created to be culturally responsive to and through white, middle-class norms
(Gay, 2018). The problem is the absence of a culturally responsive education that supports all
ethnically and racially diverse learners’ needs, cultural knowledge, prior experiences, and
performances of understanding. Culturally responsive education suggests that the addition of
cultural relevance is a pedagogy that empowers students intellectually, socially, emotionally, and
politically by using cultural referents to impart knowledge and skills (Ladson-Billings, 2014).
The lack of a culturally responsive education representing diverse cultural identities not only
manifests racism and Eurocentrism but also has the effect of further promoting and continuing
inequity.
This problem derives from the larger societal problem of institutionalized inequities in
education, such as how Eurocentric curriculum and pedagogy function to maintain and reproduce
systems of hegemony. It is located squarely in Critical Race Theory’s (CRT) tenet that racism is a
normal feature of society, embedded–and often hidden–within systems and institutions that
replicate racial inequality (Delgado & Stefancic, 2017). To build on CRT’s position in education,
the Theory of Racial Ignorance (TRI) follows the evolution of racial ideology to racial ignorance,
4

focusing on how the hidden or invisible results in colorblindness (Mueller, 2020). Representing
an adaptive challenge of education reform, shifting organizational culture, and leveraging social
justice through a commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion means moving beyond cultural
competence to dismantling racism through culturally responsive practices.
Importance of Addressing the Problem
The problem of how to bridge the gap between the theory, policy, and practice of
culturally responsive education must be addressed for a variety of reasons. Schools cannot truly
fulfill their mission and commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion if their educational
practices are grounded in ethnocentric and racist ideologies. When curricula are ethnocentric,
monocultural, and steeped in whiteness, this perpetuates curriculum and epistemological
violence. Educators have a moral obligation to safeguard the intellectual and psychological well-
being of learners, every one of them. They can do so by drawing upon theoretical frameworks of
culturally responsive practices to acknowledge and confront inequities in education.
Organizational Context and Mission
ANCS is a PS–12 independent school located in Southeast Asia and founded in the
1950s. It is the world’s largest American-curriculum school outside of the United States. Nearly a
decade before ANCS opened its doors, Japanese colonizers in Southeast Asia mandated a core
curriculum seeking to assimilate the local indigenous students into the colonial Empire (Akashi
& Yoshimura, 2008). Moreover, when ANCS did open its doors in 1956, its students experienced
school closures due to riots and racialized violence just a few miles from campus–a precursor to
the race riots years later in ANCS’s host country (Clutterbuck, 2019). At the end of their first
academic school year in 1957, ANCS students then experienced what was deemed the worst
pandemic in the country's history, leading to further school closures. So as much as ANCS
5

educators today may believe they are now living in extraordinary times–amid COVID-19 and the
Black Lives Matter movement–neither global pandemics nor systemic racism is new or uniquely
American.
While ANCS has a mission to provide each student with an exemplary American
education grounded in the international perspectives of Southeast Asia, students indigenous to
the host country are restricted from attending international schools without government waivers.
This is to preserve and sustain the national identity of students indigenous to the host country,
which suggests their sense of culture may be lost while attending international schools like
ANCS. Still, students from 66 other countries attend ANCS. And while ANCS is a registered
501(c)(3) United States (US) non-profit organization, the school is not required to follow US
federal and state educational regulations.
With more than 10,000 educators, students, and parents from around the world, ANCS
claims to be one of the world’s most diverse international schools. Yet, the school only collects
student data on nationality (according to passports) and not race. The ANCS school leadership
team consists of 28 members, of which 82% are white. Similar demographics can be found in the
ANCS faculty, where most educators are white, including the school’s instructional coaches. This
stands in stark contrast to the ANCS student demographics that represent what appears to be
great racial diversity and multiculturalism. 54% of the students are US citizens, 33% have
citizenship from other Asian countries, including China, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, and
Hong Kong SAR, and 13% of the students are dual (American and a second country) passport
holders. The second-largest national group of students are Indian citizens at 12%, and the
remainder of the student population is made up of passport holders from a variety of countries.
6

Central to ANCS’s mission are the organization’s six “Institutional Commitments.” As
faculty and staff, each employee signed contracts subscribing to these ideals and the expectation
that they collaborate, innovate, and make a positive difference within the ANCS community.
Embedded in the organization’s institutional commitments is the expectation that curricula be
culturally responsive. That is, culturally responsive practices should be reflected in the
curriculum’s intended outcomes, plans for assessment, and daily instruction. It should also be
reflected in the concepts and processes of lessons and entire courses of study. Furthermore, in the
school’s six-year strategic plan, the organization identifies the development and implementation
of culturally responsive practices as a prioritized area of growth.
Organizational Performance Status
The organization’s performance problems are the knowledge, motivation, and
organization gaps inhibiting educators from enacting culturally responsive practices at ANCS.
According to ANCS’s 2020 Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) Committee
report, to maintain accreditation, a recommended area of growth and focus for ANCS is a shift
toward explicitly addressing cultural competence in all areas of the school community. This
problem impacts the school’s goals because, in addition to the WASC report, one of the themes
that emerged from a recent self-study of the ANCS community, framed in the school’s “2027
Strategic Improvement Plan,” focused on the need to improve the organizational, educational
practices around the issues of bias, prejudice, and racism.
However, the strongest voices demanding improvement came from a group of alumni
who created and collated a survey to inquire into student experiences with prejudice, inequality,
and racism during their time at ANCS. The alumni received over 240 responses from 23 years of
graduated and graduating classes. They sent a list of curricular and non-curricular demands to the
7

administration and faculty body, calling for actionable changes to the school’s curriculum and
culture. The implication of their findings demonstrated a lack of cultural responsiveness in the
written and taught curriculum at ANCS. The alumni group highlighted what they termed five
curricular failures: (1) lack of curriculum exploring topics of race and privilege; (2) lack of
diverse teaching body; (3) lack of Black/Indigenous history integrated into Social Studies
curriculum; (4) lack of history/education of colonialism and racism in the host country and
region; and (5) lack of open dialogue around economic privilege.
The organization’s office of teaching and learning also surveyed students from the
elementary, middle, and high schools in 2020 about their perceptions of ANCS’s six Desired
Student Learning Outcomes (DSLOs) and how well their classes supported learning in these
areas. One of these DSLOs is cultural competence, a key component of culturally responsive
teaching since its inception and across time (Ladson-Billings, 1995a, 2014). ANCS students in
each school division scored cultural competence the lowest on the survey, indicating that
students perceive this DSLO as the least effectively taught or prioritized in their classes.
During a focus group meeting in January of 2020, school leaders at ANCS also solicited
feedback regarding the DSLOs from parents across the divisions. Parents were asked to give
examples of how they saw each DSLO, including cultural competence, exemplified by ANCS
students. Campus leaders reported that parents expressed that cultural competence was taught
mainly through cultural celebrations and exposure to the school’s diverse student population.
Ladson-Billings (2014) would describe this as “very limited and superficial notions of culture”
and culturally responsive teaching (p. 77). Often well-intentioned classroom educators take what
Banks (1989) would deem a foods-festivals-and-holidays approach to designing multicultural
curricula. The cultural celebrations that the parents described are superficial representations of
8

cultural competence that fail to dive deeper into multiculturalism beyond tokenistic exposure to
diverse groups of people.
Feedback from alumni, students, and parents is aligned with faculty perceptions of
cultural competence at ANCS. In the school’s most recent 2020 accreditation report, faculty
across all divisions identified a need to improve their teaching and assessment of cultural
competence. Through a self-study process, each professional learning community indicated on a
Likert scale of 1 to 4 how each DSLO is taught. Cultural competence received the lowest score
of 2.66 compared to the other DSLOs. The school’s leaders concluded that ANCS needs to
provide professional learning so all educators understand cultural competence and how it can be
taught and assessed. They stated that ANCS would develop a set of tools to more explicitly teach
and assess skills directly related to cultural competence.
Even with this context provided, the researchers do not think this gives justice to what
truly motivates the study on a human level. The researchers have outlined the contractual
obligations of classroom educators, provided numbers from survey results, and shared
perceptions from various stakeholders. Nevertheless, what is truly at stake for ANCS if they fail
to develop educators’ capacity to teach in culturally responsive ways?
Organizational Performance Goal
The organization’s performance goal is that by 2027, all classroom educators will
implement culturally responsive strategies into their classroom instruction 100% of the time, and
school leaders will support their capacity to do so. Research suggests that if every classroom
educator can implement these teaching strategies, the academic achievement gap will be reduced
(Gay, 2010; Howard, 2003; Ladson-Billings, 2009). The achievement of this goal will be
measured by interviewing educators, observing them in practice, and document analyses. The
9

organization’s performance goal for educators to develop and enact culturally responsive
practices is not just adding something new to educators’ plates; it is the plate.
Stakeholders’ Performance Goals
ANCS expects all of its educators to carry out its institutional commitments as well as
support the goals outlined in the school’s strategic plan. In order to meet the organizational goal,
the educators will know what the framework of culturally responsive education encompasses and
feel motivated to enact culturally responsive practices. To ensure its educators are fulfilling its
organizational goals related to culturally responsive education, ANCS has systems supporting
learning, which are driven by its organizational mission and performance goals outlined in Table
1.

Table 1
Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Goals
Organizational Mission
The mission of Anglia Naxos Community School (ANCS) is to be a world leader in education,
cultivating exceptional thinkers prepared for the future. ANCS is committed to providing each
student an exemplary American educational experience with an international perspective.
Organizational Performance Goal
By June 2027, ANCS will promote diversity, equity, and inclusion throughout our community
and ensure that every student feels valued and included.
School Leaders Classroom Educators Spanish Educators
10

By June 2027, school leaders
will oversee and support the
development of culturally
responsive classroom
educators and curricula.
By June 2027, classroom
educators will develop greater
expertise in using high-quality,
culturally responsive practices
to plan, teach, and assess.
By June 2027, Spanish
educators will develop greater
expertise in using high-
quality, culturally responsive
practices to plan, teach, and
assess.
Critical Behaviors
Educators design policies and
curricula through a culturally
responsive lens.
Educators evaluate student and
professional learning
experiences using culturally
responsive assessment
practices.
Educators facilitate processes
and learning experiences
anchored in culturally
responsive practices.

Stakeholder Groups for the Study
Due to the collaborative nature of this study, the three individual stakeholder groups will
be examined interdependently. The stakeholders are classroom educators (inclusive of Spanish
educators) and school leaders (inclusive of instructional leaders and divisional principals). As
ANCS uses the umbrella term educators to describe school leaders and classroom educators
collectively, the researchers in this study will do the same. The use of the term educators also
suggests a degree of interdependence between stakeholder groups in their functions and primary
responsibilities related to developing and implementing culturally responsive practices in the
organization. Still, separate dissertation team members researched each stakeholder of focus
throughout the study to note nuances in findings and results. And when appropriate, the use of
educators was used to represent common attributes and traits across all stakeholder groups.
The primary responsibility of school leaders at ANCS is to support students and
classroom educators in a sustained focus on student learning. ANCS’s school leaders help ensure
classroom educators implement and create effective schoolwide systems supporting students and
11

learning. While many schools may assign instructional leadership duties solely to their divisional
principals, due to the size and scale of ANCS, their divisional principals rely on instructional
leaders (i.e., coaches, deans, professional learning community leaders) to help support the
development of culturally responsive educators and curricula. Both divisional principals and
instructional leaders at ANCS have considerable influence on the school’s curriculum,
instructional, and assessment practices.
School leaders refer to both divisional principals and instructional leaders who oversee
and support the development of classroom educators and curricula. Divisional principals are
tasked with ensuring the fulfillment of the school’s strategic initiatives in their respective
divisions. Divisional principals lead and directly supervise faculty and staff in developing and
implementing critical strategic initiatives. They also provide instructional leadership in various
areas, including curriculum, assessment, and high-impact instructional practices. Instructional
leaders are not only members of a particular division in the school; they are also responsible for
modeling ANCS’s vision and values as described in the school’s strategic plan. Instructional
leaders work in close partnership with divisional principals and classroom educators to support
student learning in their respective divisions.
The primary responsibility of classroom educators at ANCS is to facilitate deep and
personalized learning experiences for students, whether in Spanish-language, Chinese-language,
or English-medium classrooms. Classroom educators teach students to think critically, use their
creative problem-solving skills, and collaborate with classmates from diverse cultural
backgrounds. Classroom educators are also expected to engage in collaborative inquiry and
action with their colleagues, focusing on fostering equity and achievement for all students.
12

Developing greater expertise in using high-quality, culturally responsive practices is a critical
focus of classroom educators’ engagement with students as well as their colleagues.
Spanish educators have the same primary responsibilities as other classroom educators at
ANCS. In addition to these responsibilities, the ultimate goal of Spanish-language educators at
ANCS is to help students learn Spanish so that they can communicate effectively in diverse, real-
life contexts. Spanish educators are also expected to develop students’ understanding of
Hispanophone cultures through teaching language skills. Spanish educators should advance
students’ language proficiency by designing and implementing a variety of culturally-rich
thematic units. While developing culturally responsive practices is a critical focus for any
classroom educator at ANCS, Spanish educators’ practices are intimately connected to the
cultural foundations of culturally responsive pedagogy.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this improvement study is to conduct a gap analysis examining the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences impacting ANCS’s performance goal of
supporting the development and implementation of culturally responsive pedagogical practices.
Characteristics of culturally responsive leadership practices and the development of culturally
responsive pedagogy were examined in the organization. A review of literature related to
culturally responsive practices was to determine the key features explored in the study. The
current reality of culturally responsive education at ANCS was identified, and then a gap analysis
was conducted to assess the knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors required for the
stakeholder goals to be achieved.
The analysis began by generating a list of possible or assumed influences that were
examined systematically. It then focused on actual or validated factors influencing the
13

achievement of the stakeholder goals. While a comprehensive analysis would focus on all
stakeholders, for practical purposes, this study focused on school leaders, classroom educators,
and Spanish educators. As mentioned before, these stakeholder groups are collectively termed
educators by the organization as well as by the researchers of this study. Thus, two research
questions guided this study:
1. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors that contribute to
educators’ successful enactment of culturally responsive practices?
2. What are the recommended knowledge, motivation, and organizational solutions
for supporting culturally responsive educators?
Conceptual and Methodological Framework
To gain a richer understanding of the knowledge, motivation, and organizational gaps at
ANCS, a case study approach was used to collect qualitative data. The researchers used a
qualitative case study approach as defined by Yin (2018) and Lochmiller and Lester (2017).
Lochmiller and Lester (2017) state that qualitative research requires emergent research designs
that allow for flexibility with respect to the purposes of a study and for “unexpected pathways to
appear during the collection and analysis” of data (p. 99). As emergent design is a hallmark of
qualitative research, the researchers embraced a multitude of research methods that provided
them with ongoing perspectives regarding their topic of study.
This is a collaborative action research project using Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis
as the conceptual framework to analyze the obstacles school leaders and classroom educators
face when implementing culturally responsive practice at ANCS. In addition, the framework
identified performance gaps that keep the organization from reaching its performance goals.
Clark and Estes (2008) maintain that causes and solutions can be identified, leading to
14

organizational change. The researchers identified three factors to look at within the gap analysis:
educators’ knowledge, motivation, and the organizational factors that serve as barriers to
organizational change. When assessing educators' knowledge, the framework attempts to identify
whether educators know what to do and how to reach the organizational performance goal.
Motivation means educators want to work toward the organization’s performance goal.
The current performance of ANCS educators in relation to the organizational goal was
assessed using personal interviews, observations, and document analyses. Research-based
solutions were recommended and evaluated comprehensively. Organizational obstacles pertain to
the strategies, cultures, or resources that enable or limit the employees’ progress toward
achieving the performance goal (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Definitions
The following key terms and definitions are used throughout this study:
• Classroom Educator: an educator at ANCS who plans curriculum for, delivers instruction
to, and assesses the learning of students in a particular academic discipline.
• Coaching: the process in which an educator facilitates a conversation regarding their
professional growth for individual team members. While instructional leaders typically
coach classroom educators at ANCS, educators at all levels of the school (including
ANCS’s superintendent) receive coaching in some capacity.
• Critical Self-Reflection: the process of educators identifying, assessing, and thinking
about their cultural beliefs, values, assumptions, and biases, especially as it relates to
enacting culturally responsive practices.
15

• Cultural Competence: one dimension of culturally responsive education at ANCS in
which students, as well as educators, gain self-awareness of their personal worldview, as
well as the worldview of others.
• Culturally Responsive Education: at ANCS, education is defined according to three
primary components: curriculum, instruction, and assessment. The school thereby defines
culturally responsive education as educators facilitating meaningful connections between
what students learn and their cultures, identities, and life experiences via curriculum,
instruction, and assessment practices.
• Culturally Responsive Practices: ANCS defines culturally responsive practices as
research-based approaches that make meaningful connections between what students
learn and their cultures, identities, and life experiences.
• Divisional Principals: educators who are tasked with leading and ensuring the fulfilment
of ANC’s strategic initiatives in their respective divisions.
• Educators: ANCS uses the umbrella term educators to describe school leaders and
classroom educators collectively.
• Instructional Leaders: While many schools may assign instructional leadership duties
solely to their divisional principals, due to the size and scale of ANCS, divisional
principals rely on instructional leaders (i.e., coaches, deans, professional learning
community leaders) to help support the professional learning of classroom educators and
curricula.
• Professional Learning: ANCS defines professional learning as a comprehensive,
differentiated, and sustained approach to improving classroom educators’ and school
leaders’ effectiveness in optimizing student learning. In addition to whole-school
16

professional development offerings, professional learning at ANCS includes coaching
and professional learning communities.
• Professional Learning Communities (PLCs): at ANCS, a Professional Learning
Community (PLC) is defined as a group of educators committed to working
collaboratively in ongoing processes of collective inquiry and action research to achieve
better results for the students they serve.
• Racism: while ANCS references racism in its strategic plan, the school does not provide a
clear definition of the term. They do state that ANCS has no place for racism or any other
type of discrimination. They also expect classroom educators and school leaders to teach
students in thoughtful and age-appropriate ways about historical and present-day issues
of racism and other forms of discrimination. Drawing on ANCS’s professional learning
materials, racism was at one point defined as one group having the power to carry out
systematic discrimination through the major institutions of society.
• School Leaders: school leaders refer to both divisional principals and instructional
leaders at ANCS who oversee and support the development of classroom educators and
curricula.
• Sociopolitical Consciousness: one dimension of culturally responsive education at ANCS
in which students, as well as educators, gain an awareness between oppression and
advantage (Ladson-Billings, 2014).
• Spanish Educators: classroom educators at ANCS who plans curriculum for, delivers
instruction to, and assesses the learning of students in Spanish language classrooms.
• White Supremacy: white-dominant culture having the power to carry out systematic
discrimination against communities of color through the major institutions of society.
17

Organization of the Study
This study is organized using five chapters. This chapter provides key concepts and
terminology commonly found in discussions about culturally responsive teaching and leadership
practices. The organization’s mission, goals, and stakeholders, as well as the initial concepts of
gap analysis, are also introduced. Chapter Two provides a review of the current literature
surrounding the scope of the study. Topics of culturally responsive pedagogy, culturally relevant
pedagogy, and culturally responsive school leadership are addressed. Chapter Three details the
assumed interfering knowledge, motivation, and organizational causes for this study, as well as
methodology when it comes to the choice of participants, data collection, and analysis. In
Chapter Four, findings are analyzed for individual stakeholders and published in each team
member’s separate dissertations. Chapter Five provides solutions, based on data and literature,
for closing the perceived gaps and recommendations for an implementation and evaluation plan
for the solutions.

18

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
The necessity of developing and implementing culturally responsive education is a global
problem in the sense that all nations will need to address and repair the damage done by socially
dominant groups to underrepresented and minoritized groups throughout history if humanity is to
thrive in a post-colonial era in which all nations have become economically interdependent. If
there is anything that humanity should have learned from the COVID-19 pandemic, it is that no
nation-state can thrive on its own, isolated from all others, if it wishes to move beyond a
subsistence level of living. It is no longer acceptable to ignore the needs and contexts of diverse
groups of learners from minoritized backgrounds if they are to succeed.
The embedded educational practices of the past that form the foundational basis of
today’s educational systems worldwide have not and still do not serve the needs of a diverse
group of learners. For centuries, it has been the historical pattern and practice of socially
dominant groups to impose forms of educational indoctrination that have ignored and
marginalized learners that were not accepted members of the dominant group in each nation.
This chapter will first review the historical role of racism in American education domestically
and abroad as well as the foundations of culturally responsive education. It will then review the
role of ANCS educators, followed by the explanation of the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences’ lens used in this study. Finally, Chapter Two will examine ANCS
educators’ knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences and complete the chapter by
presenting the conceptual framework.
The Historical and Contemporary Role of Racism in American Education
Given the history of “European epistemological supremacy” from the 17th and 18th
centuries, how have institutions originating from the West and anchored in Western ideologies
19

perpetuated a “whitestream curriculum” (Tuck & Gaztambide-Fernández, 2013, p. 82)?
Furthermore, how have “whitestream institutions” within American education failed to sustain
and respond to the diverse cultures of its students (Paris & Alim, 2017, p. 3)? The historical role
of racism in American education has preserved an education system that upholds white-dominant
culture and consequently marginalizes communities of color (Anderson, 1988; Au et al., 2016;
Spring, 2016).
Curriculum Violence
Curriculum documents, as Wiggins and McTighe (2007) stated, are the architectural
blueprint of a school. And as schools in the United States were historically designed to exclude
communities of color, it should come as no surprise that the voices of Black American, Native
American, Mexican American, and Asian American communities were too often excluded from
the hegemonic history of curriculum studies (Brown & Au, 2014). And if, as Pinar (2012)
argued, “the school curriculum communicates what we choose to remember about our past, what
we believe about the present, what we hope for the future” (p. 20), then a curriculum invariably
tells stories about who society was and still is designed for. In order to challenge the master
narratives of curriculum studies (Brown & Au, 2014), educators must heed Audre Lorde’s (1984)
warning that the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. That is, the selective
tradition of curriculum excluding communities of color will never dismantle institutional racism
because it was not designed to do so. On the contrary, hegemonic curricular traditions have the
potential to enact harm on communities of color.
Love (2016) warned of the “spirit murdering” inflicted on the souls of Black children by
culturally insensitive school officials. This “intangible violence” is “less visceral and seemingly
less tragic than the physical acts of murder at the hands of [w]hite mobs, kidnapping and killing
20

by White self-appointed vigilantes, or shootings by police officers in their homes and streets
[but] a slow death, a death of the spirit, is a death that is built on racism” (Love, 2016, pp. 1-2).
And such spirit murders can be and are often committed in the design and implementation of a
hegemonic curriculum. Ighodaro and Wiggan (2013) referred to this as curriculum violence, the
“deliberate manipulation of academic programming in a manner that ignores or compromises the
intellectual and psychological well-being of learners” and their heritage (p. 2). They argued that
a “school that is based primarily on the experiences of [the dominant group] best serves that
group, while simultaneously indoctrinating the excluded groups, teaching them of their
subordinate status in the society” (p. 67).
What is often ignored in conversations about spirit murders and curriculum violence are
the individuals who are spirit murderers and agents of violence. In her book Beloved, Morrison
(2004) gave voice to a fictional character who warned, “Watch out. Watch out. Nothing in the
world more dangerous than a white school teacher” (p. 266). Baldwin (1997) echoed similar
sentiments, stating that “a child cannot be taught by anyone whose demand, essentially, is that
the child repudiates his experience, and all that gives him sustenance, [...] Black people have lost
too many children that way” (p. 6). Woodson (1933/2006) referred to this as miseducation,
arguing to teach students that their “Black face is a curse [...] is the worst sort of lynching” (p. 6).
Hayes (2016) argued that it is a type of violence–or academic lynching–when educational
institutions force teacher educators to value and maintain white supremacy in their curricula.
From the educational and societal apartheid from the Civil War to the new millennium, there
exists a long history of curriculum for Black Americans that is imbued with the values and ideas
of white supremacy (Watkins, 2001). The hegemonic history of curriculum has not only
21

invisibilized but also perpetuated violence towards Native American, Mexican American, and
Asian American communities as well (Brown & Au, 2014).
Cultural Deficit Models of Education
Cultural assimilation was the main solution to address students of color’s academic
failures and was rooted in their perceived cultural deficits. As Solórzano and Yosso (2002) noted,
students of color were expected to assimilate to white middle-class culture in order to meet
academic expectations. Cultural deficit models of education began with the assumption that
students of color are intellectually, morally, and emotionally deficient and ended with the
foregone conclusion that their evitable failure within the educational system will be due to these
deficiencies. Cultural deficit theories suggested that students of color were “victims of
pathological lifestyles that [hinder] their ability to benefit from school” (Ladson-Billings, 2006,
p. 4).
Never mind the legacy of white-dominant culture forcing Native Americans to attend
“Indian schools” that erased their indigenous culture (Khalifa, 2020) and then predominantly
white universities admitting few Native Americans upon their graduation (Ladson-Billings,
2006). Cultural deficient models posit that to be successful, Latinx American students must learn
English at the expense of losing Spanish (Solórzano & Yosso, 2002), never mind the history of
segregating and denying Latinx American students access to equitable educational opportunities
since 1848 (Ladson-Billings, 2006). White-dominant culture propagated the idea that Asian
immigrants were morally, racially, and culturally inferior, justifying educational policies
designed to deny Asian immigrants equitable educational opportunities as early as 1872 (Spring,
2016). And prior to the abolition of slavery in the United States, enslaved Black people were not
only banned from reading and writing but also brutalized, punished, tortured, and even killed for
22

doing so (Harmon, 2012). Following the Emancipation Proclamation in 1961, Harmon (2012)
stated that former enslavers viewed the idea of literate Black Americans with fear, believing the
notion of educated Black people went against beliefs of their racial inferiority. White-dominant
culture was hostile to the idea of educating formerly enslaved Black people and even purported
that they could not be educated in the same way as white children (Anderson, 1988), an ideology
that persisted well into the 1960s and beyond. The legacies of oppressive policies and practices
inhibited Black students, as well as indigenous students and other students of color, from gaining
equitable access to educational opportunities throughout US history.
Racist History of Standardized Testing
Historically, US standardized testing has been used as an instrument to uphold and
reinforce the oppression of minoritized students and preserve white-dominant culture in
education. Au (2015) stated that standardized tests served a malicious function in schooling by
systematically erasing epistemologies that were different from white-dominant culture and ways
of knowing. Cunningham (2018) argued that standardized tests throughout history and today
have been designed in a way that positioned whiteness as the norm and thereby the only
acceptable source of knowledge. This, in turn, led to a lack of critically examining testing
methods and instead focused on fixing students of color who may not demonstrate an
understanding of normative knowledge defined by white-dominant culture.
Standardized tests were not only found to be racially and culturally biased in the
knowledge they chose to measure and assess but also in how they were used as a tool to track
and re-segregate white students and students of color (Knoester & Au, 2015). This was a callback
to the IQ tests and eugenics movements that sought to determine intelligence and “mental
fitness” to justify racially discriminatory practices (Knoester & Au, 2015). Ladson-Billings
23

(1998) also argued that assessments in school today are reminiscent of the intelligence testing
falsely legitimizing students of color’s cultural deficiencies under the guise of scientific
rationalism.
Racism in the Context of American International Schools
Murakami-Ramalho (2008) stated that an influx of American international schools were
first established in the 1960s to meet the needs of United States expatriate families. Specifically,
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 provided aid and assistance to nonmilitary overseas schools
and was often connected to American embassies, American military settlements, American
corporations, and American missionary groups. Although these schools received aid and
assistance from the US government, policy control typically was in the hands of U.S. expatriate
parents elected to the school board, who thereby supervised the head of school or superintendent.
Today, there are 256 American-sponsored schools overseas (U.S. Department of State, 2021).
The United States Department of State (2021) estimated that nearly a quarter-million
school-age children of overseas Americans attend these schools. These children attended a wide
variety of American schools abroad, ranging from schools operated by the United States
Department of Defense to non-government, co-educational, and independent schools. The U. S.
government aided and supported many of these schools with the purpose of “help[ing] the
schools provide quality education for children of United States citizens and to demonstrate to
foreign nationals the philosophy and methods of American education” (U.S. Department of State,
2021, para. 1). While the schools were open to all nationalities and were deemed critical to the
US government’s “foreign policy objective of strengthening mutual understanding between
Americans and the people of other countries” (U.S. Department of State, 2021, para. 1), the core
curriculum and instructional program were American-centric.
24

According to the United States Department of State (2021), the intent of American
international schools was to prepare students to enter schools, colleges, and universities in the
United States. In other words, “American schools overseas often are named ‘American school of
[name of country]’; in some cases, they are called international schools, even though they have
adopted an American philosophy of education” (Murakami-Ramalho, 2008, p. 79). Given the
historical and contemporary role of racism in U.S. education, Taylor (2021) argued that,
[American international schools] abroad who offer an ‘American’ education often include
the additive of American schoolings’ racist ideology as they work to imitate American
schools. As there is racism infiltrating United States schools, there is also racism
infiltrating [American international schools]. (p. 32)
Allen (2001) argued that the globalization of white supremacy was interconnected to
multicultural education and that the colonized peoples of “Africa, Asia, Australia, and the
Americas [...] have always had to deal with the ‘globalization’ practiced by Europeans and their
colonial representatives” (p. 4). Taylor (2021) stated that children of overseas Americans may
recognize a racialized curriculum, but non-American students may develop misconceptions
about racial hierarchy and thereby perpetuate racial stereotypes when attempting to “assimilate
into American culture by studying colonized American content” (p. 33).
Gardner-McTaggart (2018) described international schools as sites of cultural
laundering: a post-colonial process where non-Western students are taught Western and English
ways of being and knowing. Gardner-McTaggart (2018) referenced international schools
institutionalizing an imperial gaze, which “reflects the assumption that the white western subject
is central” (Kaplan, 2012, p. 78). Kaplan (2012) defined the imperial gaze as a “structure that
which fails to understand that [...] non-American peoples have integral cultures and lives that
25

work according to own, albeit different, logic” (p. 78). Gardner-McTaggart (2021) extended this
definition to an international gaze in which not only American international schools but
international schools, in general, are steeped in neo-colonial overtones and the cultural power of
whiteness. He described implicit racism in international schools’ hiring and recruitment
practices, a ‘tick box’ culture that fails to deeply explore diversity issues, and “a process of social
alchemy [...] turning the ordinary metal of the non-white, non-English (student) to gold.”
International school students are situated in a habitus where the accepted ways of talking,
thinking, and even being are defined by dominant white, English hegemony.
While Bonilla-Silva (2006) defined white habitus as a means of ensuring white children
experience tremendous levels of racial segregation and isolation from communities of color,
Gardner-McTaggart (2021) described the function of white habitus in international school
settings not as a means of physically excluding students of color but erasing their cultural
identities to assimilate into white-dominant culture. Similar to the previously mentioned concepts
of spirit murdering (Love, 2016), academic lynching (Hayes, 2016), and curriculum violence
(Ighodaro & Wiggan, 2013), Gardner-McTaggart (2018, 2021) argued that the processes and
policies of international schools enact symbolic violence. While not physical, this symbolic
violence still perpetuates the harms of upholding white cultural superiority while devaluing
students of color’s home cultures. Beyond academia, the problem of racism in international
schools has entered public discourse and is being explored at American international schools
around the world (Pearson, 2022).
Foundations of Culturally Responsive Education
Several existing frameworks served as the pedagogical foundations of culturally
responsive education. This review of the literature is by no means exhaustive of all the history
26

and scholarship related to culturally responsive education. What it does offer is a review of seven
frameworks intimately related to the foundation and application of culturally responsive
practices to and throughout history (e.g., critical race theory, cultural asset-based instruction,
multicultural education, culturally relevant pedagogy, culturally responsive pedagogy, culturally
sustaining pedagogy, and culturally responsive school leadership). Collectively, these
frameworks offered counter pedagogies to culturally unresponsive policies and practices found
throughout the history of American schools domestically and abroad. While each of these
frameworks offered its own unique perspectives related to culturally responsive practices, each
sought to counter the oppressive and exclusionary nature of schools towards students of color.
Critical Race Theory in Education
Critical race theory in the context of education examined the curriculum, assessment, and
instruction through the lens of race, white supremacy, and People of Color. It deemed white
supremacy as endemic and deeply ingrained in American education while challenging myths of
neutrality, objectivity, colorblindness, and meritocracy (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 2016). Ladson-
Billings and Tate (2016) discussed how critical race theory in education posits that anti-racist
practices must converge with white interests, ensuring that white communities are happy and do
not leave the system altogether. Nonetheless, critical race theory in education necessitated
educators de-center white, middle-class culture by affirming and drawing upon students of
color’s funds of knowledge, cultural wealth, and cultural capital (Yosso, 2014). As official school
curricula may have represented a culturally-specific artifact designed to maintain white
supremacy, critical race theory in education questioned the use of instructional tools that
presumed students of color as deficient, recognizing that the master’ s tools can never dismantle
27

the master’ s house (Ladson-Billings, 1998). Critical race theory argues that racism and white
supremacy remain inseparable from American curriculum, instruction and assessment.
Cultural Asset-Based Instruction
Cultural asset-based instruction disrupted deficit-oriented philosophies about students of
color and culturally diverse students. Boykin et al. (2005) stated that mass public education in
America was conceived, in large part, to bring the values and behaviors of minoritized groups in
conformity with white mainstream culture. As schools historically and today were not culturally
neutral terrains, cultural asset-based instruction strived to appreciate, understand, and more fully
embrace multiple cultural perspectives to more efficiently meet the needs of students of color
(Boykin, 2000; Boykin et al., 2005). Instead of viewing students and their cultures through a
deficit-oriented lens, students of color’s cultural values and behaviors were seen as assets that
could help educators teach in ways that are congruent to learners’ diverse cultures and needs
(Boykin, 2000). Ford and Trotman (2001) discussed the lack of multicultural preparation in
teacher education, reinforcing deficient-oriented philosophies that inhibited educators from
incorporating multicultural perspectives and materials into curriculum and instruction. Cultural
asset-based instruction involved not only classroom educators disrupting their deficit-
orientations of culturally and racially diverse learners but called for teacher education programs
to also center multiculturalism in their professional development of educators.
Multicultural Education
Multicultural education refers to the incorporation of racially and ethnically diverse
perspectives in the curriculum and instructional materials. Banks (1997) stated that a
mainstream-centric curriculum had negative consequences for white students and students of
color, promoting a false sense of superiority that robbed white students from becoming culturally
28

competent in students of color’s cultures while also marginalizing students of color’s culture and
lived experiences. Multicultural education extended beyond studying cultural foods, festivals,
and holidays in the curriculum to taking a transformative and social action approach that
integrated multiculturalism into the curriculum and encourages leaders to address systems of
oppression (Banks, 1997). This aligned with the history of social movements in multicultural
education, spanning from Black activism in the 1840s to the advocacy of communities of color in
the 1970s (Nieto, 2009). Multicultural education became disassociated in many schools from its
sociopolitical and transformative roots with the increased involvement of white educators in the
1990s (Sleeter, 1996). Nonetheless, multicultural education was not simply the incorporation of
multicultural perspectives in the curriculum but social activism, attempting to subvert and disrupt
white supremacist curricula and systems.
Culturally Relevant Pedagogy
Ladson-Billings (1995b, 2009) coined the term culturally relevant pedagogy to represent
educators’ ability to uphold students’ cultural identities while developing their cultural
competence in at least one other culture. She also introduced several other tenets of culturally
relevant pedagogy, centering on developing learners academically as well as the development of
their sociopolitical consciousness (Ladson-Billings, 1995b, 2009). Culturally relevant pedagogy
focuses on not only the academic and intellectual development of students but also their ability
to think critically about society, solve real-world problems, and confront social inequities
(Ladson-Billings, 1995b, 2009).
The responsibility for learning did not fall solely on classroom educators and their
students but also on teacher educators who should have had a more expansive understanding of
culture (their own and others) and the ways it functioned in education (Ladson-Billings, 1995b).
29

Ladson-Billings (2008) stated that teacher education was culpable for the lack of culturally
relevant pedagogy in school and should have encouraged educators to not just do culturally
responsive pedagogy but be culturally relevant educators beyond the confines of the classroom
and their time with students. Culturally relevant pedagogy was not simply using culture as a
vehicle for supporting learning and academic achievement in schools but was also a means of
promoting cultural competence and a sociopolitical consciousness related to systems of
oppression.
Culturally Responsive Pedagogy
Culturally responsive pedagogy draws upon and uses the cultural knowledge, prior
experiences, frames of reference, and performance styles that learners bring to the classrooms to
make learning more relevant to and effective for them. Gay (2018) offered a set of culturally
responsive teaching strategies that were multidimensional and drew upon students’ cultures and
experiences to drive instruction, assessment, and curriculum design. Gay (2002) called on
educators to not only develop knowledge of the subject matter they teach but also the cultural
background of their learners so that they could employ cultural scaffolding to expand their
learners’ intellectual and academic development. Culturally responsive pedagogy also challenged
educators to design curriculum and instructional plans that confronted issues of racism, historical
atrocities, powerlessness, and hegemony beyond the myths of white mainstream America and its
marginalization of minoritized cultures (Gay, 2002).
Furthermore, Gay (2002) argued that teacher educators must teach educators how to
develop cultural congruence with the cultures that learners bring to the classroom and the
instructional plans they employ in the classroom to effectively teach and reach diverse learners.
That is, teacher education programs should have been just as culturally responsive to cultural
30

diversity as K–12 classrooms. Sleeter (2012) argued that schools should also educate all
stakeholders (parents, educators, and education leaders) about what culturally responsive
pedagogy means and looks like in the classroom. Culturally responsive pedagogy calls upon
educators to recognize the cultural capital and cultural tools that diverse learners bring to the
classroom and to leverage them as assets throughout instruction. An added dimension of
culturally responsive pedagogy was to confront hegemony and exclusion within and beyond the
confines of the classroom.
Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy
Culturally sustaining pedagogy built on culturally relevant/responsive pedagogy not only
affirming and connecting schooling to learners’ cultural backgrounds but also sustaining learners’
cultural backgrounds through schooling. Paris (2012) questioned the use of “responsive” and
“relevant” as terms that may not inspire or even connote a critical stance toward and critical
action against unequal power. He argued that culturally sustaining as a term required pedagogies
to be more than responsive or relevant to the cultural experiences and practices of learners; it
required that educators encourage learners to sustain the cultural and linguistic competence of
their communities while simultaneously offering access to dominant cultural competence. Paris
and Alim (2014) argued that educators must develop pedagogies beyond white, middle-class
norms permeating educational research and classroom practices; linguistic, literate, and cultural
hegemony must be disrupted in a pluralistic society. Culturally sustaining pedagogy reimagined
schools as sites where culturally diverse practices are not only valued but sustained, encouraging
learners to explore, honor, extend, and at times problematize their own culture (Paris & Alim,
2017). Culturally sustaining pedagogy challenged educators to not only leverage learners’ culture
31

as a tool to meet whitestream standards but to see their cultures as worth sustaining and
exploring in their own right, independent of the white, hegemonic gaze.
Culturally Responsive School Leadership
Culturally responsive school leadership became an important component of culturally
responsive education, expanding beyond classroom teaching to looking inward at one’s self as a
critical school leader to looking outward at professional development, the entire school
environment, and the community at large (Khalifa, 2020; Khalifa et al., 2016). Marshall and
Khalifa (2018) stated that school leaders could also engage in coaching cycles promoting
culturally responsive instructional practices in the classroom. Teacher educators and school
leaders too often grounded their leadership practices in white supremacy, hindering the
preparation of educators to be culturally responsive teachers to all students (Hayes & Juárez,
2012). Hayes and Juárez (2012) argued that school leaders and teacher educators must recognize
the racial power of whiteness and how culturally responsive teaching cannot be realized in the
classroom until whiteness is explicitly addressed. Johnson (2014) stated that culturally
responsive school leaders must advocate for culturally responsive curricula, racial equity, and the
inclusion of diverse racial and ethnic communities in the schools. This involved culturally
responsive school leaders challenging all forms of oppression, influencing the contexts in which
they worked so that ultimately the lives of students within and beyond the confines of school
were positively impacted (Lopez, 2016).
Conceptual Framework
This study used Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis model to determine the difference
between preferred and actual performance, the gaps that prevented stakeholders from meeting
the performance goals of the organization, and the solutions to closing the gaps between goals
32

and current progress. This process model first identified the organizational and individual goals
of the stakeholders and then uncovered and analyzed the reasons for the performance gaps that
act as barriers between the current and desired performance levels. Once the causes have been
determined, the next step was to identify and implement knowledge (K), motivation (M), and
organizational (O) performance solutions to close the gaps. Continuously evaluating the results
and revising goals as needed ensured steady performance improvement (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Adaptation of Gap Analysis Framework as an Improvement Model
Through the conceptual framework of an improvement gap analysis, an adaptation of
Clark and Estes’ (2008) KMO framework, this study examined the factors that prevented ANCS
educators from bridging the gap between the policy and practice of culturally responsive
education. Although stakeholder knowledge and the motivation to achieve the performance goals
were key influences, they were not enough to attain and sustain improvement without
organizational change. Clark and Estes (2008) stated that closing performance gaps would only
happen when all three factors were addressed in symphony. According to Clark and Estes (2008),
recognizing how educators’ knowledge and motivation worked together and acted as drivers to
facilitate or hinder performance within the organizational culture–inclusive of efficient and
effective processes and resources–was paramount to enacting organization-wide change.
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
Through the literature review of the scholarship around culturally responsive practices, it
was evident that educators–including school leaders, Spanish educators, and classroom
educators–must have sustained knowledge, motivation, and organizational support to embrace
culturally responsive practices as an antidote to the hegemonic Eurocentric ideologies that
oppress students of color (Sleeter, 2018; Solomon et al., 2005; Vaught & Castagno, 2008). This
33

understanding of how educator knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences work as a
cooperative system was an important aspect of the larger investigation in considering ways to
best support educators to meet the school’s performance goal. This section discussed and
explored the assumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences of ANCS educators
and the possible implications for enacting culturally responsive practices.
Knowledge
Mayer (2011) defined learning as “a change in knowledge attributable to experience” (p.
14). He added three parts to this definition: (a) learning involves a change in the learner, (b) what
is changed is the learner’s knowledge, and (c) the cause of the change is the learner’s experience.
Mayer (2011) presented a cognitive view of learning in that what happens in the learner’s
environment is represented as knowledge and is observable as behavior. Building upon the
cognitive domains of Bloom’s taxonomy, Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) recategorized the
components of knowledge necessary for learning into four types: factual, conceptual, procedural,
and metacognitive. According to Clark and Estes (2008), to close stakeholder performance gaps,
it was necessary to understand the categories of knowledge necessary to ensure organizational
performance. Educators’ knowledge and skills, in comparison with other factors, made the
biggest difference in students’ acquisition of knowledge (Darling-Hammond & Lieberman,
2012). This section reviewed the literature relevant to the knowledge influences that may explain
the gaps in educators’ understanding of how to enact culturally responsive practices.
The knowledge section of the conceptual framework also drew inspiration from Smith’s
(2012) “Research Through Imperial Eyes.” Hegemonic epistemologies served as a knowledge
gap when it came to supporting culturally responsive teaching and learning. To perpetuate a
monocultural, white, Western way of knowing the world ran counter to culturally responsive
34

practices. It silenced and erased Black and indigenous ways of knowing the world that were
essential in creating culturally responsive schools. Also explored in the conceptual framework is
what Leonardo (2009) deemed the myth of white ignorance in education. Leonardo argued that
white educators are not oblivious to race but are “race knowers” who are “full participants in
racialization” (2009, p. 108). As such, the conceptual framework thereby made room for the idea
that it was not only white educators’ lack of knowledge about race that served as a knowledge
gap but also the incidents when they feigned ignorance about race that impeded culturally
responsive education.
Factual Knowledge Influences
Factual knowledge centers on developing an understanding of foundational facts that are
specific to disciplines and domains. It encompassed the basic knowledge that one must know in
order to function effectively or problem solve in a given area (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001;
Rueda, 2011). Educators must know the components of culturally responsive education,
including curricular, instructional, and assessment practices. As suggested by Gay’s (2018)
research, theory, and practice, the components of effective culturally responsive practices include
caring, culture and communication in the classroom, ethnic and cultural diversity in curriculum
content, and cultural congruity in teaching and learning. Cultural responsiveness require
educators to learn and develop an understanding of cultural and ethnic diversity and be able to
apply and incorporate this body of knowledge into the educational environment (Gay, 2002;
Ladson-Billings, 1995b).
Beyond Superficial Knowledge of Culture
However, one factor that may have contributed to the misuse of culturally responsive
practices was when educators demonstrated “limited and superficial notions of culture” (Ladson-
35

Billings, 2014, p. 77). Sleeter (2012) cautioned, “Oversimplified and distorted conceptions of
culturally responsive pedagogy, which do not necessarily improve student learning, lend
themselves to dismissal of the entire concept” (p. 572). Specifically, she identified cultural
celebration, trivialization, essentializing, and substituting cultural for political analysis as four
ways educators demonstrated a limited and simplistic understanding of culturally responsive
practices (Sleeter, 2012). Further cultural simplifications included surface-level positioning of
food, festivals, folklore, and fashions in the curriculum leading some educators to have “a
shortsighted view that multicultural education [was] not an issue in their predominantly
European-American school” (Meyer & Rhoades, 2006, p. 83). When educators were unaware of
their knowledge deficits, it was necessary to build more than declarative knowledge so that they
may analyze problems and accomplish performance goals (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Conceptual Knowledge Influences
Although factual and conceptual knowledge are both declarative, the difference between
the two types of knowledge are the way information is interpreted. Conceptual knowledge
explores the interrelationships among concepts within a larger system, exploring the
classifications, principles, generalizations, theories, models, or structures related to a particular
area (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). As it related to culturally responsive teaching and learning,
conceptual knowledge encompassed an understanding of key concepts related to oppression and
advantage within school systems and in society at large. Once educators used factual knowledge
to learn about the components of culturally responsive curriculum, instruction, and assessment
practices, the next step was to understand the interrelationship between these concepts. To build
a conceptual understanding of the sociopolitical context between oppression and advantage,
36

educators should be given experiences to deepen their understanding and make sense of the
material rather than just focus on memorization (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006).
Sociopolitical Consciousness
Culturally responsive teaching and learning also called for educators to understand such
concepts at what Picower (2009) deemed four overlapping levels between oppression and
advantage–ideological, institutional, interpersonal, and internalized. Love (2016) called for
culturally responsive educators to not only know the assets that minoritized students brought with
them to the classroom but also to know how systems of oppression work to spirit murder students
of color. Ladson-Billings (2014) stated that even when educators demonstrated a more expansive
knowledge of culture, the lack of a deeper understanding of sociopolitical dimensions of the
world led to the misuse and misapplication of culturally responsive practices. By having a
conceptual understanding of the sociopolitical context of oppression and advantage within and
beyond the confines of school, educators were equipped to dismantle oppression in themselves
and their environment while enacting culturally responsive practices with fidelity.
Procedural Knowledge Influences
Procedural knowledge was required for an individual to know how to do something. It
pertained to the skills, techniques, steps, sequences, methods of inquiry, and methodologies of
varying difficulty and sophistication that individuals are required to know to accomplish a
particular task (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001; Rueda, 2011). To successfully implement
culturally responsive practices, educators needed knowledge of how to execute the tasks of
creating and using culturally responsive curricula, instruction, and assessments. In addition,
educators need to know how to build culturally responsive learning communities.
Culturally Responsive Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment
37

However, research has shown that some teachers who perceived themselves as
knowledgeable in implementing culturally responsive education had reduced this framework to a
series of discrete steps to follow (Hammond, 2015; Paris, 2012; Paris & Alim, 2014; Sleeter,
2011, 2012; Young, 2010). The danger of oversimplifying culturally responsive practices through
trivialization reduced it to a lockstep process instead of an educator knowledge-dependent
paradigm for teaching and learning (Sleeter, 2012). As a method of inquiry and a pathway to
support learning, educators needed to use procedural knowledge to support the progression of
culturally responsive practices through the curriculum, instruction, assessment, and learning
community (Delpit, 2006; Gay, 1995, 2010; Moll et al., 2006; Paris, 2012; Villegas & Lucas,
2002).
From a curriculum standpoint, culturally responsive educators understood how racism is
manifested through Eurocentric curricula and how this limited learner growth (Au, 2009). To
facilitate culturally responsive learning, such educators knew that the hegemonic epistemologies
needed to be critically interrogated, guiding inquiry into the inaccuracies, omissions, and
distortions in curricula (Villegas & Lucas, 2002). In addition to curricula, educators knew the
culturally responsive instructional strategies needed to provide culturally-congruent scaffolds and
structures to ensure that all students learn (Au, 2009; Farinde-Wu et al., 2017; Gay, 2018;
Muhammad, 2020). And finally, culturally responsive educators knew the components of
assessment practices that ensured access and equity through learners’ cultural frames of reference
and alignment with learner growth (Gay, 2018; Montenegro & Jankowski, 2017; Nortvedt et al.,
2020). When educators ensured that assessments, even those designed for the majority
population, were closely aligned with curricula, teaching, and learning practices, and an
understanding and valuing of students’ cultures and languages, the focus shifted from a rigid and
38

reductive deficit model to a pluralistic approach of understanding proficiency. Educators with
knowledge of the interrelationship between culturally responsive curriculum, instruction, and
assessment were better equipped to facilitate students’ understanding of their identity, their
community, and the world.
Metacognitive Knowledge
Strategically understanding when to and why one should take action was a key aspect of
metacognitive knowledge. It pertained to “knowledge about cognition in general as well as
awareness of and knowledge about one’s own cognition” (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001, p. 27).
This type of knowledge was centered on self-awareness, including the knowledge of and
approaches to one’s own thought processes. To effectively leverage culturally responsive
practices, educators need to be able to critically self-reflect on how their knowledge, beliefs,
values, assumptions, biases, and experiences contributed to strengths and areas for growth.
Critical Self-Reflection
Critical self-reflection was foundational to the development of sociopolitical
consciousness (Howard, 2003; Khalifa, 2020; Ladson-Billings, 2008; Sealey-Ruiz, 2021), and
sociopolitical consciousness was an antecedent to understanding and addressing the issues–such
as beliefs, values, assumptions, and biases–that contributed to perspectives of identity,
community members, and the world. Through metacognitive learning, critical self-reflection for
educators presented the potential to reveal practices around normative knowledge (Kincheloe,
2004) while challenging and uncovering biases and hegemonic assumptions (Brookfield, 2009)
extant in pedagogical practices. As Ginsberg (2015) argued, “Unless we as educators understand
our own culturally mediated values and biases, we may be misguided in believing that we are
39

encouraging divergent points of view and providing meaningful opportunities for learning to
occur” (p. 17).
Educators were unable to effectively incorporate all aspects of culturally responsive
education into practice if they did not first investigate and excavate their own values, beliefs, and
attitudes about other cultures and their own culture (Grant & Asimeng–Boahene, 2006; Howard-
Hamilton, 2000; Moreno & Wong-Lo, 2011; Nieto, 2004; Wong-Lo & Bai, 2013). Critically
reflective educators questioned “the omissions and tensions that exist between the master
narratives [...] that make up the official curriculum and the self-representations of subordinated
groups as they might appear in ‘forgotten’ or erased histories, histories, texts, memories,
experiences, and community narratives” (Giroux, 2005, p. 25). Critical self-reflection also
created transformational learning experiences by identifying and assessing assumptions and
seeking perspectives through other lenses that led to informed decision-making in the best
interests of the learning community (Brookfield & Holst, 2010). Table 2 shows the stakeholders’
influences and the related literature.

40

Table 2
Summary of Assumed Knowledge Influences on Stakeholders’ Ability to Achieve the Performance
Goal
Assumed knowledge influences Research literature
Factual
Educators know the components of
culturally responsive curriculum,
instruction, and assessment
practices.
Anderson & Krathwohl (2001); Clark & Estes (2008);
Gay (2002, 2018); Ladson-Billings (1995b, 2014);
Meyer & Rhoades (2006); Rueda (2011); Sleeter
(2012)
Conceptual
Educators need to know the
sociopolitical relationship between
oppression and advantage
underpinning culturally responsive
practices.
Anderson & Krathwohl (2001); Ladson-Billings
(2014); Love (2016); Picower (2009); Schraw &
McCrudden (2006)
Procedural
Educators need knowledge of how
to create and use culturally
responsive curriculum, instruction,
and assessment practices.
Anderson & Krathwohl (2001); Au, (2009, 2012);
Delpit, (2006); Farinde-Wu et al., (2017); Gay, (1995,
1998, 2010); Hammond (2015); Moll et al., (2006);
Montenegro & Jankowski, (2017); Muhammad (2020);
Nortvedt et al. (2020); Paris (2012); Paris & Alim
(2014) Rueda (2011); Sleeter (2011, 2012); Villegas &
Lucas, (2002); Young, (2010)
Metacognitive
Educators need to know how to
critically self-reflect on their
knowledge, beliefs, values,
assumptions, biases, and
experiences related to improving
culturally responsive practices.

Anderson & Krathwohl (2001); Brookfield (2009);
Ginsberg (2015); Giroux (2005); Grant & Asimeng–
Boahene (2006); Howard (2003); Howard-Hamilton
(2000); Khalifa (2020); Kincheloe (2004); Ladson-
Billings (2008); Moreno & Wong-Lo (2011); Nieto
(2004); Sealey-Ruiz (2021); Wong-Lo & Bai (2013)

41

Motivation
Cooperating with, yet distinct from knowledge, motivation was influenced by both
internal (beliefs, perceptions) and external (sociocultural, environmental) factors–a context-
specific drive that inspires the activation and continuation of goal-directed behavior (Pintrich,
1994; Rueda, 2011; Schunk, 2020). In a recursive process and reciprocal relationship, motivation
led to learning as learning also led to motivation (Bandura, 1997). However, in contrast to
learning, motivation could not be observed directly; there were behaviors, or indicators, that
helped pinpoint when motivation was extant or absent (Schunk, 2020), such as active choice,
persistence, and mental effort (Clark & Estes, 2008; Schunk et al., 2008).
Increased motivation paired with effective knowledge, skills, and work processes,
resulted in performance gains (Clark & Estes, 2008). The factors that had the most influence on
choice, persistence, and mental effort were personal and team confidence, beliefs about
organizational and environmental barriers to achieving goals, the emotional climate people
experience in their work environment, and the personal and team values for their performance
goals (Clark, 1998; Clark & Estes, 2008). On the other hand, an immunity or aversion to change
(Kegan & Lahey, 2009) may have stemmed from a fear of the unknown or a sense of comfort
that caused educators to shy away from emotional or cognitive labor.
Motivation was a vital component in enhancing the effectiveness of educators in teaching
and learning environments (Carson & Chase, 2009). Research studying the link between quality
instruction and learning outcomes has found that in terms of effectiveness, educational methods,
techniques, practices, and instructional behaviors were all closely related to educator motivation
(Butler & Shibaz, 2014; Han et al., 2015; Retelsdorf & Günther, 2011; Retelsdorf et al., 2010;
42

Thoonen et al., 2011). Although there are many dimensions to motivation, this study will focus
on the assumed motivation influences of interest, emotion, and self-efficacy.
Interest
The achievement behaviors of educators resulted from value components in response to
the perceived importance of tasks. According to Schunk (2020), the overall value of any task
depends on four essential constituents:
1. Attainment value–importance attached to the task as it relates to educators’
conception of their self-worth and competence in a certain area.
2. Intrinsic or interest value–refers to the satisfaction one obtains from the task.
3. Utility value–the importance of the task in relation to a specific short- or long-
term goal orientation.
4. Cost belief–the belief that working on one task may take the time and effort away
from a more meaningful task.
This study examined how interest value influenced the enactment of culturally responsive
practices as Kaplan (2012) stated that the research literature was quite unanimous in intrinsic
motivation enhancing long-term learning engagement. On the contrary, Kaplan (2012) stated that
learning engagement ceased once extrinsic motivators were removed.
In the context of learning motivation theory, interest was “an interactive relation between
an individual and certain aspects of his or her environment (e.g., objects, events, ideas), and is
therefore content-specific” (Hidi & Harackiewicz, 2000, p. 152). Schraw and Lehman (2009)
theorized that activating personal interests increased participants’ motivation. Hidi and
Harackiewicz (2000) also explained that a learner can find a topic interesting without liking it. A
learner’s interactive relation with their environment could also elicit negative responses, not just
43

positive ones. In another sense, interest was how one’s interaction with their environment served
their needs or desires.
Interest Convergence
In “Race, Culture, and Researcher Positionality,” Milner (2007) not only argued the need
for alternative epistemologies and ways of knowing but discussed at length the idea of interest
convergence as a motivating factor for confronting racism. Milner’s ideas about interest
convergence could thereby serve as a motivating factor for supporting culturally responsive
teaching and learning. Ladson-Billings (2013) added that “white people will seek racial justice
only to the extent that there is something in it for them” (p. 38). On the other hand, white self-
interest may also have served as a motivating factor for maintaining curriculum violence in
schools. Dominant culture, in particular white-dominant culture, often engaged in self-interest
that institutionalized power, privilege, and social dominance (Milner, 2007).
Negotiation Interests of Racially Oppressed Groups
When considering motivational factors, Gillborn (2010) argued that the idea of interest
convergence must equitably negotiate the interests of white people and racially oppressed
groups. That is, the interests of racially oppressed groups should not have been made subordinate
to the interests of white people. Gorski (2019) offered similar insights, stating that “in
inequitable contexts, equality—attending equally to everybody’s interests—reproduces inequity”
(p. 60). Schraw and Lehman (2009) offered interest-activating strategies to increase motivation,
but such strategies should have also been employed through a culturally responsive lens that
avoided potentially subordinating the interests of racially oppressed groups.
Whiteness as Property Interest
44

Harris (1993) and Hayes (2016) both explored the concept of whiteness as a property
interest in society and in education, respectively. Whiteness was afforded valuable benefits and
was thereby a valued possession in racialized society (Harris, 1993). Because of its high sense of
value and the entitlements it afforded, culturally responsive and multicultural education could not
serve as a threat to the value of whiteness in a racialized society. When it did, it led to what
Hayes (2016) called “academic lynching,” a term referenced earlier in this literature review. On a
much lesser scale, maintaining the valued possessions and privilege of whiteness potentially led
to superficial notions of multicultural education that failed to incorporate the sociopolitical
dimensions of the work (DeCuir & Dixson, 2004). Ideas of value and interest convergences
reinforced the oppressive systems Ladson-Billings (1998) sought to disrupt in her work in
reforming education.
Emotion
Scholars of motivation theory indicated that emotion influenced learners’ desire to engage
and attend to their learning (Pekrun, 2011; Schraw & Lehman, 2009). Schraw and Lehman
(2009) proposed that creating emotional disequilibrium could also activate interest and serve as a
motivating factor for learning. Pekrun (2011) discussed how educators can increase motivation
by activating positive emotions like enjoyment, hope, and pride, as well as negative emotions
like anger, anxiety, and shame. Whether eliciting a positive or negative emotion, Hidi and
Harackiewicz (2000) stated that affective reactions could serve as motivating factors for learning.
Emotion as a Challenge to White Culture
Gulati-Partee and Potapchuk (2014) stated that embracing conflict and emotion
challenged white culture and white ways of operating. Often in professional settings, white
cultural norms defined certain emotions as acceptable while discounting others, further
45

upholding the status quo (Gulati-Partee & Potapchuk, 2014). But Matias (2016) argued that
when confronting racism and white supremacy, white people must be willing to deconstruct their
own emotionalities as a way to re-humanize themselves. By extension, when enacting culturally
responsive practices, white educators and educators of color alike must be willing to explore
what Pekrun (2011) categorized as the multidimensional taxonomy of emotions.
Emotion as Culturally Relative
Recognizing that emotion and motivation were both inseparable from culture,
Wlodkowski and Ginsberg (1995) stated, “What may elicit that frustration, joy, or determination
may differ across cultures because cultures differ in their definitions of novelty, hazard,
opportunity, and gratification, and in their definitions of appropriate responses” (p. 17). That is,
the emotional response an educator has while engaging in a learning activity is a reflection of
their culture. There are situations in which emotions such as rage and anger, routinely deemed
negative affective reactions in learning activities, should be embraced by educators. When
theorizing about culturally responsive teaching and teacher education, Hayes and Juárez (2012)
deemed emotions such as anger to be a “healthy response to white supremacy” (p. 7). The idea
that rage is both an appropriate affective reaction to racial injustice and a way of knowing has
been echoed by many scholars and Black thinkers throughout history (Baldwin et al., 1961;
Dumas, 2018; hooks, 1995; Lorde, 1984). A variety of emotions, not limited to rage and anger,
could drive educators to learn about and implement culturally responsive practices. The
embracing of educators’ emotions while engaging in such activities is in itself an exercise in
culturally responsive practices.
46

Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy was defined as one’s beliefs about their ability to organize and complete a
specific task (Bandura, 1997). When there were positive expectations for success, motivation
was also enhanced (Pajares, 2006). Motivational theories related to self-efficacy posited that
effective functioning requires more than the acquisition of knowledge and skills (Bandura,
1997). Simply acquiring knowledge and skills was not a predictor of action; self-efficacy was
needed to apply acquired knowledge and put acquired skills to use (Bandura, 1986; Bandura &
Evans, 2006; Pajares, 2006).
Culturally Responsive Teaching Self-Efficacy
In the context of culturally responsive teaching and learning, it was not enough for
educators to simply acquire knowledge. That is, educators need to develop culturally responsive
self-efficacy, the belief in their ability to organize and execute the practices associated with
culturally responsive teaching (Siwatu, 2007). Siwatu (2011) recognized that in order to become
an effective culturally responsive educator, one needs to not only acquire knowledge related to
culturally responsive teaching, but they need to also have the self-efficacy beliefs to put their
knowledge to use. In particular, Siwatu (2011) argued that teacher educators needed to undertake
the necessary steps to ensure that educators have culturally responsive self-efficacy beliefs to
enact culturally responsive teaching practices.
Culturally Responsive Learning Self-Efficacy
In their Motivational Framework for Culturally Responsive Teaching, Wlodkowski and
Ginsberg (2017) stated that adult learners’ self-efficacy influenced how they engage in culturally
responsive learning environments. They saw competence and self-confidence as mutually
enhancing. In the context of adult learning environments, in order to engender competence in
47

culturally responsive practices, educators themselves needed to experience a culturally
responsive learning environment that built their own sense of self-efficacy (Wlodkowski &
Ginsberg, 2017). Likewise, Wlodkowski and Ginsberg (1995) advocated for culturally
responsive practices that engendered students with the competence and ability to take ownership
of their own learning. Educators needed to ensure that both students and adult learners had the
self-efficacy beliefs to engage successfully in culturally responsive learning activities. Table 3
shows the stakeholders’ influences and the related literature.

Table 3
Summary of Assumed Motivation Influences on Stakeholders’ Ability to Achieve the Performance
Goal
Assumed Motivation Influences Research Literature
Interest
Educators need to have intrinsic
interests and personal relevance
in implementing culturally
responsive practices.
DeCuir & Dixson (2004); Gillborn (2010); Gorski (2019);
Harris (1995); Hayes (2016); Hidi & Harackiewicz (2000);
Kaplan (2012); Ladson-Billings (1998, 2013); Milner
(2007); Schraw & Lehman (2009); Schunk (2020);
Wlodkowski & Ginsberg (2017)
Emotion
Educators need to be
emotionally driven to learn
about and implement culturally
responsive practices.
Baldwin et al. (1961); Dumas (2018); Gulati-Partee &
Potapchuk (2014); Hayes & Juárez (2012); Hidi &
Harackiewicz (2000); hooks (1995); Lorde (1984); Matias
(2016); Pekrun (1992, 2011, 2016); Schraw and Lehman
(2009); Wlodkowski & Ginsberg (2017)
Self-Efficacy
Educators are confident in their
ability to enact culturally
responsive curriculum,
instruction, and assessment
practices.
Bandura, (1986, 1997); Bandura & Evans (2006); Pajares,
(2006); Rueda, (2011); Schunk, (2020); Siwatu, (2007,
2011); Wlodkowski & Ginsberg (2017)

48

Organization
Even with the highest level of knowledge and motivation, stakeholders were not able to
successfully meet performance goals without the alignment of effective organizational work
processes and resources (Clark & Estes, 2008). According to Schein (2004), there were three
deeper levels of culture that include (1) artifacts, (2) espoused beliefs and values, and (3) basic
underlying assumptions. Artifacts refer to structures and processes that can be seen and felt and
also include observable behaviors. Espoused beliefs were the shared ideals, goals, values, and
aspirations within an organization. Oftentimes, there may have been a disconnect between
educators’ espoused values that were communicated but not reflected in observed behavior
(Argyris & Schön, 1974; Schein, 2004). Basic underlying assumptions were the unconscious
beliefs and values that determine behaviors, perceptions, thoughts, and feelings (Schein, 2004).
In this study, the gaps or barriers to implementing culturally responsive practices within the
organization of ANCS focused on resources, policies, processes, procedures, cultural models,
and cultural settings.
Resources
Achieving cultural responsiveness and equity in education necessitated not only an
equitable allocation of resources between schools but also within schools (Brayboy et al., 2007;
Galloway & Ishimaru, 2020). Recognizing that the distribution of resources was intimately
linked to the quality of education students received (Ishimaru & Galloway, 2014; Lynch &
Baker, 2005), allocating resources to culturally responsive education is a means of ensuring
culturally and racially diverse students received a quality education.
Cultural and Social Resources
49

Lynch and Baker (2005) argued that resource equity should not only be conceived in
“economic forms of capital such as income and wealth, but also in forms of social capital like
family social networks and affiliations and in forms of cultural capital such as educational
credentials” (p. 2). To elaborate upon this idea, culturally responsive educators and organizations
needed to also ask themselves, “Whose culture has capital?” (Yosso, 2005). Moll et al. (2006)
argued that culturally and racially diverse learners brought funds of knowledge to the classroom.
That is, culturally responsive educators and organizations needed to also assume a perspective
that people of color were not entirely under-resourced nor at a cultural deficit, but as Yosso
(2005) argued, their cultural and social resources were historically devalued.
Policies, Processes, and Procedures
According to Clark and Estes (2008), effective organizations ensure that organizational
messages, rewards, policies, and procedures that govern the organization’s work were aligned
with or are supportive of organizational goals and values. Galloway and Ishimaru (2020) stated
that such organizational procedures, policies, and processes were often invisible and hidden in
aspects of curricula, pedagogy, and assessment. This potentially ensured that educators would
work together to review, revise, and update current policies, processes, and procedures to
maintain alignment with the organization’s strategic goals.
Procedures, Policies, and Processes in a Racialized Society
To ensure a high-quality education for all students, policies, processes, and procedures
need to counter the root causes of oppression while addressing racial inequities normalized in
organizational and instructional practices (Ishimaru & Galloway, 2014). Lynch and Baker (2005)
called for the adoption of difference-respectful procedures, policies, and processes that
challenged cultural non-recognition and misrepresentation. However, according to Gillborn
50

(2013), there was a marked difference between how traditional mainstream approaches to
education saw policy as a series of incremental steps toward equity, while critical perspectives
viewed it as a process shaped and limited by the dominant white population.
When attempting to bridge the gap between policy and practice in a racialized society,
one might encounter what Delgado and Stefancic (2017) called contradiction-closing cases.
While policy shifts may have appeared to address a gap or fix a barrier to equity, there remained
a shift in name only, as these cases maintained “just the right amount of racism” to protect the
status quo:
Contradiction-closing cases provide the solution when the gap grows too large between,
on one hand, the liberal rhetoric of equal opportunities and, on the other hand, the reality
of racism.
[Contradiction-closing cases] are a little like the thermostat in your home or office. They
assure you that there is just the right amount of racism. Too much would be
destabilizing–the victims would rebel. Too little would forfeit important pecuniary and
psychic advantages for those in power (Delgado & Stefancic, 2017, p. 80).
In cases such as these, Gillborn (2005) argued that “policy assumes and defends White
supremacy through the priorities it sets, the beneficiaries it privileges, and the outcomes that it
produces” (p. 498).
Culturally Responsive Multi-Tiered Systems of Support
Educators can use multi-tiered systems of support to fully embed cultural responsiveness
throughout the processes of an organization and to inform continuous culturally responsive
improvement for the school as a whole (Bornstein, 2021; Goodman-Scott & Betters-Bubon,
2019). Implementing culturally responsive policies and practices needed to be systematically
51

monitored by its educators to ensure it was embedded in all aspects of the organization, including
classrooms (Minkos et al., 2017). Project LEE et al. (2019) offered a framework that
organizations could use to provide multi-tiered systems of support for culturally responsive
learning. Such organizations should have developed policies, processes, and procedures to guide
the systematic implementation of culturally responsive practices.
Cultural Models
Culture is a way to describe the core values, goals, beliefs, emotions, and processes
learned in work environments (Clark & Estes, 2008). And cultural models define for individuals
how the world worked or ought to work, normalizing a particular community’s ideologies,
values, and taken-for-granted assumptions as common-sense reality (Gallimore & Goldenberg,
2001). According to Schein (2004), there were three deeper culture levels: artifacts, espoused
beliefs and values, and basic underlying assumptions. Artifacts referred to structures and
processes that could be seen and felt and included observable behaviors. Espoused beliefs were
the shared ideals, goals, values, and aspirations within an organization. Frequently, there may be
a disconnect between educators’ espoused values that were communicated but not reflected in
observed behavior (Argyris & Schön, 1974; Schein, 2004). Basic underlying assumptions were
the unconscious beliefs and values that determine behaviors, perceptions, thoughts, and feelings
(Schein, 2004).
Since cultural rules and models were defined by those with power (Delpit, 2006),
organizational change can be difficult to manage. In addition, Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001)
explained that cultural models become so normalized that they often become invisible and go
unnoticed by those who subscribe to them. When cultural models are normalized and invisible to
stakeholders in the organization, according to Kegan and Lahey (2009), this could lead to
52

immunity to change, resulting in the inability to unearth and change deep-rooted and often
entrenched assumptions and conflicting commitments. Schein (2004) defined organizational
culture as the accumulated shared learning of that group as it solved its problems of external
adaptation and internal integration, which has worked well enough to be considered valid and,
therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, feel, and behave in
relation to those problems. This accumulated learning was a pattern or system of beliefs, values,
and behavioral norms that came to be taken for granted as basic assumptions and eventually
dropped out of awareness (Schein, 2004).
Achieving cultural responsiveness required organizations to transform both visible and
invisible norms that were aligned with oppressive and exclusionary practices (Galloway &
Ishimaru, 2020). In the same vein, educators needed to be part of an organization whose cultural
models were aligned with cultural responsiveness and the equity-focused theories of change.
Such cultural responsiveness and theories of change focused not only on individuals’ thoughts
and beliefs but also in shifting organizational policies, processes, and procedures (Ishimaru &
Galloway, 2019).
Cultural Settings
Cultural settings were where culture existed and was created when two or more members
of a particular community came together to accomplish an activity they valued (Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2001). In other words, it was when what was valued in a cultural model was
brought to life and put into practice. In the context of educational settings, this would have
involved members of a school community not only stating a commitment to eliminating
exclusionary and marginalizing systems but enacting practices that redressed bias and promoted
cultural responsiveness (Galloway & Ishimaru, 2020). Such settings would have entailed
53

educators implementing practices that promoted values of cultural responsiveness, critical
reflection, inclusivity, and community (Khalifa, 2020; Khalifa et al., 2016).
In expressing the need for culturally responsive teaching, Obiakor and Green (2014)
stated that “schools are not culturally neutral terrains,” and their environments were shaped by
the policies, processes, and values of the dominant culture (p. 6). One way that schools have
been shaped by these policies, practices, and values was through what Bonilla-Silva (2006)
referred to as white habitus, “a racialized, uninterrupted socialization process that conditions and
creates whites’ racial taste, perceptions, feelings, and emotions, and their views on racial
matters” (p. 104). The white habitus helped to explain and unpack how a racial hierarchy could
function as a cultural setting without the awareness that the dominant white racial group was
enacting racism. Disrupting and dismantling culturally unresponsive and oppressive practices
moved beyond stating that these practices existed to “uncover[ing] the places, instances, and
incidents where they happen” (Sondel et al., 2019, p. 6). Still, it was not enough to simply
identify where oppression occurred in schools; culturally responsive leaders needed to transform
school settings into inclusive environments (Khalifa, 2020). Classroom educators needed to also
heed Freire and Macedo’s (2005) call to “become conscious individuals who live part of their
dreams within their educational space” (p. 88). Specifically, “classrooms can be places of hope,
where students and teachers gain glimpses of the kind of society we could live in, and where
students learn the academic and critical skills needed to make it a reality” (Au et al., 2007, p.
217). As bell hooks (1994) stated, education is a practice of freedom; then, educational spaces
needed to also be lab sites of liberation. Table 4 shows the stakeholders’ influences and the
related literature.

54

Table 4
Summary of Assumed Organization Influences on Stakeholders’ Ability to Achieve the
Performance Goal
Assumed Organization Influences Research Literature
Resources
Educators need to be a part of an
organization that purposefully develops
and utilizes resources (time, finances,
staff) to enhance culturally responsive
learning.
Brayboy et al. (2007); Galloway & Ishimaru
(2020); Ishimaru & Galloway (2014); Lynch &
Baker (2005); Moll et al. (2006); Yosso (2005)

Policies, Processes, & Procedures
Educators need to be a part of an
organization that provides multi-tiered
systems of support for culturally
responsive learning.
Goodman-Scott & Betters-Bubon, 2019;
Bornstein (2021); Clark & Estes (2008); Delgado
& Stefancic (2017); Galloway & Ishimaru (2020);
Gillborn (2005, 2013); Ishimaru & Galloway
(2014); Lynch & Baker (2005); Minkos et al.
(2017); Project LEE et al. (2019)
Culture Model
Educators need to be part of an
organization whose ideologies, values,
and assumptions are aligned with cultural
responsiveness and equity-focused
theories of change.
Argyris & Schön (1974); Clark & Estes (2008);
Delpit (2006); Gallimore & Goldenberg (2001);
Galloway & Ishimaru (2020); Ishimaru &
Galloway (2014); Kegan & Lahey (2009); Schein
(2004).
Culture Setting
Educators need to be part of an
organization that implements policies,
processes, and procedures promoting
values of cultural responsiveness, critical
reflection, inclusivity, and community.
Au et al. (2007); Bonilla-Silva (2006); Freire &
Macedo (2005); Gallimore & Goldenberg (2001);
Galloway & Ishimaru (2020); Khalifa (2020);
Khalifa et al. (2016); Obiakor & Green (2014);
Sondel et al., 2019

55

This improvement study utilized the knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO)
influences (Clark & Estes, 2008) to examine the implementation of culturally responsive
practices in school settings. These influences served as the foundation for data collection
described in Chapter Three. The researchers of this study described how they gathered data
related to these factors with critical hope that ANCS educators would continue to improve the
development and implementation of culturally responsive practices in the organization.

56

Chapter Three: Methodology
Through the conceptual framework of an improvement gap analysis, an adaptation of
Clark and Estes’ (2008) framework, the purpose of this study was to examine the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational factors that prevented ANCS educators from bridging the gap
between the policy and practice of culturally responsive pedagogy. The analysis began by
generating a list of possible or assumed influences that were examined systematically and then
focused on validated factors influencing the achievement of the stakeholder goals. After the
current reality of culturally responsive education at ANCS was identified, the analysis found the
factors that created a disconnect between the current reality and the school’s performance goal.
This chapter further outlined the research design and methodology, data collection and
instrumentation, and outlines the data analysis. The questions that guided this gap analysis are
the following:
1. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors that contribute to
educators' successful enactment of culturally responsive practices?
2. What are the recommended knowledge, motivation, and organizational solutions
for supporting culturally responsive educators?
Conceptual and Methodological Framework
This study used Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis model to determine the difference
between preferred and actual performance and the gaps that prevent stakeholders from meeting
the organization’s goals. This process model first identified the organizational and individual
goals of the stakeholders and then uncovered and analyzed the reasons for the performance gaps
that act as barriers between the current and desired performance levels. Once the causes were
determined, the next step was to identify and implement knowledge (K), motivation (M), and
57

organizational (O) performance solutions to close the gaps. As shown in Figure 1, continuously
evaluating the results and revising goals as needed ensures steady performance improvement
(Clark & Estes, 2008).
Adaptation of Gap Analysis Framework as an Improvement Model
Through the conceptual framework of an improvement gap analysis, an adaptation of
Clark and Estes’ (2008) KMO framework, this study identified and investigated the factors that
act as gaps between the goals and current progress of ANCS educators’ practice of culturally
responsive pedagogy. Educators’ knowledge and the motivation to achieve the performance goal
were key influences and would ensure systematic change when aligned with the organizational
culture and setting.

Figure 1
Clark and Estes Gap Analysis Process Framework
58

Assessment of Performance Influences
The literature review in Chapter Two identified the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational (KMO) influences (Clark & Estes, 2008) that may create gaps in ANCS
educators’ implementation of culturally responsive pedagogical practices. Understanding how
educator knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences work together was an important
facet of the larger examination in considering the support educators needed to meet the school’s
performance goal for educators and to implement culturally responsive strategies into the
curriculum, instruction, and assessment practices 100% of the time. This section discussed and
explored the assumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences of ANCS educators
and the possible implications for solutions to enact culturally responsive pedagogical practices.
Knowledge Assessment
The literature review in Chapter Two examined the assumed knowledge influences on
educators’ abilities to utilize culturally responsive pedagogical practices and ensure access and
equity for all learners. Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) recategorized Bloom’s taxonomy of
knowledge necessary for learning into four types: factual, conceptual, procedural, and
metacognitive. According to Clark and Estes (2008), to close stakeholder performance gaps, it
was necessary to understand and assess the categories of knowledge necessary to ensure
organizational performance.
The research was clear that educators’ knowledge and skills, in comparison with other
factors, made the biggest difference in learners’ acquisition of knowledge (Darling-Hammond &
Lieberman, 2012). If educators did not have the knowledge and skills necessary and required
abilities to audit and write curriculum, instruct, and assess learners in a culturally responsive
manner, and if educators did not understand how the sociopolitical relationship between
59

oppression and advantage underpins this practice, they would not be able to successfully
implement this asset-based framework. In addition, educators who did not know how to critically
self-reflect on their knowledge, beliefs, values, assumptions, biases, and experiences related to
improving culturally responsive practices lacked this component for learning and transferring the
knowledge of cultural responsiveness into practice.
The methods of assessment for knowledge were through the use of interviews,
observations, and document analyses. All three methods of assessment addressed the aspects of
factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge. The interviews with educators
assessed the level of knowledge of each stakeholder group. The observations looked for the
behavioural evidence of educators’ knowledge, facts, information, and terminology related to
culturally responsive practices. Document analyses examined curricular documents and artifacts
for evidence of knowledge, facts, information, and terminology related to culturally responsive
curriculum practices. Table 5 presents the assumed influences and the method of assessments for
factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge influences related to this study on
educators’ ability to implement and enact culturally responsive practices at ANCS.

Table 5
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Method of Assessment
Assumed Knowledge
Influences
Interview Items Observation Items Document Items
Factual
Educators need to
know the components
of culturally
responsive
curriculum,
What might it mean
to be a “culturally
responsive” educator?
What do culturally
responsive educators
teach? How do
Observe educators’
behaviors in
professional learning
community settings
for evidence of
knowledge, facts,
Review curricular
documents and
artifacts for evidence
of knowledge, facts,
information, and
terminology related to
60

instruction, and
assessment practices.
culturally responsive
educators teach? How
do culturally
responsive educators
assess students?

information, and
terminology related to
culturally responsive
practices.
culturally responsive
curriculum practices.
Conceptual
Educators need to
know the
sociopolitical
relationship between
oppression and
advantage
underpinning
culturally responsive
practices.
How might racism
influence how
educators at our
school teach, if at all?
How might white
privilege influence
how educators at our
school teach, if at all?

Observe educators’
behaviors in
professional learning
community settings
for evidence of
knowledge related to
the interrelationship
of oppression/
advantage and
educational practices.
Review curriculum
documents and
artifacts for evidence
of knowledge related
to the
interrelationship of
oppression/advantage
and educational
practices.
Procedural
Educators need
knowledge of how to
create and use
culturally responsive
curriculum,
instruction, and
assessment practices.
Could you describe
step-by-step how
would you:
• design a
culturally
responsive lesson
for students?
• teach a culturally
responsive
lesson?
• assess students’
learning in
culturally
responsive
ways?
Looking for evidence
of the steps needed to
enact culturally
responsive practices,
observe educators:
• designing
curriculum in
professional
learning
communities
• facilitating
intended learning
in classroom
settings
• assessing student
learning

Look for evidence of
the steps needed to
enact culturally
responsive practices,
and review
curriculum,
instruction, and
assessment plans.
Metacognitive
Educators need to
know how to
critically self-reflect
on their knowledge,
beliefs, values,
Emergent data Observe educators’
behaviors in
professional learning
community settings
and in the classroom
for evidence and
Review curriculum
documents and
artifacts for evidence
and examples of
educators self-
reflecting on their
61

assumptions, biases,
and experiences
related to improving
culturally responsive
practices.
examples of them
self-reflecting on
their knowledge,
beliefs, values,
assumptions, biases,
and experiences.
knowledge, beliefs,
values, assumptions,
biases, and
experiences.

Motivation Assessment
The literature review in Chapter Two examined the assumed motivational influences on
educators’ ability to utilize culturally responsive practices and ensure access and equity for all
learners. Research has found that motivation was influenced by both internal (beliefs,
perceptions) and external (sociocultural, environmental) factors and was a context-specific drive
that inspired the activation and continuation of goal-directed behavior (Pintrich, 1994; Rueda,
2011; Schunk, 2020).
Although motivation could not be directly observed or measured, and it remained
difficult to assess (Ginsberg, 2015), this lens of understanding remained firmly fixed in place as
the researchers used the methods of interviews, observations, and document analyses to ask and
look for the behavioral measures of motivation. All three methods of assessment addressed the
assumed influences of interest, emotion, and self-efficacy. The interviews with educators
assessed the stakeholders’ motivation to implement culturally responsive practices. The
observations looked for the behavioral evidence of educators’ motivation related to culturally
responsive practices. Document analyses examined curricular documents and artifacts for
evidence of interest, emotional drive, prioritization, and confidence related to culturally
responsive curriculum practices. Table 6 displays the assumed motivational influences of
interest, emotion, and self-efficacy related to this study on educators’ ability to implement and
enact culturally responsive pedagogy at ANCS.
62

Table 6
Summary of Motivation Influences and Method of Assessment
Assumed Motivation
Influences
Interview Items Observation Items Document Items
Interest
Educators need to
have intrinsic
interests and personal
relevance in
implementing
culturally responsive
practices.
How do you feel about
the implementation of
culturally responsive
practices?

Observing behaviors
in classroom and in
professional learning
community settings:
• Do educators
choose to enact
culturally
responsive
curriculum,
instruction, and
assessment
practices?
• Do they persist
in enacting
them?
• Do they invest
mental effort in
enacting them?

As several factors
cause choice,
persistence, and
mental effort,
interviews conducted
pre- and post-
observations will
triangulate data.
Examining the
following curricular
documents and
artifacts to analyze
the extent to which
culturally responsive
practices are
prioritized.
Emotion
Educators need to be
emotionally driven to
learn about and
implement culturally
responsive practices.
What is your emotional
reaction when learning
about and implementing
culturally responsive
practices?
Observation of what
individuals say, as
well as facial and
postural expression in
professional learning
community settings
Examining Faculty
Senate Minutes, an
archive of
questions/feedback/
concerns that are all-
school in nature that
63

when culturally
responsive practices
are introduced and
discussed.

relate to culturally
responsive practices.
Self-Efficacy
Educators need to be
confident in their
ability to enact
culturally responsive
curriculum,
instruction, and
assessment practices.
How do you feel about
your ability to support
the implementation of
culturally responsive
curriculum practices?
How do you feel about
your ability to support
the implementation
of culturally responsive
teaching practices? How
do you feel about your
ability to support the
implementation
of culturally responsive
assessment practices?
Observing behaviors
in the classroom and
in professional
learning community
settings:
• Do educators
choose to enact
culturally
responsive
curriculum,
instruction, and
assessment
practices?
• Do they persist
in enacting
them?
• Do they invest
mental effort in
enacting them?

As several factors
cause choice,
persistence, and
mental effort,
interviews conducted
pre- and post-
observations will
triangulate data.
Examining internal
climate assessment
data that asks
educators and teacher
educators about their
confidence in their
ability to enact
culturally responsive
practices.

64

Organization Assessment
The literature review in Chapter Two examined the assumed organizational influences on
educators’ ability to utilize culturally responsive practices and ensure access and equity for all
learners. Stakeholders with the highest level of knowledge, skills, and motivation would not
successfully meet performance goals without the alignment of effective organizational work
processes and resources (Clark & Estes, 2008). While it was easy to focus on the organization as
an entity, it was important to remember that organizations are composed of people whose
knowledge, skills, and motivation are at the heart of performance (Clark & Estes, 2008). This
means that organizationally, ANCS needed to focus on providing maximum support for
educators’ needs. Gallimore and Goldenberg’s (2001) framework, including cultural models and
cultural settings, explained how achieving cultural responsiveness required organizations to
transform both visible and invisible norms that were aligned with oppressive and exclusionary
practices and create settings to show the value of practices that redressed bias and promoted
cultural responsiveness (Galloway & Ishimaru, 2020).
The methods of assessment for organization influences were employed through the use of
interviews, observations, and document analyses. All three methods of assessment addressed the
organizational components of resources, policies, processes, procedures, cultural models, and
cultural settings. The interviews with educators and observations of meetings and classrooms
inquired into and looked for the stakeholder’s understanding of the organizational components.
In addition, educators had an opportunity to further elaborate on how they understand and see the
alignment of resources, policies, processes, and procedures with the ANCS culture. Document
65

analyses included ANCS’s mission statement, strategic plan, handbooks, websites, curricular
documents, and artifacts showing the time and staff allocated to enhancing culturally responsive
education. Table 7 shows the assumed organization influences of resources, policies, processes,
procedures, cultural models, and cultural settings related to this study on educators’ ability to
implement and enact culturally responsive practices at ANCS.

Table 7
Summary of Organization Influences and Method of Assessment
Assumed
Organization
Influences
Interview Items Observation Items Document Items
Resources
Educators need to be
a part of an
organization that
purposefully develops
and utilizes resources
(time, finances, staff)
to enhance culturally
responsive learning.
What resources might
an educator need to
enact culturally
responsive practices
at ANCS? How well-
resourced do you
think ANCS currently
is in supporting the
implementation of
culturally responsive
practices?
Observe meetings to
determine how much
time is spent on, how
much money is
allocated towards,
and how many staff
members are tasked
with enhancing
culturally responsive
learning.
Review documents
and artifacts showing
the time, finances,
and staff allocated to
enhancing culturally
responsive education.

Policies, Processes, &
Procedures
Educators need to be
a part of an
organization that
provides multi-tiered
systems of support
for culturally
responsive learning.
What systems might
need to be put into
place to enact
culturally responsive
practices at ANCS?
How effective are the
systems currently in
place at ANCS in
supporting the
implementation of
Observe meetings to
determine what
policies, processes,
and/or procedures are
currently operating
that enhance
culturally responsive
learning.
Review documents
and artifacts showing
the systems that
support culturally
responsive learning.
66

culturally responsive
practices? What
policies might
educators need to
implement for ANCS
to live out these
values?
Cultural Model
Educators need to be
part of an
organization whose
ideologies, values,
and assumptions are
aligned with cultural
responsiveness and
equity-focused
theories of change.
What values might a
school need to have
in order to enact
culturally responsive
practices at ANCS?
How aligned are
ANCS’s values to the
ones you just
mentioned?
Observe meetings and
classes to determine
what ideologies,
values, and
assumptions are
aligned with
culturally responsive
learning.
Review ANCS’s
mission, strategic
plan, handbooks,
websites, etc., to
determine what
ideologies, values,
and assumptions are
aligned with
culturally responsive
learning.
Cultural Setting
Educators need to be
situated in an
environment that
promotes the practice
of cultural
responsiveness,
critical reflection,
inclusivity, and
community.
Is the school setting
at ANCS conducive
to culturally
responsive practices?

Observe decision-
making meetings that
reveal how ANCS
implements processes
and procedures to
promote cultural
responsiveness.
Review ANCS’s
policy documents to
determine how ANCS
implements processes
and procedures to
promote cultural
responsiveness.

67

Participating Stakeholders and Sample Selection
The stakeholder group of focus for this study was 29 ANCS educators consisting of 19
classroom educators (inclusive of Spanish classroom educators) and 10 school leaders (inclusive
of instructional leaders and divisional principals). This group participated in semi-structured
interviews, follow-up interviews as needed, and observations when possible.
Sampling
All of the educators who participated in this study were purposefully selected for
interviews. Drawing on Merriam and Tisdell’s (2016) overview of purposive sampling
techniques, the researchers selected a sample they felt the most could be discovered, understood,
and learned about their topic of study. Lochmiller and Lester (2017) also identify purposeful
sampling as an appropriate technique specifically for case study approaches as “they offer useful
manifestations of the phenomenon of interest; sampling, then is aimed at insight about the
phenomenon, not empirical generalization from a sample to a population” (p. 94). As such,
purposeful sampling was most appropriate to the study as the researchers solicited participants
with non-random characteristics who served as classroom educators (inclusive of Spanish
classroom educators) and school leaders (inclusive of instructional leaders and divisional
principals) at the site of the study.
The purposeful sampling of participants was criterion-based (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016)
and included educators chosen for interviews because of their roles as classroom educators and
school leaders. Thus, when selecting individuals for semi-structured interviews, the following
criteria were used:
68

Criterion 1. Participants must include a diverse representation of ANCS educators,
ranging from classroom educators, Spanish educators, instructional leaders, and
divisional principals.
Criterion 2. Participants must include a diverse representation of ANCS school divisions,
representing the elementary, middle, and high schools.
Selection intended to capture perspectives from educators from all divisions, PS-12, and from a
variety of experiences and backgrounds. This approach is supported by Saldaña and Omasta
(2018) who note that “most qualitative research employs purposive sampling, in which
participants are deliberately selected because they are most likely to provide insight into the
phenomenon being investigated due to their position, experience, and/or identity markers” (p.
147). Although the researchers hoped all participants would have worked at ANCS for at least
one year, thereby ensuring they understood the organizational culture (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016),
due to the limitations of the study, the participants represented those who responded to the
recruitment email and were available for interviews.
Recruitment
A stratified recruitment strategy was utilized to achieve representativeness of (a) all
educational roles and (b) all divisions of the school. For the purpose of this study, all educators
were asked, via email, to participate in an interview on a voluntary basis. As noted in Appendix
E, all participants were provided with the information in the IRB approval process.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
Following University of Southern California Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval,
prospective participants were solicited by email, with follow-up emails. The instrumentation
used for this study were interviews, observations, and document analysis. An interview protocol
69

was conducted during the months of October, November, and December 2021, as well as January
2022, to assess the knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences impacting the
implementation and enactment of culturally responsive education at ANCS (see Appendix A). An
observation protocol was also used, requiring detailed field notes of the interviewees’ meetings
and classroom instruction (see Appendix B). Finally, a document collection protocol was used to
gather data and information to triangulate and corroborate findings from interviews and
observations (see Appendix C).
Interviews
Twenty-nine educators were purposefully selected for virtual and in-person interviews
from ANCS. Among the 29 interviewees, 19 were classroom educators (inclusive of Spanish
classroom educators), and 10 included school leaders (inclusive of instructional leaders and
divisional principals). The interviewees represented a diverse cross-section of divisions, subject
areas, and leadership roles in the school. Each interview was audio-recorded, and each interview
lasted for approximately 30-minutes to 1 hour. All interviews were semi-structured and
transcribed for qualitative analysis. Interview information was stored on three password-
protected laptops.
Observations
Following each interview, observational data were collected to gather more evidence of
the KMO influences impacting the culturally responsive educational practices at ANCS. Beyond
what interviewees may say in an interview, Maxwell (2013) stated that observation provides a
lens for learning about the actions and behaviors of individuals in the cultural settings they occur
in. Observations of classroom instruction, classroom walkthroughs, professional learning
community meetings, and school leader meetings provided more evidence of KMO influences
70

impacting culturally responsive education at ANCS. The observation data gathered was analyzed
in concert with the semi-structured interviews and documents.
Document Analysis
Documents were analyzed to provide evidence of knowledge, motivation, and
organizational factors influencing culturally responsive education at ANCS. Bowen (2009) stated
that document analyses allow researchers to seek convergence and corroboration of interview
and observation sources, providing a confluence of evidence that reduces potential research
biases. Access to documents was made available by educators, the Office of Teaching and
Learning, and other sources within the organization. The documents analyzed were curriculum
maps, instructional plans, formative & summative assessment data, the school mission, strategic
plan, handbooks, the school website, feedback forms, and internal survey results. The documents
were triangulated with interviews and observation data to corroborate the findings. Pertinent
documents and artifacts were gathered and analyzed during the months of December 2021 and
January and February 2022.
Data Analysis
Different strategies were used to analyze the interviews, observations, and documents.
Interviews were transcribed and coded according to knowledge, motivation, and organizational
categories. The interview and observation analysis helped to validate and inform possible
improvements and solutions for the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences.
Trustworthiness of Data
In order to maintain the credibility and trustworthiness of this study, it was essential to ensure
that the data collected was credible and accurate. The researchers ensured that the data was
credible and accurate by (1) using triangulation of data between the interviews and observations,
71

(2) assurance of anonymity and confidentiality, and (3) member checks to ensure internal validity
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Role of Investigators
The investigators’ role in this study was to research how to improve the ANCS educators’
implementation and continued use of culturally responsive practices. This role also included
ensuring that no participant felt coerced or pressured to participate in the study. The researchers
ensured that several steps were taken before and after the study to preserve the anonymity of all
the participants. In addition, the researchers ensured that the voluntary nature of participation and
the right to not participate in the study was clearly understood. The researchers ensured
confidentiality of all information from the interviews and observations and obtained permission
to use documentation or data that was produced at ANCS for other institutional purposes.

72

Chapter Four: Results and Findings
The purpose of this chapter is to report the findings from the gap analysis study that
examined the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that prevented Anglia Naxos
Community School (a pseudonym; ANCS) educators from bridging the gap between the policy
and practice of culturally responsive pedagogy (CRP). Qualitative data were collected through
interviews, observations, and document analyses to better understand the knowledge and skills of
educators at the ANCS, their motivational factors, and the existing organizational influences that
impact the use of culturally responsive practices. No surveys were conducted for this study.
Interviews were conducted first and data were analyzed to understand educators’ assets
and needs in each of these areas. Observation and data analysis followed with the goal of
substantiating the findings through a triangulation of data on each influence, revealing
disagreement or convergence with the interview data. For the areas of need, evidence-based
recommendations for practice are provided in Chapter 5. The questions that guided this gap
analysis are:
1. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors that contribute to
educators’ successful enactment of culturally responsive behaviors?
2. What are the recommended knowledge, motivation, and organizational solutions
for supporting culturally responsive educators?
This chapter addresses the first research question that guided this study and is organized
into three sections, which delineate the findings by assumed knowledge and skills, motivation,
and organizational influences on culturally responsive practices. This study examined 11
assumed influences including a) the factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive
knowledge and skills needed to enact culturally responsive practices, b) the interest, emotion,
and self-efficacy motivation influences needed to implement culturally responsive practices, and
73

c) the resources, policies, processes, and procedures, and cultural model and setting
organizational influences needed for educators to enact culturally responsive practices across
divisions and within an international school.
Participating Stakeholders
The stakeholders taking part in this study were 11 classroom educators employed and
working at ANCS in the elementary, middle, and high school divisions. Out of 404 classroom
educators, 31 expressed interest and 11 signed up and took part in the interviews. Out of the 11
classroom educators, two reported 30+ years of teaching experience, three reported 20+ years of
teaching experience, four reported 10-19 years of teaching experience, and two reported less than
10 years of teaching experience. Three had worked for ANCS for 10 or more years, three had
worked for ANCS for five to nine years, and five had worked at ANCS for less than five years.
Below, Table 8 displays the interview participants. To maintain confidentiality,
pseudonyms have been assigned to each interviewee by order of interview, and they will be
referenced in the analysis in this chapter. To ensure stakeholder anonymity, the specific
demographic identifiers of ethnicity and gender will not be addressed.

Table 8
Demographic Information of Classroom Educator Research Participants (N=11)
Division at ANCS Pseudonym
Elementary School Participant 4
Elementary School Participant 5
Elementary School Participant 9
Elementary School Participant 11
74

Middle School Participant 1
Middle School Participant 2
Middle School Participant 3
Middle School Participant 6
Middle School Participant 8
Middle School Participant 10
High School Participant 7

Following interviews, eight interviewees were contacted and agreed to have their
leadership practices observed. One out of eight participants was not observed due to time
constraints. Table 9 displays the demographic information of participants who were observed.
Relevant documents/artifacts were also analyzed to gain deeper insight into each of the 10
research participants’ leadership practices and the organization’s support of culturally responsive
school leadership at large.

Table 9
Demographic Information of Observed Research Participants (N= 3)
Division at ANCS Pseudonym
Middle School Participant 1
Middle School Participant 2
Middle School Participant 3

75

Determination of Assets and Needs
This study used three sources of qualitative data. With a focus on implementing culturally
responsive practices at ANCS, interviews, observations, and documents were analyzed to
determine whether the KMO influences identified in Chapter 3 were assets or needs. In
determining whether the influence was an asset or a need, the researcher used a threshold of 80%
correct response rate and agreement among participants. At ANCS, the school uses universal
screening tools to assess the effectiveness of school-wide supports. When approximately 80% of
student learners show understanding, it reveals the effective implementation of educational
supports schoolwide. However, when less than 80% of student learners show proficiency, it
reveals needs in school wide support.
The same framework can be applied to the improvement analysis: 80% of research
participants should demonstrate proficiency in culturally responsive practices. In other words,
approximately 80% of research participants should demonstrate proficiency if an assumed
influence is to be determined as an asset at ANCS. If the percentage of participants is lower than
80%, assumed influences can be deemed as a need and ANCS must put the organizational
structures in place to improve culturally responsive practices at ANCS. To increase credibility,
the researcher used triangulation through multiple data collection methods in order to answer the
research questions during the interview, observations, and document analysis process. (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016).
Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes
In order to meet the goal of closing the gap in enacting culturally responsive practices,
ANCS classroom educators need to examine their knowledge and skills. The results are
presented for each assumed cause within the categories of declarative factual knowledge,
76

conceptual knowledge, procedural knowledge, and metacognitive knowledge (Anderson &
Krathwohl, 2001) and are used to assess whether an assumed influence should be considered as
an asset or a need. Each of the four knowledge types is individually analyzed by assumed
influence and is reported within each separate knowledge area.
Factual Knowledge Influence
Classroom educators need to know the components of culturally responsive curriculum,
instruction, and assessment practices.
Interview Findings
This assumed influence was determined to be both a need and an asset, as the assessment
revealed uneven data by school division. Participants were asked, “What might it mean to be a
culturally responsive educator?” Responses from the elementary school classroom educators
interviewed showed that although 75% knew the components of culturally responsive pedagogy,
since this stakeholder group did not meet the threshold of 80%, this assumed influence was a
need in this division. From the elementary division, Participant 4 said that,
A culturally responsive educator is someone who knows…what their students’ value,
know what kinds of beliefs are important to their students, and they just make sure that
their students know that they are an important member of the community in their classes
because that makes students feel safe.
Similarly, Participant 11 answered that culturally responsive education includes
“understanding the funds of knowledge that my kids come to the classroom with and also being
responsive and receptive to when kids need certain things.” However, Participant 9 was not able
to communicate the components of culturally responsive practices. Their answer showed no
77

resistance to enacting culturally responsive practices, but more of an uncertainty that their
actions may create a negative result or unintentionally harm their students.
It was clear through the interviews that 100% of middle and high school educators
interviewed knew the components of culturally responsive pedagogy. All participants but one
could answer this question stating that being a culturally responsive educator means knowing
students well, including their backgrounds, strengths, and needs and not valuing one culture over
others while still prioritizing students’ cultural expression before, during, and after planning
curriculum, teaching, and assessing. In the Middle School division, Participant 2 said that
educators know “all the backgrounds of the kids in your class and then being able to tailor a
lesson, so that everybody then feels included--and that you’re maybe giving more than one
perspective.” Participant 3 explained that when enacting culturally responsive practices, “not
assuming my culture applies across the board, that could mean finding ways for them (students)
to express and incorporate their culture and the things that they’re doing it means for them to.” In
the High School division, Participant 7 talked about valuing the cultures and experiences the
students walk into the classroom with, being able to understand the world the students are
actually living in and recognizing that they know a lot of things that I don’t understand actually
and involving and engaging them in the process of figuring that out and answering some of those
questions.
As the responses from the elementary school classroom educators did not meet the
threshold of 80%, this assumed influence was not supported as an asset and determined to be a
need. However, since 100% of interviewed participants from the middle and high school could
show factual knowledge of culturally responsive practices, this assumed influence was
determined to be an asset.
78

Observation
No observations were conducted for this influence.
Document Analysis
The document examined to support this influence and used evidence to assess classroom
educators’ factual knowledge was an exit ticket from a professional development session focused
on Understanding Culturally Responsive Curriculum Design, Analyzing & Evaluating Culturally
Responsive Curriculum Design, and Re-designing Lessons/Units to Be More Culturally
Responsive. After the session, the exit ticket asked professional learning communities (PLC) to
give a definition of culturally responsive pedagogy (CRP). An analysis of the document showed
that the elementary classroom educators’ and the middle school classroom educators’ PLCs
could define CRP, providing evidence of knowledge, facts, information, and terminology related
to culturally responsive practices and showing this influence as an asset. The high school
classroom educator’s PLC could not define CRP, showing this influence as a need.
Incongruent with previous data in the elementary school division, the PLC of Participant
9, who could not give a definition of CRP in the interview, could define culturally responsive
education. In addition, in the high school division, Participant 7 could define CRP in the
interview. However, the exit ticket showed that the PLC of Participant 7 did not share this
knowledge and answered, “We unanimously agreed that we did not yet feel comfortable or
prepared to create our own definition of this practice.”
Summary
The assumed influence that classroom educators know the components of culturally
responsive practices was supported by interview responses and document analysis. Although
there was a discrepancy in two of the interview answers and the document analysis of the PLC
79

definitions of CRP, 90% of the elementary school, middle school, and high school classroom
educator participants, whether alone in an interview or within a PLC, were able to show an
understanding of the components of culturally responsive curriculum, instruction, and
assessment practices. The combined data from interview responses and the document analysis
support the determination that this factual knowledge assumed influence was an asset at ANCS
overall.
Conceptual Knowledge Influence
Classroom educators need to know the sociopolitical relationship of oppression and
advantage underpinning culturally responsive practices.
Interview Findings
This assumed influence was determined to be an asset. Participants were asked two
separate questions to establish knowledge related to the interrelationship between
oppression/advantage and educational practice. The first question asked how racism might
influence educators’ practices, if at all. Of the eight out of eleven elementary, middle, and high
school participants who responded to this question, 100% reported that racism influences how
educators teach at the school. In addition, all participants talked about the role of bias in
educational practice.
In the elementary division, Participant 5 spoke about the reasons racism persists on a
personal level, that “there is an avoidance of tough topics, and I think people are not so much
being racist per se but it’s, ‘what if I say the wrong thing?’ or ‘what if I didn’t do a good job on
this?’ kind of thing, and so it becomes racism by avoidance.” Participant 4 communicated that
their colleagues know what to change and how to change but that the stimulus to change, rooted
squarely in the collectivist PLC structure, de-incentivizes movement to anti-racist pedagogy.
80

Participant 9 talked about the inherent tensions of being situated in an environment that did not
provide cultural equity among all stakeholders while being asked to teach students to value all
cultures.
In the middle school division, Participant 2 talked about the effects of systemic racism on
educators’ practices,
Even if they didn’t mean for it to, I do think that is something that could derail
our whole process of trying to create culturally inclusive, culturally responsive
classrooms, because if you’re holding on to those biases, then you can’t truly be
culturally responsive.
Participant 3 stated that,
We all enact it all the time, and not just racism but many, many different forms of
prejudice, active discrimination, you name it. So there is nothing that racism does not
influence; it always does; it’s just a question of how much we’re aware of it, how much
we’re working against it, whether we’re whether we are victims of it or not, as a variable.
In the high school division, when Participant 7 processed this question, at first they
seemed to consider it might be more of the ANCS stakeholders’ lack of awareness or a blindness
to racism. However, by the end of their answer, this classroom educator recalled that,
yesterday, somebody told me a story about two brothers reenacting the whole chokehold,
choking out in front of a Black kid in the bathroom. Like very deliberately acting it out in
front of him like they thought it was a joke.
The second question asked how white privilege might influence how educators at our
school teach, if at all. Of the 9 out of 11 elementary, middle, and high school participants who
responded to this question, 100% reported that white privilege influences how educators teach at
81

the school. All participants spoke about how bias masks white privilege at ANCS. In addition, all
participants connected how the organizational culture and structures in the policies and practices
at ANCS uphold white privilege.
In the elementary division, Participant 5 explained that “white privilege is just something
that, as a white person, I need to be aware of. And I think it does influence the way we teach; it
influences everything.” Participant 2 said,
when the administration is making policies, they might get pushed in a particular way,
simply because of the parents that we are, I guess, trying to cater to. So, I think that it’s
(white privilege) obviously going to make a difference in the classroom.
Participant 4 stated, “I think that white educators are at more of an advantage for
positions of leadership than BIPOC folks are. And that comes with white privilege.” In the
middle school division, Participant 1 stated, “Just like most institutions, ANCS was built on a
foundation of white privilege, therefore it’s not surprising that this has permeated our daily
practices today, even if we are not consciously aware of it.” When asked if they could give an
example, they replied, “How have I seen white privilege play out at ANCS? One way is a
general acceptance of inequitable practices because that’s the way it’s always been.” Participant
10 stated, “we are absolutely blinded to the impact that white culture and white supremacy
culture has on us, because we can't even see it.”
Several middle school divisional participants answered that white privilege also affects
students. As Participant 1 explained,
ANCS educators expect students to fit into a certain kind of box in terms of how they
learn, and how they show that learning. This narrow definition of what it means to be a
good student arises from their own experiences and background. And since most of our
82

faculty is white, this means that students that don’t fit into this particular mold are at a
disadvantage.
In the high school division, Participant 7 talked about how power at ANCS is leveraged
to uphold systems of oppression. They explained, “Because why would they (white men in
power) want anything to change if they’ve got control over everything? And they’ve got all the
coaching positions and they’re the ones whose voices are listened to.”
Since 100% of interviewed participants could show conceptual knowledge of the
sociopolitical relationship of oppression and advantage underpinning culturally responsive
practices, this assumed influence was determined to be an asset.
Observation
No observations were conducted for this influence.
Document Analysis
This assumed influence was determined to be an asset. The documents examined to
support this influence were materials created by the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)
Planning Committee for professional development workshop sessions. DEI workshops were
offered to all teachers at self-identified introductory, intermediate, and advanced levels of
understanding about race in America. The seven sessions included “The Origins of Race in
USA,” “Defining Racism and its Key Concepts,” “Racial Microaggressions & Implicit Bias,”
“White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack,” “Understanding Covert White Supremacy
and its Antidotes,” “The Abolition of White Supremacy,” and “Navigating Issues of Race &
Racism as a Person of Color in a PWI”. Every participant attended two sessions except for
Participant 11, who was not employed by SAS at this time. Each offering focused on increasing
the participants’ conceptual knowledge of the concepts of racism and white privilege. This
83

analysis is congruent with the data from the interviews as 100% of interviewed participants could
show conceptual knowledge of culturally responsive practice and the workshop sessions may be
a reason for this knowledge asset.
A second document examined to support this influence was the school’s strategic plan.
The plan stated that “teachers will draw on students’ and their own cultures, identities, and
backgrounds to shape curriculum, instruction, and assessment so that students feel confident in
addressing historical and present-day issues of racism and other forms of discrimination.”
Document analysis showed that racism and white privilege inform participants’ teaching
practices and that the strategic plan acknowledged the need to strengthen classroom educators’
conceptual knowledge about culturally responsive practices. Based on the document analysis,
this assumed influence was determined to be an asset.
Summary
The assumed influence that classroom educators have conceptual knowledge about the
sociopolitical relationship between oppression, advantage, and their educational practices was
supported as an asset. In the interview, 100% of participants could show conceptual knowledge
of the sociopolitical relationship of oppression and advantage underpinning culturally responsive
practices. The data analyses revealed congruence with the data from the interviews. The
combined data from interview responses and the document analysis showed that racism and
white privilege inform participants’ teaching practices. Therefore, this assumed influence was
determined to be an asset.
Procedural Knowledge Influence

Classroom educators need knowledge of how to create and use culturally responsive
curriculum, instruction, and assessment practices.
84

Interview findings
This assumed influence was determined to be a need. Participants were asked to describe
step-by-step how they would design lessons, teach lessons, and assess students’ learning through
a culturally responsive lens. The first question asked if the participants could describe, step-by-
step, how they would design a culturally responsive lesson for students.
Of the three (out of four) elementary school classroom educators that responded to this
question, 67% showed that they were able to procedurally describe culturally responsive lesson
design. Two participants talked about the first steps, including centering their students while
lesson planning. Participant 4 explained that they “think of ways to incorporate the students and
the things that the students are into my lessons.” Participant 11 recounted a recent example of
culturally responsive lesson planning that included,
Understanding where my kids were at, what they needed, and what they were passionate
about, what was relevant to them, rather than talking about. . .something where my kids
wouldn’t have an investment, wouldn’t feel like they had a place in that curriculum,
wouldn’t feel like that was like a window or a mirror to them too.
Participant 5 talked about bringing perspectives into the curriculum but did not show
procedural knowledge about how to plan lessons through a culturally responsive lens.
In the middle school division, all six classroom educators answered this question and
33% could describe, step-by-step, how they would design a culturally responsive lesson for
students. Participant 1 described their process of connecting and relating the course content to
the students and gave specific examples of planning the use of materials, instructional strategies,
activities to align with students’ strengths and interests, groupings, and ways to check for
understanding. They said, “One way that I try to design a more culturally responsive lesson is
85

where I’m not the center of it, and where it’s more of the students that are being centered and the
ones that are driving what we’re doing.” In the high school division, 0% could describe, step-by-
step, how to design a culturally responsive lesson for students. Participant 7 said, “I mean it’s all
kind of new to me, so I mean I, in some ways I think I’ve always thought this way. But habits
named so clearly are somewhat new still. . .But I don’t think I have all the answers.”
The second question asked if the participants could describe, step-by-step, how they
would teach a culturally responsive lesson for students. Of the two (out of four) elementary
school classroom educators that responded to this question, 50% showed that they were able to
procedurally describe how to teach a culturally responsive lesson. Participant 11 could describe
seven distinct steps to teaching a lesson, from student engagement in the beginning of the lesson
to sharing time at the end to gauge student learning. Participant 5 talked about the benefits of a
culturally responsive mathematics lesson but did not delineate a step-by-step process of
instructional choices.
In the middle school division, four classroom educators (out of six) answered this
question and 25% could describe, step-by-step, how they would design a culturally responsive
lesson for students. Participant 1 explained the nine steps they follow when delivering a lesson,
including an entry ticket to draw on students’ prior knowledge, a collaborative think-pair-share,
and choosing “student work that highlights different approaches so that students see there are
multiple ways to solve problems, centering their knowledge and understanding” before moving
through the lesson and ending with an exit ticket to help find out students who need individual of
small-group support the following class. The other three participants could not show procedural
knowledge. Participant 2 responded, “I think although I have a general knowledge of what I
86

could do and how I could do it, I think that it would be helpful to have more professional
development. . .” Participant 3 stated,
I need to be more culturally responsive now. It’s just a little bit haphazard there. But
when you talk about procedure, there wasn’t a lot of procedure there, so I guess that’s
kind of the heart of it. When it comes to CRP I do it with my feelings, not with my
procedural brain.
In the high school division, 0% could describe, step-by-step, how to design a culturally
responsive lesson for students. Participant 7 said that they could not answer the question.
The third question asked if the participants could describe, step-by-step, how they would
assess student learning in a culturally responsive way. Of the two elementary division classroom
educators (out of four) that answered this question, 0% were able to procedurally describe how to
enact and use culturally responsive assessment practices. Participant 11 said,
I think that’s my biggest growth area. I truly am having--I have a very hard time finding
assessments that are culturally responsive. I think, you know, things like portfolio
assessment or things like where students are able to perform also come with an area of
subjectivity and knowing that the biases that I come into the classroom with, it’s
incredibly difficult, I think, for me to use the standards-based grading and use kind of
these rubrics that we’ve been giving, but also allow students to to express themselves in
the way that they should be able to in the classroom.
Participant 5 responded, “Yeah, how am I going to assess that, and how do I know that I
have achieved that? Also, because we have so many initiatives, I feel like, ‘Okay I don’t know
how to prioritize.”
87

Of the four (out of six) middle school classroom educators to answer this question, 25%
of participants could show procedural knowledge of how to assess student learning in a culturally
responsive manner. Participant 1 stated,
I think one of the things we do that might kind of fall under culturally responsive, is
realizing that students don’t all learn at the same pace--and we (classroom educators)
understand that and allow for multiple reassessment opportunities. And time for that if
students don’t have a particular standard mastered or figured out right away that they can-
-they know that they’ll have more opportunities--and when they reassess we just choose
the things that they show that they don’t have all totally figured out the first time.
Three of the middle school participants interviewed were unable to show knowledge of
how to assess student learning in culturally responsive ways. Participant 2 said, “I think,
although I think I have a general knowledge of what I could do and how I could do it, and I think
that it would be helpful to have more professional development.” Participant 3 talked about how
they are frustrated that PLC structure creates a “locked arc” and inhibits culturally responsive
assessment practices. In the high school division, 0% could describe, step-by-step, how to assess
student learning in a culturally responsive way. Participant 7 could not answer the question.
As the interview responses for the three questions asking for evidence of procedural
knowledge about culturally responsive lesson design, instruction, and assessment did not meet
the threshold of 80%, this assumed influence was not supported as an asset and was determined
to be a need.
Observation
Two professional learning community meetings and two classroom observations were
observed in order to assess classroom educators’ procedural knowledge of culturally responsive
88

curriculum, instruction, and assessment practices. All of the observations took place in the
middle school division. Participant 3 was one out of the three classroom educators observed in
the PLC meetings who showed evidence of procedural knowledge of culturally responsive
pedagogy by drawing on students’ culture to shape curriculum, instruction, and assessment. In
the two classroom observations, while Participant 1 utilized components of culturally responsive
practices to ensure student learning, Participant 2 did not show evidence of using culturally
responsive practices. Observational data on Participant 1 included field notes about how this
classroom educator built on prior knowledge by recognizing students’ experience and expertise.
An example of this is this educator’s use of entry tickets and a pre-assessment to gauge student
schema for the content. In addition, Participant 1 used materials and teaching activities from
various identity groups, and provided opportunities for students to show their learning in non-
traditional ways. They connected content to ensure it was relatable to students, showed evidence
of students working in collaborative groups to share and build collective knowledge, and used
technology tools to ensure real-world application. This data aligns with the interview data when
Participant 1 was asked to describe, step-by-step, how they would design a culturally responsive
lesson for students and said,
How I look at it: part of it is the content and part of it is the delivery of the content. When
it's possible to bring in content that is something the students can relate to, whenever
that's possible, I think that's always the best…it's typically working in collaborative
groups. . .So this can be done in a variety of ways-- like a lot of times with technology…I
really try to minimize how much direct instruction I'm giving…So they see that
knowledge isn’t coming from the teacher--it’s coming from their friends and someone
that’s sitting next to them.
89

Since 50% were able to demonstrate procedural knowledge to create and use culturally
responsive curriculum, instruction, and assessment practices, the observation data were not
supported as an asset and determined to be a need.
Document Analysis
No documentary evidence was analyzed for this influence.
Summary
The assumed influence that classroom educators have the procedural knowledge to
create and use culturally responsive curriculum, instruction, and assessment practices was not
supported by the interview and observation. Based on the responses gathered in the interviews
and the observations, this area was not supported as an asset and was determined to be a need for
this assumed influence.
Metacognitive Knowledge Influence
Classroom educators need to know how to critically self-reflect on their knowledge,
beliefs, values, assumptions, biases, and experiences related to improving culturally responsive
practices.
Interview Findings
This assumed influence was determined to be an asset. While participants were not
directly asked how classroom educators might critically reflect on their beliefs, values,
assumptions, biases, and experiences, evidence of participants’ metacognitive knowledge
emerged without prompting while responding to interview questions about other assumed
knowledge influences. In the elementary school division, 100% of all four of the classroom
educator participants mentioned it was important to realize and recognize how biases affect the
enactment of culturally responsive practices at ANCS. Participant 11 shared the metacognitive
90

practice after teaching a lesson, of “reflecting, talking about it with other teachers who are doing
the same curriculum, making sure that I’m constantly checking my own biases, checking my
own approaches to the classroom and how I can best support my students.”
Of the four (out of six) middle school classroom educators to answer this question, 100%
showed an understanding of how to critically self-reflect on their knowledge, beliefs, values,
assumptions, biases, and experiences related to improving culturally responsive practices.
Participant 10 connected reflective practice with improvement, stating “culturally
responsive teaching engenders those ideals in the end. It’s about: how do we get better? The only
way you’re going to do it is if you examine your own practice and come at it with humility and
curiosity.” Participant 3 shared that some recent developments in their practice include
“noticing, reflecting on many mistakes in the moment and apologizing at the moment, and just
making that really transparent with kids and calling myself out when I go wrong.” In the high
school division, Participant 7 critically self-reflected on their knowledge, beliefs, and biases
related to improving culturally responsive practices. Since 100% of the interviewed participants,
whose understanding emerged while responding to interview questions about other assumed
influences, could show metacognitive knowledge of how to critically self-reflect on their
knowledge, beliefs, values, assumptions, biases, and experiences related to improving culturally
responsive practices, this assumed influence was determined to be an asset.
Observation
No observations were conducted for this influence.
Document Analysis
Documentary evidence provided examples of how ANCS educators engaged in collective
reflection within professional learning communities. Evidence of PLC reflections after
91

professional development sessions reveals evidence of personal and collective beliefs, values,
assumptions, biases, and experiences. Therefore, document analyses further substantiated the
congruence and revealed that this assumed influence is an asset across all divisions.
Summary
The assumed influence is that classroom educators have the metacognitive knowledge to
know how to critically self-reflect on their knowledge, beliefs, values, assumptions, biases, and
experiences related to improving culturally responsive practices. Emerging organically in
interview responses, classroom educators showed they know how to engage in critical self-
reflection. Document analyses confirmed this assumed influence to be an asset.
Results and Findings for Motivation Causes
Classroom educators’ assumed motivation influences were assessed through interview
and document data analysis. The methods of assessment addressed the assumed influences of
interest (Schraw & Lehman, 2009), emotion (Pekrun, 2011), and self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997;
Pajares, 2006). The interviews with classroom educators assessed the participants’ motivation to
implement culturally responsive practices. Document analyses examined curricular documents
and artifacts for evidence of interest, emotion, and self-efficacy related to educators’ motivation
to enact culturally responsive curriculum practices at ANCS.
Interest Influence
Classroom educators need to have intrinsic interests and personal relevance in
implementing culturally responsive practices.
Interview Findings
This assumed influence was determined to be an asset. Participants were asked how they
felt about implementing culturally responsive practices to assess intrinsic interests and personal
92

relevance and value. Several themes emerged from the interview analysis, including classroom
educators feeling interested in enacting culturally responsive practices because of wanting to
improve practice, being highly motivated to meet the needs of their students, and feeling like it is
engaging, empowering work.
In the elementary school division, Participants 5 and 11 said that they felt interested and
highly motivated to enact culturally responsive practices. Participant 9 connected interest to
confidence and stated, “I find I feel very empowered doing that kind of work. I think it’s super,
super interesting.” In the middle school division, Participant 1 stated,
Being more culturally responsive interests me because I realize to be the most effective
teacher I can be, to a diverse student population, I need to use what they know and bring
to the classroom as learners and creators of knowledge, not just passive recipients.
Connecting their interest to the importance of culturally responsive practices, Participant
8 said, “So, if you really look deep into it, it’s quite complex what we’re trying to do, and yet I
feel like it’s actually really important to do what I do every day, absolutely.” In the high school
division, Participant 7 reported value in enacting culturally responsive practices, “I find I feel
very empowered doing that kind of work. I think that’s super, super interesting.”
Since 100% of interviewed participants could show intrinsic interest and personal
relevance in implementing culturally responsive practices, this assumed influence was
determined to be an asset.
Observation
No observations were conducted for this influence.
93

Document Analysis
Documentary evidence was an exit ticket survey given after a professional development
session on culturally responsive practices that asked participants to rate their interest pertaining
to culturally responsive teaching on a scale of not important, of little importance, of average
importance, and very important. The first question asked, “How important do you believe
culturally responsive teaching is to what you teach students?” The mean of the response for the
category of very important was 83%. However, looking more closely at the data reveals that the
elementary school at 86% and the middle school at 87% show this influence as an asset, while
the high school’s response of 78% reveals this influence as a need. The second question, “How
important do you believe culturally responsive teaching is to how you teach students?” showed a
mean of 91% in all divisions, including 92% in the elementary school division, 94% in the
middle school division, and 88% in the high school division, showing this influence as an asset.
The third question asked, “How important do you believe culturally responsive teaching
is to how you assess student learning?” 68% of the elementary school classroom educators, 66%
of middle school classroom educators, and 69% of the high school classroom educators self-
reported that they felt it was very important. This section of the document analysis provided
evidence of the agreement between the data from the procedural knowledge assumed influence
of being able to enact and use culturally responsive assessment practices and the interest of
assessing student learning in a culturally responsive way. The assumed influence of elementary,
middle, and high school classroom educators’ interest in culturally responsive assessments is a
need.
94

Summary
The assumed influence that classroom educators have intrinsic interests and personal
relevance in implementing culturally responsive practices was supported above the 80%
threshold for the interview question, indicating that this is an interest in classroom educators. For
the elementary and middle school divisions, the document analysis correlated with the interview
data that showed participants are highly motivated to enact culturally responsive practices to
meet the needs of their students shown in the interest in what and how they teach. The high
school division showed a misalignment in the interview responses and the exit ticket survey
responses about the interest in what they teach and how they enact culturally responsive
practices. All divisions showed incongruence between the interview question and the exit ticket
survey responses about classroom educators’ interest in assessing student learning in a culturally
responsive way. However, this triangulation of data does support the findings from procedural
knowledge indicating a need to learn about how to assess students’ learning in culturally
responsive ways.
Based on the responses gathered in the interviews and the documentary evidence, this
area was supported as a need for this assumed influence.
Emotion Influence
Classroom educators need to be emotionally driven to learn about and implement
culturally responsive practices.
Interview Findings
This assumed influence was determined to be an asset. While participants were not
directly asked to describe their emotional drive to learn about and implement culturally
responsive practices, evidence of participants’ affect and emotions emerged while responding to
95

interview questions about other assumed influences. Several themes emerged from the interview
analysis, including classroom educators’ excitement because ANCS’ strategic plan aligned with
their own values in practice.
All four of the elementary classroom educators could communicate how they are driven
by their emotions to learn about and enact culturally responsive practices. Participant 4 reflected,
“I remember when our school first started talking about these things (culturally responsive
practices) and being really excited because that’s what I have been doing from day one, as an
educator.” Participant 5 connected prior learning experiences to their current reality when they
communicated, “I actually feel really excited about it because in my old school prior to ANCS, I
saw the benefit of when I did that well and the engagement of the kids and also how they felt
when they felt represented within our classroom community.” Centering students is highly
motivating to Participant 11 who said,
I am highly motivated to do it (enact culturally responsive practices), and I think that
understanding my own identities and where I came from—I just know how much
confidence, and a sense of belonging students get when they feel like they have a place
that they’re seen.
In the middle school division, Participant 10 reported the emotion of curiosity when
thinking about implementing culturally responsive practices. Besides being motivated by
curiosity, they said, “I don’t feel intimidated or hesitant or feel like somebody is trying to push
an agenda.” Participant 6 explained,
I’m excited (to enact culturally responsive practices) because, as somebody who is a
member of the dominant culture, I don’t know if that’s the right word to use, the majority
culture, it’s maybe the first time I’ve been asked as a teacher to start looking outside of
96

that. It’s an opportunity to learn about my personal biases and gaps, like blind spots,
which I have many.
In the high school division, Participant 7 spoke about enjoying and being fascinated with
learning about and trying out culturally responsive practices in their classroom.
Since over 80% of interviewed participants could show that they were emotionally driven
to learn about and implement culturally responsive practices, this assumed influence was
determined to be an asset.
Observation
No observations were conducted for this influence.
Document Analysis
The first piece of documentary evidence provided examples of ANCS educators’
emotions relevant to the schoolwide implementation of culturally responsive practices. Six
Faculty Senate meeting minutes over two years, 2020-2022, reveal activating patterns of
stakeholder emotions ranging from gratitude and excitement to anger and confusion. In addition,
the document analysis showcased stakeholder emotions connected to morale, such as
satisfaction, optimism, hope, and happiness. A second piece of documentary evidence was an
exit ticket from a culturally responsive education in-service of two sessions, including Exploring
the What of Culturally Responsive Teaching and Exploring How to Implement Culturally
Responsive Teaching. This document showed evidence of a range of activating patterns of
stakeholder emotions, such as feeling excited, interested, inspired, and challenged to emotions
such as feeling overwhelmed, challenged (with the outcome of fatigue), confused, and
intimidated.
97

Summary
The assumed influence is that classroom educators need to be emotionally driven to enact
and use culturally responsive assessment practices. Emerging organically in interview responses,
classroom educators demonstrated they are driven by a variety of emotions, not limited to anger,
that could motivate educators to learn about and implement culturally responsive practices. The
document analysis provided evidence of the agreement with the emergent data from the
interviews. The assumed influence that classroom educators need to be emotionally driven to
learn about and implement culturally responsive practices is an asset.
Self-Efficacy Influence
Classroom educators need to be confident in their ability to enact culturally responsive
curriculum, instruction, and assessment practices.
Interview Findings
This assumed influence was determined to be a need. While participants were not directly
asked to describe how they felt about their ability to enact culturally responsive curriculum,
teaching, and assessment practices, evidence of participants’ self-efficacy beliefs emerged while
responding to interview questions about other assumed influences.
In the elementary school division, 100% of the participants communicated low self-
efficacy beliefs; this is shown in self-confidence and cultural competence. Participant 4 stated, “I
do not claim to be an expert on anything. I definitely have areas of improvement and growth that
I need in my own journey as a culturally responsive educator.” In the interview, Participant 9
talked about being unsure of how to enact culturally responsive instruction and assessment
practices. They said, “we’re not really sure if this was the right strategy, because we just figured
like, ‘Okay if we just do this, maybe we will achieve a negative result?’”
98

Of the five (out of six) middle school classroom educators to answer this question, 60%
of the participants communicated high self-efficacy beliefs. 40% of this stakeholder group
communicated low self-efficacy beliefs shown in their responses about self-confidence and
cultural competence. Participant 1 communicated their beliefs about their ability to enact
curriculum and instruction, stating, “I think I probably feel better about the teaching practices,
but I don’t feel as strongly about my ability to create a culturally responsive curriculum.” They
also talked about their self-confidence about choosing and using culturally responsive
assessment practices,
Assessment I probably put somewhere in the middle of those two (instruction and
curriculum) in terms of my ability to, how I feel about being able to do that because I
know I don’t have this clear of an idea about culturally relevant assessment practices as I
do about the teaching practices. You know, I have an idea about what good assessment
practices look like, but I'm not, I'm not super confident in my ability to say ‘is that
culturally relevant, responsive--or not?
Participant 3 said, “I’m not always 100% sure of what I'm doing. . .We make mistakes, I
make mistakes, you make mistakes; we are allowed to make mistakes that's okay. Yeah, it's a
bruise, not a tattoo.” Participant 6 talked about an instructional strategy they tried with their
team, “. . . that's one experience that we tried and we didn't really always know if we were doing
a good job, but we just tried it out.”
In the high school division, Participant 7 connected self-efficacy to self-confidence and
interest when stating their ability to enact culturally responsive pedagogy, “I don’t think I have
all the answers. I’m not sure that I have the time or interest to do a deep dive into the research
99

around pedagogy.” Based on the responses gathered in the interviews, this area was supported as
a need for this assumed influence since this stakeholder group did not meet the threshold of 80%.
Observation
No observations were conducted for this influence.
Document Analysis
The documentary evidence was an exit ticket survey given after a professional
development session on culturally responsive practices. The survey asked participants to rate
their self-efficacy to perform the behavior of enacting culturally responsive practices on a scale
of very unconfident, somewhat unconfident, somewhat confident, and very confident. The first
question asked, “How confident are you in implementing culturally responsive practices when
deciding what to teach students?” Revealing this influence as a need, 17% of classroom
educators from the elementary school reported high self-efficacy, 28% of middle school
classroom educators reported high self-efficacy, and 26% of classroom teachers from the high
school rated their self-efficacy as high by choosing the option of very confident.
The second question asked, “How confident are you in implementing culturally
responsive practices when teaching students?” Choosing the option of very confident, 22% of
classroom educators from the elementary school reported high self-efficacy, 24% of middle
school classroom educators reported high self-efficacy, and 30% of classroom teachers from the
high school rated their self-efficacy as high, showing this influence as a need.
The third question asked, “How confident are you in implementing culturally responsive
practices when assessing students?” 13% of classroom educators from the elementary school
reported high self-efficacy by choosing the option of very confident, 18% of middle school
100

classroom educators reported high levels of self-efficacy, and 23% of classroom teachers from
the high school rated their self-efficacy as high.
According to document analysis, the assumed influence of elementary, middle, and high
school classroom educators’ confidence in their ability to enact culturally responsive curriculum,
instruction, and assessment practices assessments is a need.
Summary
The assumed influence is that classroom educators must be confident in their beliefs
about their ability to enact culturally responsive curriculum, instruction, and assessment
practices. Emerging organically in interview responses, classroom educators showed that they
have low self-efficacy beliefs with enacting culturally responsive practices. The document
analysis provided evidence of the agreement with the emergent data from the interviews. Several
participants connected their self-efficacy to a growth mindset and, while not always feeling
confident with new instructional strategies, feel motivated to try, even if they aren’t successful.
Based on the responses gathered in the interviews and the documentary evidence, this area was
supported as a need for this assumed influence.
Results and Findings for Organization Causes
Classroom educators assumed organizational influences were investigated through
interviews and document analyses to assess ANCS’s position in the institution’s equity journey.
The assumed organizational influences include resources (Brayboy et al., 2007; Galloway &
Ishimaru, 2020), policies, processes, and procedures (Ishimaru & Galloway, 2014), cultural
models (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001), and cultural settings (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001).
Each assumed organizational influence was assessed to be an asset or need based on findings
from interviews and document analyses.
101

Resources Influence
Classroom educators need to be a part of an organization that purposefully develops and
utilizes resources (time, finances, staff) to enhance culturally responsive learning.
Interview Findings
This assumed influence was determined to be a need. Participants were asked a two-part
interview question about resources. The design of the question was purposeful. The aim of the
first part of the question was to activate long-term memory and access background factual
knowledge. The second part of the question connected participants’ schema to their
understanding of how ANCS utilizes its resources to enhance culturally responsive learning.
In the elementary school division, when the classroom educators were asked the first part
of the question, What resources might an educator need to enact culturally responsive practices?
100% of participants could list a wide variety of resource needs. Participant 4 said that
organizational resources should include education, professional knowledge (and accountability to
ensure resource utilization), diverse sets of resources to use with students, and access to lots of
different things at different times, depending on what the adults and children need. Participant 11
responded that educators need
Time and flexibility to plan lessons, and to reevaluate lessons that we’re already teaching,
opportunities for PD to continue to make sure that I’m continually up on the most recent
practices and how I can continue to improve my practice, time for observing other
people, time for people to come and observe me, reflection, being able to get feedback
about my teaching, a constant reflection cycle.
When elementary classroom educators were asked the second part of the question, How
well-resourced do you think ANCS currently is in supporting the implementation of culturally
102

responsive practices? 25% of the participants’ responses said that ANCS is an organization that
purposefully develops and uses resources to enhance culturally responsive learning. When asked
about ANCS’ resources, Participant 4 said,
I think, currently, we are not well resourced, but we definitely have the means to be well-
resourced. So right now we are not, but the only thing that’s stopping us is us—the
collective us. We have the means, we have more than the means to get the resources that
we need.
To answer this question, Participant 11 communicated,
I unfortunately feel like I’m kind of on an island in my grade level and in elementary
school while trying to enact this work. I currently don’t feel like I have any of those
resources at all. I feel like when I do have time, or when I do have the energy to try to
work with other people and figure out how to refocus things, it’s definitely shut down.
So, I do not feel like I have very many of those resources. We have PD (professional
development) money, so that’s definitely on me to find more opportunities for PD but, as
far as starting from the ground up, it's not been very successful.
In the middle school division, when the classroom educators were asked the first part of
the question, what resources might an educator need to enact culturally responsive practices?
100% of participants could list a wide variety of resource needs. Participant 1 said that
organizational resources should include a consistent curriculum aligned across all grade levels.
Participant 2 stated that resources should include professional development around designing
lessons, guidance and modeling to show what culturally responsive teaching looks like, and
access to “books and materials that are written by people with kinds of outside perspectives,
different perspectives from different backgrounds.” Participant 6 said,
103

I think the biggest resource and it’s like a soft resource: would be a space to ask
questions. . . Someone who will help; who's willing to sit down and help planning,
answer questions; so that we, as the teachers, feel like we don't have to.
Participant 8 communicated resource needs for the teachers in their PLC and department,
responding with,
I for sure will want someone to come and help us at that department level to think
through some of these questions. That would be great. I am sure that's not stopping me
now. . .in 2027, we will all be able to show that we are doing culturally responsive
practices. And what do we need to do in the meantime to get there? Yeah, so at the very
least that and then also, I think, some teachers will want even more help.
When middle school classroom educators were asked the second part of the question,
How well-resourced do you think ANCS currently is in supporting the implementation of
culturally responsive practices? Seventeen percent of the participants’ responses said that ANCS
is an organization that purposefully develops and uses resources to enhance culturally responsive
learning. When asked about ANCS’ resources, Participant 1 answered, “I think that would help
me if there was a consistent curriculum and also something that has some assessment resources
that also takes into account culturally relevant practices that we can draw from and build from.”
Participant 2 said,
I’m not sure I have enough experience to really say, but I do think, especially in (their
subject area) classroom, of course, we have all of those different authors and voices and
stories. So I feel like at least my feeling is that probably the middle school library is
similar in that there are lots of different, lots of different books from lots of different
backgrounds. But in terms of other resources, I don’t know what those would be either.
104

That’s why I need professional development around tools.
Participant 6 responded that the resources they needed most were people to coach and
guide this work. They said,
So I think we have the people in the building, who could fill this role; yeah, they’re here
now. So many people I think could fill this. But have they even been given a chance to do
so and do they (the school) know that people have confidence in them to do so? I’m not
sure, but they’re here. I think we have it, it’s just not in place.
In the high school division, when the classroom educator was asked the first part of the
question, what resources might an educator need to enact culturally responsive practices? they
could list a wide variety of resource needs. Participant 7 said,
For me, what would be most useful, I would think would be for people like yourself,
people who are doing a deep dive into it (culturally responsive practices) and are looking
to be able to give me Cliff Notes versions of things that I should consider when I’m
developing a unit, questions that might not have occurred to me before.
When the high school classroom educator was asked the second part of the question, How
well-resourced do you think ANCS currently is in supporting the implementation of culturally
responsive practices? Participant 7’s response was that, as “holdovers of a colonial system,”
ANCS is not an organization that purposefully develops and utilizes resources to enhance
culturally responsive learning.
Based on the responses gathered in the interviews, this area was supported as a need for
this assumed influence.
Observation
No observations were conducted for this influence.
105

Document Analysis
The documentary evidence pertaining to this influence was an exit ticket survey given
after a professional development session on culturally responsive practices. The open-ended
survey invited participants to give feedback on the session and to communicate the resources
they need from ANCS to successfully implement culturally responsive practice school- and
division-wide. Participants reported they needed professional development and scaffolding,
resources in languages other than English, more time, and a school-wide commitment to
culturally responsive practices. Through document analysis, this influence was determined to be
a need.
Summary
The assumed influence that classroom educators need to be a part of an organization that
purposefully develops, allocates, utilizes, and aligns resources (time, finances, staff) to address
institutional and structural inequities and enact culturally responsive learning was not supported
by the interview and documentary evidence. The data revealed patterns of needs in the
elementary school, including gaps in the alignment of resources to support classroom educators
in developing their competence in diverse and multicultural classrooms, a restructuring of
professional learning communities (PLCs), and time to prioritize culturally responsive teaching
and practices. Within these three areas, specific needs included coaching, professional
development, time, and space to share evidence that the school’s culturally responsive goals are
being prioritized and met.
The data revealed patterns of needs in the middle school, including gaps in the alignment
of resources to support classroom educators in developing their competence in diverse and
multicultural classrooms, a restructuring of professional learning communities (PLCs), and time
106

to prioritize culturally responsive teaching and practices. Within these three areas, specific needs
included support for creating and revising culturally responsive curricula and assessments,
professional development, an allocation of resources such as diverse books and materials, and
access to coaching. Since school leaders are responsible for developing teacher capacity for
creating culturally responsive curricula and assessments (Villegas & Lucas, 2002), to remove
barriers to this influence, the school leadership must allocate culturally responsive resources to
support this work.
The data revealed patterns of needs in the high school including gaps in the alignment of
resources to support classroom educators in developing their competence in diverse and
multicultural classrooms, a restructuring of professional learning communities (PLCs), and time
to prioritize culturally responsive teaching and practices. Within these three areas, specific needs
included professional development and time for scaffolding to learn about, build, and implement
culturally responsive practices and collaborate with colleagues and coaches.
Based on the responses gathered in the interviews and document analysis, this area was
not supported as an asset and was determined to be a need for this assumed influence.
Policies, Processes, & Procedures Influence
Classroom educators need to be a part of an organization that provides multi-tiered
systems of support for culturally responsive learning.
Interview Findings
This assumed influence was determined to be a need. The participants were asked two
questions to establish whether the policies, processes, and procedures at ANCS guide the
classroom educators’ implementation of culturally responsive practices. The first question asked,
What systems are in place or might need to be put into place to enact culturally responsive
107

practices? While investigating to assess this question, the data revealed that 100% of classroom
educators could communicate the current systems of support in place at ANCS to support the
implementation of culturally responsive practices.
In the elementary school division, Participant 4 said,
the systems that are in place, and I think you know with the creation of the DEI Planning
Team, that’s that’s a definite start, and then what’s called the commitment statement
that’s also, I mean, at least there’s something out there, that people can refer to, and be
like, ‘Hey, this is what we’re striving for.’
In addition, Participant 5 stated,
It is such a massive school and we’ve got this. . .DEI committee. And I feel like that
needs to be a distributed leadership position on big PLCs (professional learning
committees). That every big PLC within the school should have a representative there
because that’s how you get information back. . .I just really think a system that I think
would be a good idea to enact is that we have distributed leadership for SEL, why not
DEI?
Participant 9 talked about how ANCS needs protocols, guidelines, and principles to
mitigate the risks of harm from working in a predominately white organization. Participant 11
said,
with the PLC structure, we have the PLC leader, all the rest of us are here to listen, and it
is kind of the façade of collaboration, without any responsiveness to if we are are
culturally responsive in our PLCs to how can we like, how can we be collaborating in a
culturally responsive way-- or even a responsive way? That there’s a lot of top down. It is
a hegemonic structure, and there are wide swaths and amounts of power being held, but
108

not distributing that power. And the goals of my PLC are going to be only decided on by
my PLC leader. I don’t have any input on our goals, I don’t have any opportunity to
share, about you know this passion that I have for. We all need to improve practice and
be more culturally responsive. That is a very rigid system that is benefiting the needs and
the agenda of my, frankly white and privileged. . .other coworkers who have no interest
in this (culturally responsive education).
In the middle school division, Participant 1 talked about how the systems currently in
place, such as yearly evaluations, could be revised and refined to include a culturally responsive
lens. Participant 3 added,
One has to wonder how that factors into supervision and evaluation and does goal setting
explicitly move around CRP; and do we set smart goals around that and not do any
random particular thing or whatever it might be? Do we just narrow that focus and have a
system in place and expect a lot of reflection?
Of the six participants, three connected the PLC structures already in place at ANCS to
how the school could disseminate information about culturally responsive practices, from the top
down to the educators, and from the educators to the students. Participant 2 added, “I think the
PLC level is really important for this so maybe we should add a fifth question around the things
that we do in PLC: ‘Is this particular lesson culturally responsive for our learners?’” Participant
10 spoke about student choice in course selection, hiring practices for diversity, and curricular
representation. In the high school division, Participant 7 talked about the systems in place to
support everyone at the school, including the custodial staff.
The second question asked, How effective are the systems currently in place at ANCS in
supporting the implementation of culturally responsive practices? In the elementary school
109

division, 25% of classroom educators responded that the systems currently in place at ANCS
effectively support the implementation of culturally responsive practices. Participant 5 answered,
In terms of DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) having been put as a priority within the
Office of Learning and the consistent messaging we’re getting, I think that’s been a really
good system. When we have our staff in-service days. . .we all get the same presentation.
. .the same messaging. And then also what was powerful was the workshops, because we
all went to different workshops and came back and talked about them; so I think those
kinds of already in place systems are working.
This participant mentioned that while some systems are working for some people, other
systems remain ineffective. They continued,
We’ve got incredible IAs (instructional assistants), who are so deeply connected to their
communities that could offer us so much information and (the school needs) to invite
them to share more perhaps or be a part of the DEI committee. But they don’t even have
their own leader. I have my big PLC leader, I have my deputy principal, I have my
principal, I have the superintendents. I wonder: who do IAs have that look after their
realm of responsibility as well? It’s just like a leadership system for our IAs, a leadership
structure for them that they can also progress and be involved with-- just to give more
voice to everybody.
Participant 4 said,
Our school is so—what’s the word? -- they value a hierarchy. And I think that a lot of
times that hierarchy hinders any type of growth that we want to do in any type of area.
The people who hold all the power are the people who have the titles-- and if you don’t
have a title, your voice is not counted as much as a person who has a title. I think our
110

hiring practices need to be revamped and looked at even internally, so that if you apply
for something internally—I wonder what metrics our administrators use to determine
whether this person was better versus the next person? Rather than like, ‘oh, I’ve worked
with this person for 17 years, so I know they’re going to be great’ when there’s someone
who came in three years ago, but they might be actually better. So those types of things I
just don’t think are in place.
Explaining the need for systems to support the implementation of culturally responsive
practices, Participant 9 communicated
I never see culturally responsive classroom practices in class. Show us what this looks
like. And what was the particular issue we are dealing with in this meeting, during this
class. . . so we can visualize it to say why they’re doing it and the rationale behind it and
how they do it, why they do it, and what is the next step, for example.
Participant 11 said,
I’m trying to think because I don’t really know what policies ANCS already has in place.
Also, I feel like there are no policies that show me a clear way that I can support or do
this work (enacting culturally responsive practices). The transparency aspect really takes
a lot of the power away from me as an educator to make these decisions in my classroom
because I don’t know what I’m allowed or not allowed to do.
Since this stakeholder group did not meet the threshold of 80%, this assumed influence
was a need.
In the middle and high school divisions, 0% of classroom educators thought that the
systems currently in place at ANCS effectively support the implementation of culturally
responsive practices. When asked, Participant 2 answered,
111

None (no systems). Now I was shocked when I heard that there’s not really a supervision
evaluation system. It is the first school I’ve been in where it’s been so, I would say
loosey-goosey, I was absolutely floored. I was, and I thought, well, maybe it’s just a
COVID year? But now I’m thinking, maybe not.
Participant 1 said, “I think the systems in place are fine and good. I just don’t think
they’re being used to implement culturally responsive practices.” Adding to this idea, Participant
6 communicated, “I think what’s in place is the school is not--I think the school is not just saying
they want to do CRP, but they’re trying to actually do it.” Participant 10 said,
I felt like last year, we had better positioned PD days and in this year it’s sort of like I
don’t really know what we’re doing with DEI. . .I feel like this year suddenly we’re
hearing about core competencies and we’ve lost the culturally responsive (focus) and I
don’t know, as a teacher you’re just you know, sometimes you just try to hold it together
saying, ‘which ball am I trying to keep in the air right now?’ And what concerns me is
that the office of learning is more focused on what they want and what they think rather
than following through with some of the issues that have been brought up in the past and
continuously brought up.
Participant 7 explained,
I think you have to start at the bottom, I really do. I think you have to. You have to take
care of the people on the lowest rungs of the ladder here in this institution and raise them
first before you can say bring more diversity in hiring at the top and get more people of
color and women into administrations. . .stuff that’s important and good, but that also can
be bandages.
112

Since this stakeholder group did not meet the threshold of 80%, this assumed influence
was a need.
Observation
No observations were conducted for this influence.
Document Analysis
Documentary evidence revealed that while the ANCS provided policy statements setting
guides for culturally responsive learning, the processes and procedures needed to implement
culturally responsive practices in this organization were not located. As such this assumed
influence was determined to be a need.
Pertaining to this influence, the analysis of ANCS’s organizational commitments
revealed that one out of the six commitments referenced cultural responsiveness. While this
commitment specifies that classroom educators should write and revise curricular units of study
to ensure they are competency-based, culturally responsive, provide opportunities for inquiry,
and result in application and transfer of learning, the processes and procedures for doing so are
absent.
A second document examined to support this influence was the school’s strategic plan.
The analysis reveals the goal to enact culturally responsive practices across the school. Action
steps support this goal and include increasing educators’ capacity to use and revise culturally
responsive practices within curriculum, instruction, and assessment through research-based
approaches. In addition, there is a paragraph explaining how the school will know if this goal in
the strategic plan is realized. However, the procedures for enacting the goal of culturally
responsive practices were absent from the strategic plan as well as the processes for monitoring
the progress and evaluating growth toward this goal.
113

Clear procedures for evaluating and progress monitoring culturally responsive practices
were absent across all documents analyzed in the study. Decision-making processes needed to
inform professional learning and identify areas of growth related to culturally responsive
practices were also not described in any of the documents analyzed. Classroom educators will
undoubtedly need different levels of support, but the analyzed documents did not outline
multilevel systems of professional learning for supporting the implementation of culturally
responsive practices. As such, this assumed influence was determined to be a need.
Summary
The assumed influence that classroom educators need to be a part of an organization that
provides multi-tiered systems of support for culturally responsive learning was not supported by
the interview and documentary evidence. The corroboration across data sets from the interviews
and document analyses showed that while the systems are in place at ANCS to support
elementary classroom educators’ culturally responsive practices, there is a gap in the alignment
of the implementation of the policies, processes, & procedures to support this work. The data
revealed needs in the elementary school, including a lack of specific policies, protocols,
guidelines, and principles to guide classroom educators to better understand the expectations of
both critical behaviors and culturally responsive practice. In addition, clear procedures for
evaluating and progress monitoring culturally responsive practices and decision-making
processes needed to inform professional learning and identify areas of growth related to
culturally responsive practices were absent across all documents analyzed in the study.
The data from the interview responses and document analyses showed that while the
systems are in place at ANCS to support classroom educators’ culturally responsive practices,
there were gaps in the implementation of the policies, processes, & procedures to support this
114

work in the middle school. The data revealed needs in the middle school at a personal level,
including an effective supervision and evaluation system that uses multi-tiered continuums of
support to focus on growth and goals and the personalized support needed for classroom
educators to enact culturally responsive practices. Mentoring and coaching that embeds
professional development within the school day, in collaboration with colleagues, may be more
effective than traditional professional development (Garet et al., 2001). By working alongside
instructional leaders through the coaching cycle, there should be an increase in growth and
monitor the progress of middle school educators’ learning and application of culturally
responsive practices. At a PLC level, needs included data-based problem solving and decision
making and evidence-based instruction and assessment.
The findings across the data from the interview responses and document analyses showed
that while there are systems in place at ANCS to support classroom educators’ culturally
responsive practices, there were gaps in the implementation of the policies, processes, and
procedures in the high school. Clark and Estes (2008) state that all organizational goals are
achieved through a system of interacting processes that specifies how stakeholders and resources
must work together to produce and sustain the desired result. Failure may ensure when these
processes do not align with the organizational goals. For example, while the organization’s
strategic plan provides a goal to increase diversity, equity, and inclusion and gives broad actions
that should result in promising outcomes, there is a gap between the goal, the actions, and the
outcomes, revealing a need for the organization to link actionable steps to culturally responsive
critical behaviors.
The interview responses and documentary analyses show corroboration across the data
sets that while the systems are in place at ANCS to support classroom educators’ culturally
115

responsive practices, the implementation of the policies, processes, & procedures are
inefficacious.
Cultural Models Influence
Classroom educators need to be part of an organization whose ideologies, values, and
assumptions are aligned with cultural responsiveness and equity-focused theories of change.
Interview Findings
This assumed influence was determined to be a need. Participants were asked a two-part
interview question. The design of the question was purposeful. The aim of the first part of the
question was to activate long-term memory and access background factual knowledge to explore
participants’ epistemology (why do you value what you value?). The second part of the question
connected participants’ schema to their understanding of how ANCS ideologies, values, and
assumptions are aligned with cultural responsiveness and equity-focused theories of change.
When the classroom educators were asked the first part of the question, What values might a
school need to have in order to enact culturally responsive practices? 100% of participants,
across all divisions, could recall, list, and describe espoused beliefs and values such as
appreciating peoples’ languages, cultures, stories and experiences, valuing openness and a
growth mindset evidenced in a willingness to try new ideas and change if necessary, compassion,
empathy, perspective-taking, collaboration, continual growth, cultural competence and humility.
In the elementary school division, Participant 4 responded that a school needs “to value
human beings as they are. Value authenticity. Value diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice. I
think I feel like that’s the bottom line. If you don’t value those things, you can’t you can’t do any
of this (enact culturally responsive practices).” Participant 5 said,
116

“I think there has to be compassion because culturally responsive practice can cause
disharmony sometimes within oneself or within your own worldview because you happen
to come up against a different worldview. So it’s being comfortable with that, but also
that compassion to see the other side--which comes to compassion, empathy. I think
those values, and I really think collaboration has to be done in order for it to be
successful; true, deep collaboration.”
Participant 11 stated,
A school that values every person’s story, that values individuality, that values
uniqueness and flexibility, that does not value falling back on a system because they
think it works. . .values cultural competency as well. . .bringing in different perspectives
that are not just another white perspective and other white American perspectives.
In the middle school division, Participant 1 answered, “A school that wants to implement
culturally responsive strategies obviously needs to value diversity, equity and inclusion.”
Participant 2 added on to this idea with the question, “Do our values fit with the work
we’re about to embark on?” They added, “I think that you need to obviously value
diversity and the belief that everyone, no matter what, has a role to play and their own
significant gifts. . .” Participant 3 said,
“Something I wonder about our school in terms of (how) it feels to me like if we’re going
to be like truly doing antiracist, anti-bias work, we need to get schools like ours to not
exist anymore, because we are a colonial entity and it’s almost like, how can ANCS exist
if this work is getting to where it needs to be?”
In the high school division, Participant 7 said that fairness is an evident value in schools
that aim for equity.
117

The assessed findings for the second part of the question, how aligned are ANCS’s values
to the ones you just mentioned? showed a misalignment between a culturally responsive school
culture and ANCS’s organizational cultural model. The answers revealed that 25% of elementary
classroom educators could align ANCS’s values to the espoused values in the first part of the
question. Participant 4 answered, “I think that there are pockets of people who are aligned with
those things, but as an institution, as a whole, I think we are far from being aligned with that.”
Participant 5 responded,
I think ANCS is on a good starting line in terms of our core values of the school and our
learning aspirations which take into account what I’ve just said previously. . .But I feel
there is a lot of learning that needs to happen, a lot of listening, learning, and a
willingness to change. I think there’s been some practices that have been done for years
and years and years. And why do we have to change? It works, why do we have to do
this? These kinds of questions. Yeah, it’s not. and it’s kind of like, ‘Everything’s
working! The kids are fine, they’re flourishing!’ But, right: working for who?
Participant 9 talked about values misalignment and gave an example contrasting the
visible and invisible benefits received by overseas hires, not allotted to local hires. They also said
that ANCS promotes a double standard by asking teachers to incorporate culturally
responsiveness in lessons for kids but does not practice the same ideology. Participant 11
responded,
I feel like there’s so many issues of equity within ANCS that I’m experiencing even just
within (this grade level). . .there’s just a lack of trust that this (enacting culturally
responsive practices) is going to work. . . it hasn’t had an impact because for so long,
these white people in power--like other white individuals that have no marginalized
118

identities. . .understanding that things have been so successful for them throughout their
20 years of teaching at ANCS. . .that there’s no reason to change because it’s worked so
well because it’s worked well for them.
When middle school classroom educators were asked the second part of the question,
How aligned are ANCS’s values to the ones you just mentioned? 17% of participants could align
ANCS’s values to the espoused values in the first part of the question. Participant 2 said,
From what I see, I feel like teachers here do a really good job in general, kind of valuing
diversity and I think everybody appreciates being in an international school setting with
lots of diverse students and recognizing that our kids have something to contribute.
Participant 1 responded,
I think a school has to value it (cultural responsiveness) to a degree where they’re able,
where they’re willing to call people out. Whether that be students, teachers, parents--
anyone in the school community that’s kind of not adhering to those values of equity and
inclusion. . .I think . . .if they’re really not in line with these beliefs that we are aspiring
to, that we’re really going to embrace equity and we’re going to teach about it and teach
about systems that harm people. . .in extreme cases say, “Hey this is maybe not the best
school for you.” And you might have some students and families that leave, or you might
have some teachers that need to leave. And so, it is kind of like walking the talk I guess
because I think our values are in the right place. I say yes, but I don’t think we always
walk the talk. Like we--we say these things, but sometimes we pay a little bit of lip
service to some of that.
Participant 3 said, “I would say our vision, maybe not (aligned with values). I feel like
our vision of preparing exceptional figures, cultivating exceptional figures prepared for the
119

future, that to me doesn’t really speak to it. So as a value statement and our guiding vision, not so
great.” Participant 6 stated, “I think we don’t do a great job of building trust” and Participant 8
added on, “We definitely still have a ways to go.” Participant 10 talked about values
misalignment and how perfectionism contrasts with lifelong learning and growth at ANCS.
In the high school division, Participant 7’s answer did not align the espoused values with
the cultural model at the school. They said,
I think the culture of the school has gotten worse since I’ve been here. . .to me it feels like
those people (school leaders) have to justify their existence and usually that means
creating more work for teachers. . .It’s like we really are all replaceable. They really see it
that way, it really feels that way. Like if you don’t like it, there’s 100 other people who
want your job.
Since this stakeholder group did not meet the threshold of 80%, this assumed influence
was a need.
Observation
No observations were conducted for this influence.
Document Analysis
Documents related to ANCS’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Board Statement
were analyzed to determine how aligned the organization’s ideologies, values, and assumptions
are aligned with culturally responsive change. In addition to the drafts themselves being
statements of organizational values, documentation of community responses and
correspondences during the drafting process were also analyzed. They revealed that the way
community members viewed ANCS’s ideologies, values, and assumptions were misaligned with
cultural responsiveness and equity-focused theories of change.
120

An official announcement from ANCS’s most senior leader stated that the Board
committed to drafting a statement affirming the school’s value and high level of interest in DEI.
The announcement also stated that a task force of Board members, students, alumni, teachers,
and parents collaborated on drafting the statement over several months, thereby showing
sustained interest and persistence in DEI. In addition to expressing feelings of gratitude, the
announcement felt the statement was both positive and clear. In the strategic plan referenced in
the announcement, culturally responsive actions were identified in the DEI key priorities
expanding upon the statement and were said to include actions that were collaborative suggested
by the board-led task force; however, additional documentary evidence revealed that such
sentiments may not reflect all voices participating in the co-construction process or the wider
student community that statement intends to serve.
Meeting notes from the January 2021 task force meeting were analyzed. Taken by a
member of the DEI Planning Team, notes were taken during the four-hour meeting to assist in
drafting a DEI statement that represented all voices in the room. The meeting was facilitated by
two external facilitators hired by the school so that all members on the task force could fully
participate in sharing their views of DEI at ANCS. Notes revealed that a central theme during the
meeting involved defining equity as ANCS supporting marginalized identities so that they have
the same opportunities to grow, contribute, and develop. Additional notes revealed a desire for
the ANCS community to confront and dismantle oppressive systems serving as barriers to equity.
The goal and purpose of the statement, as documented in the meeting notes, was to make public
ANCS’s commitment to DEI in a way that was aspirational and “something the students can
relate to and believe in.” Meeting notes also indicated that participants expressed a desire to
explicitly name problems in the statement: lack of cultural awareness, limited focus on the varied
121

facets of diversity, and systemic discrimination. Meeting notes indicated that the session
concluded with a collective goal to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion throughout the
ANCS community and to ensure that every student feels valued and included at all times. The
content of the meeting notes expressed ideologies, values, and assumptions aligned with
culturally responsive change.
In mid-January of 2021, a member of the DEI Planning Team used the meeting notes to
draft a DEI Statement capturing the diverse voices of participants in the room. This initial draft
was also analyzed to determine whether the ideologies, values, and assumptions expressed in the
statement aligned with culturally responsive change. In the draft’s problem statement, it stated
that ANCS must dismantle oppressive structures and systems within the school, as these systems
“are evident in the incidents of harm that persist, the ethnic makeup of our teachers, the dominant
narrative of our curriculum, and the success of students who assimilate to, rather than challenge,
this reality.” The draft further called for a commitment towards “providing the necessary
resources and dedicating the necessary time for all of our community members to grow in their
understanding of social justice and culturally responsive philosophies.” Grounding the draft in
contexts that were culturally responsive and contemporarily relevant, the statement spotlighted
the ongoing inequities and injustices experienced in 2020, ranging but not limited to police
brutality, the climate crisis, the COVID-19 pandemic, and more. In addition to stating that
“making the kind of radical change we hope for than printing a statement housed on our
website,” the statement called for ANCS to “anti-Blackness and white supremacy as global
forces of oppression present within our institution that we must name and challenge in our
pursuit of diversity, equity, and inclusion.” It was evident that the ideologies and values
expressed in the initial draft of the statement were aligned to culturally responsive and equity-
122

focused theories of change. A version of this statement was shared with representatives of the
Board to decide what should be communicated to the Board and the wider ANCS community;
however, email correspondences indicate that this version of the DEI Statement was not sent to
the wider task force for feedback or to review.
In late-January of 2021, an email from a school leader to teachers serving on the task
force and teachers feedback responses were analyzed. The email was a request to submit a form
giving feedback on a second draft of the DEI Statement that was created “based on the shared
ideas in the room.” Anonymous responses from teachers serving on the task force stated that the
statement was “underwhelming” and “not the precise and powerful anchor I was hoping for.”
Another stated, “It would be nice to have a stronger or immediate tone.” In regards to whether
they were able to share their ideas during the drafting process, one response notes: “So many of
the ideas shared that day are not represented here. I think we were all under the impression that
we were trying to create something more meaningful than these platitudes. I’m not even sure
what the process was for if this is all we got, to be honest. There is nothing brave or unapologetic
here.” An additional response expressed disappointment that “this is all the discussion boiled
down to.” The elaboration, stating the proposed DEI Statement “requires so little of us as a
community and ignores the root causes of the problems we, and the rest of the world, are facing.
It feels like a multicultural-education, kumbaya statement from the 80s that ignores how we got
here and just wants everyone to smile, ‘be positive’, and move on.” In all, not only did teachers
feel that their ideas were not represented in the second draft of the DEI statement, the second
draft was viewed as being misaligned to the ideologies and values underpinning culturally
responsive education.
123

A third and final draft of the DEI Statement was shared in mid-March of 2021 by
ANCS’s most senior leader. An email correspondence sent to members of the DEI Committee
thanked teachers for helping co-construct the statement and expressed a process of consensus
that took quite some time, but “we are better off for it, in terms of the level of board
understanding, buy-in and support.” Following this email to the committee as well as the official
announcement to the entire school community, high school students were asked to share what
they found significant about the statement. While several high school advisory groups discussed
the importance of the statement and its potential for making a positive impact on the ANCS
community, several analyzed responses suggested that many students did not view the final
statement as being culturally responsive nor equity-focused. One advisory group shared that “it’s
just a statement” and it “feels shallow and corporate.” Another group shared that the statement
feels like “a PR stunt” that is a “half step with no follow-through.” While one group said the
statement has a lot of potential, they followed this up by stating ANCS “talks a big game when it
comes to diversity but they are not as diverse as many other international schools. International
food fair just reinforces stereotypes.” Another group mentioned that the statement “feels like it
has been written to tick something off the list. It feels like it was written by a white person for
white people.” Several groups shared that the statement was too broad and unspecific to lead to
meaningful and significant action. While school leaders aspired for the DEI Planning Team to
reflect on student feedback, future meeting agendas indicated that this process did not happen
and the DEI Statement’s latest iteration is still the one currently in place. An analysis of student
feedback responses suggest that the ideologies and values expressed in the DEI Statement are not
aligned to cultural responsiveness and equity-focused theories of change.
124

Summary
Embedded, and often invisible, in organizational culture and shown through various
influences, institutions need to not only communicate the values and beliefs inherent in culturally
responsive pedagogy but enact these values, too, through equity-focused theories of change.
However, the data from the interviews with elementary, middle, and high school classroom
educators revealed that culturally responsive pedagogy is not embedded in ANCS’s
organizational culture, showing a misalignment between espoused and enacted values. This is
congruent with data assessed in the interview question about conceptual knowledge that asked
about the sociopolitical relationship of oppression and advantage underpinning culturally
responsive practices when Participant 10 responded, “we are absolutely blinded to the impact
that white culture and white supremacy culture has on us, because we can’t even see it.”
Effective organizations ensure that organizational messages, rewards, policies and
procedures that govern the work of the organization are aligned with or are supportive of
organizational goals and values (Clark & Estes, 2008). However, findings revealed a
misalignment between the culturally responsive values espoused by the organization and the
values enacted in ANCS’s organizational cultural model. Although elementary classroom
educators were able to recall, list, and describe the culturally responsive espoused beliefs and
values of the organization—such as appreciating peoples’ languages, cultures, stories,
perspectives, and experiences, valuing openness and a growth mindset evidenced in a willingness
to try new ideas and change if necessary, and beliefs about the importance of compassion,
empathy, perspective-taking, collaboration, continual growth, cultural competence, and
humility—when asked about ANCS’s alignment with these beliefs and values, only one educator
could connect the espoused to enacted values. According to Buch and Wetzel (2001), “when
125

there is a gap between [espoused culture and enacted culture]… a misalignment exists that can
be very harmful to the organization and its members” (p. 40). For example, one participant
mentioned the visible and invisible benefits received by overseas hires not allotted to local hires.
Walle (2010) states that few would argue that people doing the same job should be paid the
same. This is one example of the economic domination of non-white employees in this
educational organization and a result of a racial ideology, defined by Neville (2003) as consisting
of two interrelated domains: color-evasion (denial of racial differences by emphasizing
sameness) and power-evasion (denial of racism by emphasizing equal opportunities). This
communicates the belief that the reason for the minoritized employees’ lower social status is not
institutionalized racism to maintain power structures but is, rather, a natural result of their own
cultural insufficiencies (Martinez, 2014). The National Educational Association (NEA) defines
white supremacy culture as “a form of racism centered upon the belief that white people are
superior to people of other racial backgrounds and that whites should politically, economically,
and socially dominate non-whites.” However, despite the abundance of evidence that there are
negative and long-term consequences engendered within (Fyre, 2019, 2020; Longhi & Brynin,
2017; Yearby, 2018, 2019), this practice shows specific beliefs and values that are enacted in
ANCS’s cultural model and a digression from the organization’s performance priorities.
Another participant surfaced the many issues of inequity they have experienced in their
first year of teaching at ANCS, embedded in a culture of mistrust, including the suspicion that
enacting culturally responsive practices isn’t worthwhile and a mistrust that the “white people in
power will change... there’s no reason to change because it’s (the organizational culture) worked
so well for them.” Research has shown that educational systems need to critically and
transparently address social inequalities at all levels (Bush, 2011; Watson et al., 2014).
126

Data revealed that culturally responsive pedagogy is not embedded in ANCS’s
organizational culture, showing a misalignment between espoused and enacted values. In the
middle school division, while every study participant’s responses framed their own beliefs and
values of diversity, equity, inclusion through anti-bias and anti-racist culturally responsive lenses
in concert with ANCS’s espoused values, there was a marked contrast to the organization’s
operational values in action. Participant-reported values shown in ANCS’s cultural model
included a culture of perfectionism, a culture of mistrust, and a culture of avoidance shown in the
unwillingness to call out community behaviors misaligned with culturally responsive practices.
Paulo Freire (2000) states, “Human existence cannot be silent, nor can it be nourished by false
words, but only true words, with which men and women transform the world” (p. 88). One
participant spoke about how ANCS needs to value diversity, equity, inclusion through culturally
responsive values to the degree that the school leaders are willing to have some true words
within difficult conversations with community members if they are not adhering to these values.
They suggested that:
In some extreme cases, the school needs to say, ‘Hey, this is maybe not the best school
for you.’ And you might have some students and families that leave, or you might have
some teachers that need to leave. And so, it is kind of like walking the talk I guess
because I think our values are in the right place… but I don't think we always walk the
talk. Like we say these things, but sometimes we pay a bit of lip service to some of that.
Clark and Estes (2008) state that effective change efforts ensure that all key stakeholders’
perspectives inform the design and decision-making process leading to the change. At ANCs,
there is a need for cultural responsiveness and theories of change to focus not only on
127

individuals’ thoughts and beliefs but also on shifting organizational policies, processes, and
procedures (Ishimaru & Galloway, 2019).
The findings across the data from the interview responses and document analyses showed
misalignment between the culturally responsive values espoused by the organization and the
values enacted in ANCS’s organizational cultural model and identified many ideologies and
values inhibiting culturally responsive practices. Needs included acknowledging and interrupting
the racial ideologies present in the school’s cultural model. One interview participant said, “I
don't know, maybe there’s a blindness to it (racism)? There’s just not very much of an awareness
of it.” According to Schein (2004) basic underlying assumptions are the unconscious beliefs and
values that determine behaviors, perceptions, thoughts, and feelings. This response may indicate
the unconscious beliefs revealed through color-evasion, which “acknowledges that to avoid
talking about race is a way to willfully ignore the experiences of people of color, and makes the
goal of erasure more fully discernible. In other words, to use the term ‘evade’ highlights an
attempt to obliterate” (Annamma et al., 2012). According to Doane (2017), “Racial ideologies do
not exist in social and cultural isolation. They are but one component of a larger constellation of
ideas and understandings that, in totality, provide a global framework for social life” (p. 978).
These understandings comprise the values embedded within the cultural model at ANCS. As
with any organization, these values are interpreted through the various mental models held by the
various stakeholders of faculty, students, and parents. Surfacing, testing, and improving these
mental models, inclusive of assumptions, will lead to building learning organizations of the
future in which there is alignment between espoused theories and theories in action (Senge,
2014).
128

Based on the responses gathered in the interviews and document analysis, this area was
not supported as an asset and was determined to be a need for this assumed influence.
Cultural Settings Influence
Classroom educators need to be situated in an environment that promotes the practice of
cultural responsiveness, critical reflection, inclusivity, and community.
Interview Findings
This assumed influence was determined to be a need. While participants were not directly
asked if the school setting at ANCS is conducive to enacting culturally responsive practices,
evidence of participants’ ideas and beliefs about what is valued and put into action emerged
while responding to interview questions about other assumed influences.
Interview data revealed how the institution’s structures in place, such as professional
learning communities (PLCs), professional development (PD) sessions, the curricular review
process, faculty meetings, must be reimagined and repurposed as settings for classroom
educators to collaboratively implement practices that promote the values of cultural
responsiveness, critical reflection, inclusivity, and community. This aligns with the Policies,
Processes, & Procedures Influence and classroom educators’ answers about how numerous
systems and structures in ANCS are in place, but are not yet fully utilized to enact culturally
responsive practices.
For example, across the entire school, in all divisions at ANCS, the PLC is a visible
structure that creates a cultural setting for collaboration focused on improving instructional
practices. However, norms and focus within the cultural setting can be specific to those cultures
present in the PLC.
Participant 3 said,
129

So that's where I think one of the things that often gets left out of this conversation is how
our cultures and identities as adults, working together are a huge part of this as well. We
don't do any culturally responsive team building amongst the adults in our spaces and
that's something that I see coming up at PLC teams and something I see coming up in all
kinds of spaces. We're doing this for kids and that needs to be at the forefront, but it
exists in this soup of our own cultures, too.
In addition, the cultural setting at ANCS is visible in classroom environments, inclusive
of the cultural models within. These contributing factors can positively impact the students when
they see themselves and their own cultures reflected in their teachers and be challenging factors
when they don’t. Participant 11 communicated,
It feels like ANCS gets to check off the diversity box, because we have such a diverse
student population and then that's it, that's the end all, be all. . .we have a percentage of
this racial, ethnic, and gender makeup. . . When, in fact, that truly makes it go the other
way, because how are we supporting these students with our majority white teachers?
Facets of cultural setting include the environment that promotes the practice of cultural
responsiveness, critical reflection, inclusivity, and community. Showing evidence of critical self-
reflection, Participant 4 communicated that their colleagues know what to change and how to
change but the stimulus to change, rooted squarely in the collectivist PLC structure, de-
incentivizes movement to anti-racist pedagogy.
Participant 3 said,
There are those times, where I have felt discomfort around enacting things that I wasn't
okay with, and it was really a case of putting myself and my lack of energy for making
130

changes in the moment first instead of waiting when it was right, and that's bothered me
several times since I've been here.”
Since this stakeholder group did not meet the threshold of 80%, this assumed influence
was a need.
Observation
All of the observations took place in the middle school division using the culturally
responsive classroom educator observation protocol. Observational data from two professional
learning community meetings and two classroom observations assessed whether the classroom
educators’ school settings at ANCS are conducive to enacting culturally responsive practices,
critical reflection, inclusivity, and community. Participant 3 was one out of the three classroom
educators observed in the PLC meetings that showed evidence of critical self-reflection as they
publicly (within the meeting, in front of others) self-reflected on how their own knowledge,
beliefs, values, assumptions, biases, and experiences affected how they saw and understood the
curricular content and instructional practices being discussed in the meeting. In addition, within
this cultural setting, this classroom educator showed an awareness of how their membership in
the PLC identity group affected the interactions with students. For example, during the meeting,
when the facilitator was modeling an instructional activity and asked the participants to “stay in
student mode”, Participant 3 said, “Does that mean compliance mode?” The analysis of this
interaction found evidence of Participant 3’s motivation to speak up on behalf of their students.
Later in the meeting they spoke up again to question whether the activity could result in undue
emotional labor and cognitive overload for the students. In the debrief after the meeting,
Participant 3 communicated their frustration of not being able to speak up in a more direct way
on behalf of the students and against the instructional practices that may cause harm. This aligns
131

with the interview data for this influence when this classroom educator communicated their
“discomfort around enacting things that I wasn't okay with” and talked about enacting culturally
responsive practices within their own classroom. This may show an understanding that while
responding to power imbalances and a teacher-centered curriculum and instruction behind a
closed classroom door can establish a culturally responsive environment, this can limit the
impact within the larger PLC and grade-level cultural setting.
Of the two classroom observations, one classroom educator, Participant 1, showed
evidence of establishing and supporting a culturally responsive environment inclusive of
community members, cultural artifacts, languages, and behaviors. The classroom educator was
observed greeting every student by name and asking about specifics of the students’ lives,
communicating high expectations for all students, acting in a supportive, caring, and flexible
manner in the interactions with students, and leveraging power structures to give students voice
and choice in what and how they learn. Observations of the classroom community yielded
evidence of an environment that was safe and responsive to the needs of all students. An
example of how the teacher communicated the importance of a culturally responsive cultural
setting was the essential agreements on the wall. The agreements were in student writing and
signed by the students, showing that this teacher attempted to work in partnership with the
students to organize classroom structure around communal responsibility, rather than compliance
and punishment.
Since 40% were able to show evidence of enacting culturally responsive practices,
critical reflection, inclusivity, and community, the observation data were not supported as an
asset and determined to be a need.
132

Document Analysis
The documentary evidence pertaining to this influence were the PLC agendas. The first
agenda showed the inclusion of culturally responsive items planned for the one-hour meeting.
However, the meeting minutes communicated a disconnect between what was planned and what
actually occurred in the meeting, revealing that the culturally responsive agenda items were not
addressed and realized. The second PLC agenda did not include culturally responsive agenda
items, showing alignment with the interview and observation data.
Summary
The assumed influence is that classroom educators need to be situated in an environment
that promotes the practice of cultural responsiveness, critical reflection, inclusivity, and
community. However, corroboration of findings from the data sets from interviews with
elementary, middle, and high school classroom educators, observations of PLC meetings and
classroom environments, and document analysis revealed that there is a misalignment in ANCS’s
organizational cultural setting between espoused and enacted values.
Findings revealed that elementary classroom educators do not feel that the organizational
settings at ANCS, such as professional learning communities (PLCs) and classroom
environments, are conducive to culturally responsive practices. According to the data, the PLC
settings can be facades of collaboration without any responsibility for collaborating in a
culturally responsive way. According to one classroom educator, these learning communities are
hegemonic with “wide swaths and amounts of power being held, but not distributing that power.
And the goals of my PLC are going to be only decided on by my PLC leader.” Brookfield (2017)
defines critical reflection as the process of illuminating power and uncovering hegemony. A
response to this data may include a restructuring of the PLC framework to reform systems of
133

power, realigned with the organization’s strategic goal of cultural responsiveness in conjunction
with critical self-reflective practices.
In addition, findings reveal that the classroom environment is not always a setting that
ensures a high-quality, culturally responsive education for all students, with the cultural model
and setting as contributing factors that can positively impact the students when they see
themselves and their own cultures reflected in their teachers and be challenging factors when
they don’t. To draw upon and use the cultural knowledge, prior experiences, frames of reference,
and performance styles that learners bring to the classrooms, classroom educators need to use
culturally responsive practices to make learning more relevant to and effective for students (Gay,
2002).
Findings revealed that middle school classroom educators do not feel that the
organizational setting at ANCS is conducive to culturally responsive practices. Similar to the
elementary school, in this division, the PLC is a visible structure that creates a cultural setting for
collaboration focused on improving instructional practices. However, norms and focus within the
cultural setting can be specific to those cultures present in the PLC and within the classroom
environment. One participant talked about the lack of recognition of “how our cultures and
identities as adults, working together, are a huge part of this (enacting culturally responsive
practices) as well.” They went on to comment on the lack of culturally responsive team building
amongst the adults in the cultural setting and how the cultural model consists of a “soup of our
own cultures, too.” Akkari and Loomis (2012) posit that since “students come from and return to
varied and different cultural settings, they are key stakeholders in either maintaining the status
quo or contributing to social transformation” (p. 145). The same is true for teachers and their
134

responsibility to transform the cultural settings at ANCS to ensure the fulfillment of the goal of
enacting culturally responsive practices in the middle school.
One classroom educator communicated their “discomfort around enacting things that I
wasn’t okay with” and talked about enacting culturally responsive practices within their own
classroom. This may show an understanding that while responding to power imbalances and a
teacher-centered curriculum and instruction behind a closed classroom door can establish a
culturally responsive environment, this can limit the impact within the larger PLC and grade-
level cultural setting. Clark and Estes (2008) state that effective change efforts ensure that all key
stakeholders’ perspectives inform the design and decision-making process leading to the change.
Findings revealed that high school classroom educators do not feel that the organizational
setting at ANCS is conducive to culturally responsive practices. One participant said that the
cultural setting at ANCS had been an “old boys’ network for so long and that goes back to the
whole colonial thing. . .That makes it hard to change, hard to make change. Because why would
they want anything to change if they’ve got control over everything?” According to Brookfield
(2005), ideology becomes hegemony when dominant ideas, while invisible in cultural models,
are realized and made visible through cultural settings. Critical reflection starts with self as one
closely examines, uncovers and challenges these power dynamics and hegemonic assumptions
and seeks to uncover and liberate the internal biases that frame epistemology and practice.
Grounded in a set of values (Brookfield, 2017), classroom educators need to use critical
reflection to realize and challenge the status quo in their own practice and to recognize and
research the assumptions that are just beneath the surface of their thoughts and actions
(Brookfield, 2010).
The assumed influence was not supported as an asset.
135

Summary of Validated Influences
Tables 10, 11, and 12 show the knowledge, motivation and organization influences for
this study and their determination as an asset or a need.
Knowledge

Table 10
Knowledge Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data
Assumed Knowledge
Influences
Category Division
Elementary Middle High
Classroom educators need
to know the components of
culturally responsive
curriculum, instruction, and
assessment practices.
Declarative
Factual
Need

Asset

Asset

Classroom educators need
to know the sociopolitical
relationship of oppression
and advantage
underpinning culturally
responsive practices.
Conceptual Asset

Asset

Asset

Classroom educators need
knowledge of how to
create and use culturally
responsive curriculum,
instruction, and assessment
practices.
Procedural Need

Need

Need

Classroom educators need
to know how to critically
self-reflect on their
knowledge, beliefs, values,
assumptions, biases, and
experiences related to
Metacognitive Asset

Asset

Asset

136

improving culturally
responsive practices.

Motivation

Table 11
Motivation Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data
Assumed Motivation
Influences
Category Division
Elementary Middle High
Educators need to have
intrinsic interests and
personal relevance in
implementing culturally
responsive practices.
Interest Asset

Asset

Asset

Educators need to be
emotionally driven to learn
about and implement
culturally responsive
practices.

Emotion
Asset

Asset

Asset

Educators need to be
confident in their ability to
enact culturally responsive
curriculum, instruction, and
assessment practices.
Self-Efficacy Need Need Need

137

Organization

Table 12
Organizational Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data
Assumed Organizational
Influences
Category Division
Elementary Middle High
Educators need to be a part
of an organization that
purposefully develops and
utilizes resources (time,
finances, staff) to enhance
culturally responsive
learning.
Resources Need Need Need
Educators need to be a part
of an organization that
provides multi-tiered
systems of support for
culturally responsive
learning.
Policies,
Processes, &
Procedures
Need Need Need
Educators need to be part of
an organization whose
ideologies, values, and
assumptions are aligned
with cultural responsiveness
and equity-focused theories
of change.
Cultural
Model
Need Need Need
Educators need to be
situated in an organizational
setting that promotes values
of cultural responsiveness,
critical reflection,
inclusivity, and community.
Cultural
Setting
Need Need Need

138

Summary

This chapter addressed the first research question that guided this study (What are the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors that contribute to educators’ successful
enactment of culturally responsive behaviors?) and was organized into three sections, which
delineated the findings by assumed knowledge and skills, motivation, and the organizational
influences on culturally responsive practices. By examining 11 assumed influences, this study
examined and analyzed the factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge and
skills, interest, emotion, and self-efficacy motivation, and the resources, policies, processes, and
procedures, cultural model, and cultural setting organizational influences needed for educators to
enact culturally responsive practices across divisions and within an international school.
The organization’s performance goal is that by 2027, all classroom educators will
implement culturally responsive strategies into the curriculum, classroom instruction, and
assessment practices 100% of the time. Research suggests that if every classroom educator can
implement these strategies, the academic achievement gap will be reduced (Gay, 2010; Howard,
2003; Ladson-Billings, 2009). The achievement of this goal was measured by interviewing
classroom educators, observing classroom instruction, and through document analysis.
Assessed through the research question, the findings presented in this chapter suggest that
the knowledge and skills and assumed motivation influences were generally seen as assets by the
majority of participants while the assumed organizational interests were consistently seen as
needs across all categories. As classroom educators across all divisions of the school continue to
build their capacity to enact culturally responsive practices, in addition to organizational needs,
the data suggests specific needs in procedural knowledge and self-efficacy.
139

Chapter 5 presents recommendations and solutions for these needs based on the validated
results and findings. The proposed recommendations seek to maintain and improve continuity,
consistency, and commitment so that classroom educators can develop and enact culturally
responsive practices. In addition to classroom educators, the proposed recommendations are
inclusive of school leaders and classroom educators, the other stakeholder groups examined in
this study.

140

Chapter 5: Recommendations and Evaluation
As a school, ANCS believes diversity is one of the greatest strengths of its community.
The organization not only expresses that diversity helps build cross-cultural relationships and
intercultural understanding, but diversity also offers extraordinary learning opportunities for its
community members. Diversity allows community members to learn from multiple perspectives
and draw upon one another’s strengths to address needs within a learning organization (Lämsä &
Sintonen, 2006). With this hope in heart and mind, this chapter will provide recommendations
addressing the needs of one particular stakeholder group and might also draw upon the assets of
other diverse stakeholder groups revealed in the concurrent studies. As such, the KMO assets of
one stakeholder group might help inform recommendations addressing the KMO needs of
another stakeholder group in the study. This rationale for offering a combined set of
recommendations and evaluations serves all stakeholder groups. Furthermore, a combined set of
recommendations and evaluations offered in this chapter will use the inclusive term “educators”
to address the needs of the Spanish educators, classroom educators, instructional leaders, and
divisional principals to maintain continuity, consistency, and collective commitment across all
divisions and positions of the school.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this improvement study was to conduct a gap analysis examining the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that impact ANCS’s performance goal of
educators developing and implementing culturally responsive practices. The research questions
that guided this performance study for all the ANCS stakeholders are:
1. What knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors contribute to educators’
successful enactment of culturally responsive practices?
141

2. What are the recommended knowledge, motivation, and organizational solutions
for supporting culturally responsive educators?
This chapter addresses the second research question that guided this study for both assets
and needs described in Chapter 4 of the concurrent studies. In addition to addressing the needs,
the recommendations and evaluation outlined in this chapter emphasize the consistency,
continuity, and commitment required to support developing and implementing culturally
responsive practices at ANCS. In a community consisting of over 10,000 educators, students, and
parents worldwide, the size and scale of ANCS alone requires the organization to maintain
consistency across the school while developing and implementing culturally responsive
practices. Furthermore, due to the transient nature of international schools (Bailey & Gibson,
2020) and recent trends of high educator turnover at ANCS, sustaining continuity of culturally
responsive practices becomes increasingly important when onboarding new employees into the
organization. Finally, current ANCS educators must demonstrate a collective commitment to the
school’s vision of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) through the implementation of culturally
responsive practices. As expressed in the school’s DEI commitment statement, each student at
ANCS should feel valued, cared for, and included. With critical hope, ANCS will engage in
continuous improvement so that these commitments become a reality. As such, ANCS might
offer promising practices to other international schools wishing to become more culturally
responsive to their respective communities.
Recommendations to Address Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization Influences
The KMO influences in the following tables were determined to be assets or needs based
on interview findings, observations, and document analyses presented in the researchers’
individually written Chapter Four. Each KMO is reported separately and contains an overview
142

identifying the evidence-based principle supporting the recommendations. Recommendations in
this study have been reordered and do not follow the traditional KMO structure, as the
researchers determined that the organizational influences were the highest priority.
Besides determining that organizational influences were the highest prioritized, they were
also the most pervasive need across all stakeholder groups. Drawing on the inspiration from
Galloway and Ishimaru (2020), the researchers of this study reject the notion that equitable
change in a school first requires shifts in individuals’ “hearts and minds.” Recognizing that the
hearts-and-minds-first theory of change can hinder changes in organizational policies, structures,
and practices (Galloway & Ishimaru, 2020), the researchers in the study started by addressing the
validated organizational influences to achieve the stakeholders’ performance goals. Following
recommendations addressing organizational influences, the researchers addressed the validated
knowledge and motivational influences.
Organization Influences
While it is easy to focus on the organization as an entity, it is important to remember that
organizations are composed of people whose knowledge, skills, and motivation are at the heart of
performance (Clark & Estes, 2008). This means that, organizationally, ANCS must focus on
providing maximum support for educators’ needs. Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) describe
how organizations can be examined through the two dimensions of cultural models and cultural
settings. Cultural models are the often invisible and underlying shared ideas and behavioral
patterns that distinguish one culture from another, whereas cultural settings are the social
contexts and routines which shape everyday life (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). This
framework suggests that achieving cultural responsiveness requires organizations to transform
both visible and invisible norms that are aligned with oppressive and exclusionary practices and
143

create settings to show the value of practices that redress bias and promote cultural
responsiveness (Galloway & Ishimaru, 2020).
Achieving cultural responsiveness and equity in education necessitates not only an
equitable allocation of resources between schools but also within schools (Brayboy et al., 2007;
Galloway & Ishimaru, 2020). Recognizing that the distribution of resources is intimately linked
to the quality of education students receive (Ishimaru & Galloway, 2014; Lynch & Baker, 2005),
allocating resources to culturally responsive education is a means of making sure that culturally
and racially diverse students receive a quality education. To ensure a high-quality education for
all students, policies, processes, and procedures must counter oppression and address racial
inequities normalized in organizational and instructional practices (Ishimaru & Galloway, 2014).
In this study, within the organization of ANCS, the gaps or barriers to implementing culturally
responsive pedagogy focused on resources, policies, processes, procedures, and cultural models
and settings.
Organization Recommendations
The organizational domain consists of four subdomains, including resources, policies,
processes, procedures, and cultural model and setting. Findings in this study validated
organizational needs for all of the four influences across all stakeholder groups as each validated
influence was identified and supported by the data gathered from interviews, observations, and
data analysis. Poorly allocated resources, inconsistent policies, processes, and procedures, and
misaligned cultural models and settings may prevent the organization’s stakeholders from
achieving performance goals even with ample knowledge and motivation (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Clark and Estes’ (2008) framework suggests using evidence-based, context-specific
recommendations for each validated influence. Therefore, Table 13 lists the organizational
144

influences, assets or needs according to stakeholders (Spanish educators, classroom educators,
and school leaders in the elementary, middle, and high school), the principles from
organizational science research, and context-specific recommendations. Following the table, a
detailed discussion for each cause and recommendation and the literature supporting the
recommendation is provided. Specific activities for the recommendations will be described later
in the chapter in the integrated implementation and evaluation sections.

Table 13
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Organization Influence Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Resources
Educators need to be a part of
an organization that
purposefully develops and
utilizes resources (time,
finances, staff) to enhance
culturally responsive
learning.
Effective change efforts
ensure that everyone has the
resources (equipment,
personnel, time, etc.) needed
to do their job and that if
there are resource shortages,
then resources are aligned
with organizational priorities
(Clark & Estes, 2008).

Provide educators with the
resources they need (i.e.,
coaching, professional
development, time, and
space) to share evidence that
culturally responsive goals
are being prioritized and met.

Policies, Processes, &
Procedures
Educators need to be a part of
an organization that provides
multi-tiered systems of
support for culturally
responsive practices.
Effective organizations
ensure that organizational
messages, rewards, policies,
and procedures that govern
the work of the organization
are aligned with or are
supportive of organizational
goals and values (Clark &
Estes, 2008).

Provide educators with a
multi-tiered progress
monitoring system to
examine patterns and trends
related to culturally
responsive behaviors,
providing support as needed.

Cultural Model
Educators need to be part of
an organization whose
Effective change efforts
ensure that all key
stakeholders’ perspectives
Provide educators with
ongoing audits of their teams’
messages, policies, and
145

ideologies, values, and
assumptions are aligned with
cultural responsiveness and
equity-focused theories of
change.
inform the design and
decision-making process
leading to the change (Clark
& Estes, 2008).
processes, to check for
alignment or interference
with the organization’s
espoused values/goals related
to culturally responsive
practices.

Cultural Setting
Educators need to be situated
in an organizational setting
that promotes values of
cultural responsiveness,
critical reflection, inclusivity,
and community.

Effective change efforts use
evidence-based solutions and
adapt them, where necessary,
to the organization’s cultural
setting (Clark & Estes, 2008).

Provide evidence-based and
adaptive solutions responsive
to educators’ specific needs to
ensure the cultural setting is
conducive to culturally
responsive practices.

Implications for Practice: Resources
Clark and Estes (2008) state that effective change efforts ensure everyone has the
resources needed to do their job and that if there are resource shortages, then resources are
aligned with organizational priorities. Educators need to be a part of an organization that
purposefully develops and utilizes resources such as time, finances, and staff to enhance
culturally responsive learning. However, data from interviews and document analyses identified
gaps in the organization’s resources. Culturally responsive leaders must also advocate for the
equitable use of resources throughout systems within and beyond their own sphere of control
(Galloway & Ishimaru, 2020). When working with one’s team, it is important to establish, from
the beginning, what the priorities of the team are so that when hard choices have to be made, the
guidance is already in place (Clark & Estes, 2008). This principle suggests that for educators to
enact culturally responsive practices, the organization must provide them with the resources they
need.
Schoolwide Professional Development
146

Data across all stakeholders showed a gap in educators’ access to the resources they need
to enact culturally responsive practices. Clark and Estes (2008) suggest that knowledge and skills
enhancement is required when individuals do not know how to accomplish performance goals
and when solving novel problems. At a schoolwide level, a professional learning plan will
prioritize, align, and integrate professional development with the school’s strategic goal of
enacting culturally responsive practices. According to Knight (2007), only 10% of traditional
professional development learning is fully integrated into the classroom. However, when
educators are engaged in learning, there is motivation to apply learning to their own pedagogy
(Klein & Riordan, 2009). To increase knowledge and motivation simultaneously, educators
should have input into what and how they learn (Clark, 2018). Studies have found that when
educators take part in intellectually engaging, culturally responsive professional development,
the results are twofold: they deepen their sociopolitical consciousness and apply teaching and
learning beyond the confines of school to identify, analyze, and solve real-world problems
(Hynds et al., 2011; Kennedy, 2019; Ladson-Billings, 1995b). Therefore, a recommendation is to
implement a schoolwide professional learning plan to prioritize, align, and integrate professional
development with the school’s strategic goal of enacting culturally responsive practices.
Time and Space in PLCs
At a PLC level, congruent data across all stakeholder groups revealed the need for the
time and space to prioritize the enactment of culturally responsive practices. This includes the
support to ensure consistent implementation and a focus on sharing evidence that culturally
responsive goals are being prioritized and met. Educators who participate in PLCs focused on
culturally responsive practices develop culturally responsive competencies (Alhanachi et al.,
2021). Therefore, the recommendation is for ANCS to restructure the existing PLCs so that
147

educators have access to resources, according to need, through their participation in learning
communities prioritized with the school’s strategic goal of focusing on and developing culturally
responsive competencies. Since school leaders develop teacher capacity for creating culturally
responsive curricula and assessments (Villegas & Lucas, 2002), to remove barriers to this
influence, the school leadership must allocate culturally responsive resources to support this
work.
Coaching
Data across all stakeholders showed a gap in the resources allocated for educators’
support to receive and apply personalized and embedded professional development. Clark and
Estes (2008) state that individual team members will benefit from the resources of just-in-time
training and support through expert coaching. ANCS needs to provide educators with one-on-one
coaching to build and share evidence that culturally responsive goals are being prioritized and
met. A more effective method of professional development, instructional coaching may, increase
educators’ self-efficacy in implementing instructional strategies (Joyce & Showers, 2002).
According to Sprick and Sprick (2010), without coaching, the professional development
educators receive may be less applicable to their own practice. However, working alongside a
coach can support educators as they increase student achievement and progress, develop the
ability to analyze their lessons, and refine their teaching practices. Thus, the recommendation is
to allocate the resources of instructional coaching paired with the time and space to build trust in
the relationship between educator and coach since coaching for cultural responsiveness requires
trust (Aguilar, 2013; Averill et al., 2015; Bradshaw et al., 2018; Khalifa, 2020; Knight et al.,
2016).
148

Implications for Practice: Policies, Procedures, and Processes
Educators need to be a part of an organization that provides multi-tiered systems of
support for culturally responsive practices. According to Clark and Estes (2008), effective
organizations ensure that organizational messages, rewards, policies, and procedures that govern
the organization’s work are aligned with or are supportive of organizational goals and values.
This principle suggests that educators must work collectively to review, revise, and update
current policies, processes, and procedures to maintain alignment with the organization’s
strategic goals.
Schoolwide Progress Monitoring System
At a schoolwide level, the data across all stakeholders showed a gap in the systems for
monitoring educators’ progress toward enacting culturally responsive practices. To support the
culturally responsive instructional needs of classroom educators, findings revealed a need to
create coherent and sustainable systems schoolwide. Marshall and Khalifa (2018) recommend
that leaders at all levels of the school commit to and enact culturally responsive leadership
practices that support the culturally responsive instructional needs of classroom educators. When
addressing matters of equity and cultural responsiveness at the classroom level, Orange et al.
(2019) state that school leaders must develop processes and systems to coach educators to
dialogue, critically reflect, and take action to challenge bias in their teaching. Implementing
culturally responsive policies and practices must be systematically monitored by its leaders to
ensure it is embedded in all aspects of the organization, including classrooms (Minkos et al.,
2017). Thus, the recommendation for ANCS is to provide school leaders with a progress
monitoring system where leaders at all levels of the school can examine patterns and trends
related to culturally responsive pedagogy, providing support as needed.
149

Systematically Monitoring Culturally Responsive Practices in PLCs
At a PLC level, findings revealed a need for data-based problem solving and decision
making, as well as evidence-based instruction and assessment. Minkos et al. (2017) argue that
“statements alone will not engender cultural responsiveness. Education regarding cultural
competence in an organization must be systematically monitored along with the implementation
of new policies and practices” (p. 1264). This should also hold true for PLCs. Khalifa (2020)
states that conversations about racial and cultural bias need to inform system-level changes
where cultural responsiveness becomes embedded in all aspects of the organization. He states
that an essential step in this process involves educators and school leaders using data and equity
audits to center culturally responsive practices in PLCs (Khalifa, 2020). It is recommended that
ANCS provide educators with a multi-tiered progress monitoring system, such as data and equity
audits, to systemically monitor each PLC’s implementation of culturally responsive practices,
providing support as needed.
System of Progress Monitoring Individual Educators
The findings across the data from the interview responses and document analyses showed
that, while there are systems in place at ANCS to support educators’ culturally responsive
practices, there were gaps in implementing the policies, processes, and procedures. Clark and
Estes (2008) state that all organizational goals are achieved through a system of interacting
processes that specifies how stakeholders and resources must work together to produce and
sustain the desired result. Failure may ensure when these processes do not align with the
organizational goals. For example, while the organization’s strategic plan provides a goal to
increase diversity, equity, and inclusion and gives broad actions that should cause promising
outcomes, there is a gap between the goal, the actions, and the outcomes, revealing a need for the
150

organization to link actionable steps to culturally responsive critical behaviors. Therefore, the
recommendation for ANCS is to provide educators with a multi-tiered progress monitoring
system where educators examine patterns and trends related to culturally responsive behaviors,
reflect on their own educational practice and take action to amend patterns of bias and disrupt the
status quo.
Implications for Practice: Cultural Models
Educators need to be part of an organization whose ideologies, values, and assumptions
are aligned with cultural responsiveness and equity-focused theories of change (Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2001; Galloway & Ishimaru, 2020; Ishimaru & Galloway, 2014). Effective change
efforts ensure that all key stakeholders’ perspectives inform the design and decision-making
process leading to the change (Clark & Estes, 2008). When organizations such as ANCS have
divisional subcultures, each is more difficult to change (Bolman & Deal, 1991). At the classroom
level, cultural models at ANCS are enacted through a hidden curriculum that teaches who
community members should be through unspoken norms and taken-for-granted values. The
culture of power and dominant values must be made visible so that ANCS can disrupt them when
they inhibit culturally responsive practices. Achieving cultural responsiveness requires
organizations to transform both visible and invisible norms aligned with oppressive and
exclusionary practices (Galloway & Ishimaru, 2020).
Schoolwide Culturally Responsive Audits
This study revealed emergent dichotomies through the investigation of the organizational
cultural models within ANCS. Therefore, the recommendation is for ANCS to use second-order
change (Marzano, 2005) to apply the theory of action of double-loop learning (Argyris & Schön,
1974), which occurs when an organization no longer falls back on strategies that have worked
151

before. Instead, ANCS needs to conceptualize the problem of closing the gap between the
intention and outcomes of culturally responsive practices and add new strategies to their
repertoire. One type of double-loop learning is through an audit. By completing an action-
oriented culture analysis to develop a mental model, this will bring culture to a conscious level
for analysis and collect and infer deeper meaning from artifacts and espoused values to find the
misalignments between the elements of ANCS’s culture, including artifacts, espoused values, and
underlying assumptions (Buch & Wetzel, 2001) to ensure culturally responsive coherence
throughout the organization. Therefore, the recommendation is to provide educators with
ongoing audits of their teams’ messages, policies, and processes, to check for alignment or
interference with the organization’s espoused values and goals related to culturally responsive
practices.
PLC Level Culturally Responsive Audits
At the PLC level, the data across all stakeholders showed a gap between the ANCS’s
espoused theories and theories in action revealed through organizational values and goals.
According to the data, professional learning communities (PLCs) are not conducive to culturally
responsive practices and can be façades of collaboration with little to no responsibility for
collaborating in a culturally responsive way. One educator said that these learning communities
are hegemonic with “wide swaths and amounts of power being held, but not distributing that
power. And the goals of my PLC are going to be only decided on by my PLC leader.” Brookfield
(2017) defines critical reflection as the process of illuminating power and uncovering hegemony.
Therefore, a recommendation is to restructure the PLC framework in order to reform systems of
power so that they align with the organization’s strategic goal of becoming a culturally
responsive school with critical self-reflective practices.
152

Individual Culturally Responsive Audits
Findings revealed a gap between the espoused and enacted cultural model of the
organization, showing that educators do not feel that the organizational setting at ANCS is
conducive to culturally responsive practices. According to Brookfield (2009), critical reflection
starts with self as one closely examines, uncovers, and challenges these power dynamics and
hegemonic assumptions and seeks to uncover and liberate the internal biases that frame
epistemology and practice. Grounded in a set of values (Brookfield, 2017), educators need to use
critical reflection to realize and challenge the status quo in their own practice and to recognize
and research the assumptions that are just beneath the surface of their thoughts and actions
(Brookfield, 2009). Therefore, a recommendation is to provide educators with data related to
how they are enacting culturally responsive practices, prompting educators to self-reflect and
generate evidence-based solutions when they are not showing and modeling such behaviors.
Implications for Practice: Cultural Settings
Educators need to be situated in an organizational setting conducive to culturally
responsive practices. Disrupting and dismantling culturally unresponsive and oppressive
practices moves beyond stating that such practices exist to “uncover[ing] the places, instances,
and incidents where they happen” (Sondel et al., 2019, p. 6). Effective change efforts must use
evidence-based solutions and adapt them, where necessary, to an organization’s cultural setting
(Clark & Estes, 2008). This principle suggests that ANCS’s cultural setting influences how
culturally responsive change is enacted in order to disrupt oppressive practices. As cultural
settings are where educators come together to accomplish organizational goals Gallimore and
Goldenberg (2001), ANCS must provide evidence-based and adaptive solutions responsive to
educators’ specific needs to ensure the cultural setting is conducive to culturally responsive
153

practices. Such evidence-based and adaptive solutions derive from a process of ongoing critical
self-reflection across ANCS’s cultural setting.
Culturally Responsive School Culture
Findings at the schoolwide level revealed educators feel that the organizational setting is
not conducive to implementing culturally responsive practices. Specifically, they note the
presence of whiteness, Westernized practices, and the superficial celebration of culture
throughout ANCS’s organizational setting. School settings are not just physical locations but also
social and historical contexts that have traditionally been designed for middle-class white
communities (Khalifa, 2020). Khalifa et al. (2016) state that white, Western hegemony–as well
as minimizing deeper explorations of race and culture–inhibits educators from fostering
culturally responsive school settings. School leaders can have a significant impact in facilitating
the professional development of culturally responsive classroom educators and, by extension,
promoting culturally responsive school climates (Marshall & Khalifa, 2018). As such, the
recommendation for ANCS is to provide educators with schoolwide professional learning to
explore their cultural biases and how they must foster a culturally responsive school
environment.
Culturally Responsive Learning Communities
At the PLC level, findings revealed that educators do not feel that the learning
communities at ANCS are conducive to culturally responsive practices. According to one
classroom educator, these learning communities are hegemonic with “wide swaths and amounts
of power being held, but not distributing that power. And the goals of my PLC are going to be
only decided on by my PLC leader.” Cooper et al. (2009) state that PLCs can be transformed into
sites of culturally responsive learning, where educators should not only share leadership but also
154

engage in self-reflective activities examining their cultural biases. To leverage change, school
leaders can ensure that the core components of PLCs are more culturally responsive, guiding
educators to critically self-reflect not only their cultural biases but also their curriculum,
instructional, and assessment practices (Khalifa, 2020). Thus, it is recommended that ANCS
restructure PLCs as culturally responsive learning communities where educators work together
to promote values of critical reflection, inclusivity, and community.
Culturally Responsive Classrooms
Findings revealed that the classroom environment is not always a setting that ensures a
high-quality, culturally responsive education for all students. To draw upon and use the cultural
knowledge, prior experiences, frames of reference, and performance styles that learners bring to
the classrooms, educators need to use culturally responsive practices to make learning more
relevant to and effective for students (Gay, 2002). To ensure change, school leaders can use
equity audits to examine data not only related to the school culture and climate but also
classroom settings to determine these culturally responsive practices (Khalifa, 2020). In order to
foster what Steketee et al. (2021) describe as a culturally responsive school ecology, educators
must “must develop the capacity to be culturally sensitive, provide culturally responsive
pedagogy, and regularly self-assess for biases implicated in positive academic outcomes for
students in kindergarten through Grade 12” (p. 1075). Therefore, it is recommended that ANCS’s
school leaders provide educators with data related to how they are enacting culturally responsive
practices in their classroom settings, prompting them to critically reflect while also supporting
them in generating evidence-based solutions when they are not showing and modeling such
behaviors.
155

Knowledge Influences
According to Clark and Estes (2008), to close stakeholder performance gaps, it is
necessary to understand and assess the categories of knowledge. While investigating the barriers
impeding culturally responsive practices, this study closely focused on the gaps in factual,
conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge. Educators’ knowledge and skills, in
comparison with other factors, make the biggest difference in learners’ acquisition of knowledge
(Darling-Hammond & Lieberman, 2012). According to Villegas and Lucas (2002),
culturally responsive teachers are socioculturally conscious, have affirming views of
students from diverse backgrounds, see themselves as responsible for and capable of
bringing about change to make schools more equitable, understand how learners construct
knowledge and are capable of promoting knowledge construction, know about the lives
of their students, and design instruction that builds on what their students already know
while stretching them beyond the familiar. (p. 20)
If educators do not have the knowledge, skills necessary, and required abilities to audit and write
curriculum, instruct, and assess learners in a culturally responsive manner, and if educators do
not understand how the sociopolitical relationship between oppression and advantage underpins
this practice, they will not be able to successfully implement this asset-based framework. In
addition, educators who do not know how to critically self-reflect on their lack the ability for
learning and applying the knowledge of cultural responsiveness into practice.
Knowledge Recommendations
The knowledge domain consists of four subdomains: factual, conceptual, procedural, and
metacognitive knowledge (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). Findings in this study validated
organizational needs across all stakeholder groups as each validated influence was identified and
156

supported by the data gathered from interviews, observations, and data analysis. Therefore, Table
14 lists the knowledge influences, assets or needs according to stakeholders (Spanish educators,
classroom educators, and school leaders in the elementary, middle, and high school), the
principles from organizational science research, and context-specific recommendations.
Following the table, a detailed discussion for each cause and recommendation and the literature
supporting the recommendation is provided. Specific activities for the recommendations will be
described later in the chapter in the integrated implementation and evaluation sections.

Table 14
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Knowledge Influence Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Factual
Educators need to know the
components of culturally
responsive curriculum,
instruction, and assessment
practices.
To develop mastery,
individuals must
acquire component
skills, practice
integrating them, and
know when to apply
what they have
learned (Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006).

Provide learning experiences
(i.e., professional
development, PLC cycles of
inquiry, one-on-one coaching
cycles) that connect verbal
and pictorial representations
of culturally responsive
practices with educators’
prior knowledge of
curriculum, assessment, and
instruction.

Conceptual
Educators need to know the
sociopolitical relationship
between oppression and
advantage underpinning
culturally responsive
practices.
Provide experiences
that help people make sense
of the material rather than
just focus on memorization
(Schraw & McCrudden,
2006).
Provide professional learning
experiences (i.e., professional
development, PLC cycles of
inquiry, one-on-one coaching
cycles) that build educators’
conceptual understanding of
racism rather than just
focusing on memorization.
157

Procedural
Educators need knowledge of
how to create and use
culturally responsive
curriculum, instruction, and
assessment practices.
Modeling to-be-
learned strategies or
behaviors improve
self-efficacy, learning,
and performance (Denler et
al., 2009).
Provide professional learning
experiences (i.e., professional
development, PLC cycles of
inquiry, one-on-one coaching
cycles) modeling to-be-
learned culturally responsive
strategies and practices.

Metacognitive
Educators need to know how
to critically self-reflect on
their knowledge, beliefs,
values, assumptions, biases,
and experiences related to
improving culturally
responsive practices.

The use of metacognitive
strategies facilitate learning
(Baker, 2006).
Provide professional learning
experiences (i.e., professional
development, PLC cycles of
inquiry, one-on-one coaching
cycles) on how to critically
reflect on culturally
responsive practices.

Implications for Practice: Factual
Educators need to know the components of the culturally responsive curriculum,
instruction, and assessment practices to meet the needs of their students (Gay, 2010; Ladson-
Billings, 2014). To develop mastery, individuals must acquire component skills, practice
integrating them, and know when to apply what they have learned (Schraw & McCrudden,
2006). Research has shown that many pre-service educators are inadequately prepared with the
relevant knowledge, experience, and training needed to build culturally responsive teaching
practices (Au, 2009; Cummins, 2007). In addition, insufficient preparation may cause a cultural
divide between educators and students (Gay, 2010; Ladson-Billings, 2009). In response, schools
must be sites of learning to ensure that all educators (regardless of the amount of knowledge held
when initially hired) understand and can communicate the components of culturally responsive
pedagogy, including curriculum, instruction, and assessment practices. The findings validated the
158

need for the factual knowledge influences in Table 24, indicating that some of the stakeholders in
the elementary, middle, and high school require ongoing support through collaboration with the
educators who know and can share their understanding of culturally responsive practices. Thus,
ANCS must provide professional learning experiences for all educators to learn from and with
each other schoolwide, as well as within the PLCs’ cycles of inquiry and individually, during
one-on-one coaching cycles to apply and increase their factual knowledge of culturally
responsive curriculum, instruction, and assessment practices.
Schoolwide Professional Development Experiences
The data across all stakeholder groups revealed incongruent data in educators’ factual
knowledge about the components of culturally responsive practices, and while some educators
can communicate factual knowledge, there are gaps in others’ knowledge of culturally responsive
terminology, details, and elements (Rueda, 2011). Research has shown that active learning
possibilities in professional development led to enhanced knowledge and abilities, as well as
changes in classroom practice (Lieberman & Grolnick, 1996; Stiles & Loucks-Horsley, 1998).
As part of their professional development, active learning encourages educators to engage in
meaningful conversation, planning, and practice as they deepen their understanding of the
components of the culturally responsive practices of curriculum development, instruction, and
assessment. Therefore, it is recommended that ANCS provide schoolwide professional
development experiences to connect verbal and pictorial representations of culturally responsive
practices with educators’ prior knowledge of curriculum, assessment, and instruction.
PLC Experiences
At the PLC level, the findings highlighted the need for all educators to acquire factual
knowledge about the components of culturally responsive practices. The PLC cycle of inquiry
159

offers the opportunity for growth in factual knowledge as the learning community collaborates
through professional learning to meet both the organizational performance goals as well as the
PLCs’ goals to enact the culturally responsive practices of curriculum development, instruction,
and assessment. Developing learning communities that incorporate critical intercultural
orientations will support educators in cultural transformation (Mullen, 2009). Therefore, it is
recommended that ANCS provide PLC experiences that connect verbal and pictorial
representations of culturally responsive practices with educators’ prior knowledge of curriculum,
assessment, and instruction.
Coaching Experiences
Incongruent findings revealed the need for individual educators to acquire factual
knowledge of culturally responsive pedagogy. Through one-on-one coaching cycles, educators
receive differentiation to meet their individual needs related to the components of culturally
responsive practices. Active learning with a culturally responsive coach includes opportunities to
observe and be observed in the classroom, plan classroom lessons, and analyze student work or
co-teaching and coaching that incorporates cooperation with colleagues and teacher reflection on
methods improve teaching practice and student results (Curby et al., 2009; Pianta et al., 2008;
Reinke et al., 2008). Thus, it is recommended that ANCS provides one-on-one coaching
experiences that connect verbal and pictorial representations of culturally responsive practices
with educators’ prior knowledge of curriculum, assessment, and instruction.
Implications for Practice: Conceptual
Educators need to know the sociopolitical relationship between oppression and advantage
underpinning culturally responsive practices, including an understanding of the concepts Picower
(2009) illustrates as four overlapping levels between oppression and advantage: ideological,
160

institutional, interpersonal/individual, and internalized. To build a conceptual understanding of
the sociopolitical context between oppression and advantage, educators must be given
experiences to deepen their understanding and make sense of the material rather than just focus
on memorization (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006). The findings validated the need for the
conceptual knowledge influences in Table 24, indicating that some of the stakeholders in the
elementary, middle, and high school require ongoing support through collaboration with the
educators who know and can share their understanding of culturally responsive practices. To
align the school’s strategic goal with specific and measurable outcomes, ANCS must provide
professional learning experiences through schoolwide professional development, within the PLC
cycles of inquiry, and in one-on-one coaching cycles to build educators’ conceptual
understanding of racism rather than just focusing on memorization.
Schoolwide Professional Development Experiences
At the schoolwide level, the findings highlighted the need for professional learning
experiences to increase educators’ conceptual knowledge of culturally responsive practices
through what Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) defined as the categories, classifications,
principles, models, and structures that are relevant to a specific area. Once educators learn about
the components of culturally responsive curriculum, instruction, and assessment practices, a next
step is to understand the interrelationship between these concepts. Increasing educators’
conceptual knowledge will also increase awareness of the relationships inherent in their
educational organization, shown through the structures of status quo norms and practices that
uphold racial inequities (Larson & Ovando, 2001). Thus, it is recommended that ANCS provide
professional development experiences with a range of learning opportunities that build educators’
conceptual understanding of racism rather than just focusing on memorization.
161

PLC Experiences
At a PLC level, congruent data across all stakeholder groups revealed the need for what
Banks et al. (2001) recommend as professional learning to increase educators’ competence in
addressing the educational needs of students. According to Chouari (2016), it is not uncommon
for educators to struggle when teaching in a culturally diverse classroom as they frequently as
lack in-depth understanding of the learners’ cultural backgrounds. Data revealed that PLCs at
ANCS were a consistent barrier to enacting culturally responsive practices for educators in all
divisions. Effective PLCs can act as levers for individual and institutional change, providing
educators the resources of time, space, and support needed for conceptual learning through what
Leonard and Woodland (2022) describe as “critical dialogue about identity, implicit biases, and
systemic oppression, so they can recognize and transform racist beliefs and practices” (p. 220).
Therefore, a recommendation is to restructure PLCs to instigate action through the cycle of
inquiry, focused on providing culturally responsive professional learning experiences to build
educators’ conceptual understanding of racism, rather than just focusing on memorization. In
addition, a PLC reconstructed as a space for public critical reflection can act to consistently
challenge and uncover biases and inherent hegemonic assumptions (Brookfield, 2009).
Coaching Experiences
Findings revealed educators need support with conceptual knowledge to understand the
interrelationship between these concepts of culturally responsive practices. Roche and Passmore
(2021) found that there was a need for a greater understanding of systemic racism among
instructional leaders responsible for facilitating coaching conversations with educators. However,
the same could not be said about ANCS’s instructional leaders, as the findings revealed that
instructional leaders at ANCS understand the framework of culturally responsive pedagogy.
162

Bocala et al. (2021) state that instructional leaders engaging classroom educators in coaching
cycles must be “acutely aware of historical oppression, and understand how racial inequities
manifest in schools” (p. 69). ANCS’s instructional leaders involved in the study understand how
race and racism impact educational practices, so they must be empowered to apply and center
such knowledge in their coaching conversations with educators. Orange et al. (2019) urge both
instructional leaders to engage in coaching conversations with educators about combating racism
so that they can promote equitable, culturally responsive practices. Instructional leaders can use
coaching to push themselves and educators beyond superficial understandings of racism to
shifting practices to address the culturally responsive needs of students (Marshall & Khalifa,
2018). Thus, it is recommended that ANCS provide coaching experiences that build educators’
conceptual understanding of racism rather than just focusing on memorization.
Implications for Practice: Procedural
Educators must possess procedural knowledge, shown through skills, techniques, steps,
sequences, methods of inquiry, and methodologies of varying difficulty and sophistication, to
know how to execute particular tasks (Rueda, 2011). It is important to note that culturally
responsive practices are not essentialized into checklists or guidelines; rather, they are a concept
that provides a multidisciplinary framework with implications for practice (Stembridge, 2019).
According to Mayer (2011), “Learning is a change in knowledge attributable to experience” (p.
14). To successfully implement culturally responsive pedagogy, educators need to have the
experience and know how to apply the progression of knowledge of culturally responsive
practices, including how to create and utilize curriculum, instruction, assessment practices, and
learning communities (Delpit, 2006; Gay, 1995; Gay, 2010; Moll et al., 2006; Paris, 2012;
Villegas & Lucas, 2002). The findings validated needs for the procedural knowledge influences
163

in Table 17, indicating that some of the stakeholders in the elementary, middle, and high school
require ongoing support through collaboration with the educators who know and can share their
understanding of culturally responsive practices. Bandura’s (1977) Social Learning Theory posits
that people learn through the observation, imitation, and modeling of others and the more
knowledgeable other (MKO) within Vygotsky’s (1978) Zone of Proximal Development refers to
the efficiency of learning with someone with a better understanding of the concept. To align the
school’s strategic goal with specific and measurable outcomes, ANCS must provide professional
learning experiences for all educators on how to enact culturally responsive strategies and
practices through schoolwide professional development, PLCs, and coaching to model to-be-
learned culturally responsive strategies and practices.
Schoolwide Professional Development Experiences
Data across all stakeholders showed a gap between educators’ declarative (factual,
conceptual) and procedural knowledge of culturally responsive practices, revealing a
misalignment between the espoused theories and theories in action. In addition, participants’
interview responses revealed that, while educators know the components of culturally responsive
practices and the interrelationship between these concepts, they were not able to clearly
communicate how to create assessments that are in alignment with this framework. The
observations validated the congruent findings that educators were not able to systematically
enact culturally responsive practices within classroom, meeting, and PLC settings, conveying the
need to increase educators’ expertise in the areas of curriculum development, instruction, and
assessment. Clark and Estes (2008) state that training must show trainees exactly how to decide
and act to achieve performance goals. This principle suggests that ANCS must systematically
plan schoolwide professional development experiences, modeling to-be-learned culturally
164

responsive strategies and practices to encourage educators to use the knowledge from
professional development to deepen their understanding of relevant content knowledge and
experience (Au, 2009; Cummins, 2007). It is recommended that all educators receive
professional development about how to enact culturally responsive practices, providing the
strategies needed to conduct curriculum reviews and audits and to create and revise instruction
and assessment plans.
PLC Experiences
At a PLC level, congruent data across all stakeholder groups revealed the need for
professional learning in procedural learning centered on the specific needs of each professional
learning community. Since learning is a social process and educators learn through their
interactions with others and the environment (Vygotsky, 1978), professional development is most
effective when it is collaborative, job-embedded, instructionally-focused, data-driven, and
ongoing (Darling-Hammond et al., 2009). Scott and Palincsar (2013) suggest that targeting
training and instruction between the individual’s independent performance level and their level
of assisted performance promotes optimal learning. Therefore, it is recommended that ANCS
provide educators with the opportunity to collaborate with peers who have slightly higher levels
of proficiency and skills to practice and apply new knowledge about culturally responsive
practices while designing curriculum, planning instructional activities, and assessing student
learning within professional learning communities.
Coaching Experiences
Findings revealed educators need support with the procedural knowledge of how to
structure and enact culturally responsive curriculum, instruction, and assessment practices to
165

facilitate learners’ understanding of their identity, their community, and the world. One
participant stated,
It’s (planning, instruction, and assessment) just a little bit haphazard there. But when you
talk about procedure, there wasn’t a lot of procedure there, so I guess that’s kind of the
heart of it. When it comes to culturally responsive practices, I do it with my feelings, not
with my procedural brain.
Modeling to-be-learned strategies or behaviors improve educators’ self-efficacy, learning,
and performance (Denler et al., 2009), especially when coaches facilitate intended learning in
classroom settings. Supplying procedural strategies and purposeful recommendations, paired
with the guidance to communicate when the strategies would be most appropriate (Kennedy,
2019), constitutes personalized professional development specific to educators’ needs. In
addition, according to Hammerness and Matsko (2013), coaches can provide a lens for educators
to focus their critical self-reflection as they question and dismantle the status quo, reflecting on
their own experiences (which may have been formed by hegemonic practices) to evaluate what
style of instruction would best benefit learners.
Implications for Practice: Metacognitive
Educators need to know how to critically self-reflect on their knowledge, beliefs, values,
assumptions, biases, and experiences related to improving culturally responsive practices. Using
metacognitive strategies facilitates learning (Baker, 2006). Specifically, as it relates to critical
self-reflection, Ford and Trotman (2001) posit, “culturally competent educators seek greater self-
awareness and understanding regarding their biases, assumptions, and stereotypes. Teachers must
be self-aware in the classroom, as their beliefs influence the way they teach” (p. 236). Khalifa et
al. (2016) state that school leaders must also engage in critical self-reflection if they are to create
166

culturally responsive school communities. The findings validated needs for the metacognitive
knowledge influences in Table 24, indicating that some of the stakeholders in the elementary,
middle, and high school require ongoing support through collaboration with the educators who
know and can share their understanding of culturally responsive practices. ANCS must provide
professional learning experiences through schoolwide professional development, within PLC
cycles of inquiry, and in one-on-one coaching cycles focused on how to critically reflect on
culturally responsive practices.
Critically Reflective Professional Development
Findings revealed that professional development related to critical self-reflection serves
as a catalyst for improving culturally responsive practices. To improve culturally responsive
practices at the schoolwide level, organizations must provide professional development on how
to critically self-reflect on biases in the workplace (Hopf et al., 2021). Professional development
experiences need to engage educators in ongoing critical reflection so that the entire school
community is grounded in culturally responsive practices (Genao, 2021; Morales et al., 2020).
As such, it is recommended that ANCS offer professional development opportunities that support
educators in critically self-reflecting to improve their culturally responsive practices.
Critically Reflective PLCs
The findings revealed that ANCS PLCs are not yet sites where educators consistently
engage in critical reflection on culturally responsive practices. When PLCs are leveraged as
culturally responsive learning communities, educators recognize and name their biases in self-
reflective activities (Cooper et al., 2009). Khalifa (2020) notes that self-reflection, language,
literature, equity audits, community-based focus, and perspectives that center on cultural
responsiveness should all be included in the processes of PLCs. School leaders can leverage and
167

structure PLCs as sites for critical self-reflection to make spaces for educators to understand
when and why minoritized students are not responding to instruction or curricular content
(Khalifa, 2020). In turn, this challenges educators to adjust and make their curriculum and
instruction more culturally responsive. It is thereby recommended that ANCS integrate ongoing
critical self-reflection activities into PLC meetings so that educators can improve their culturally
responsive practices.
Critically Reflective Coaching
The findings revealed that some educators at ANCS know how to engage in critical self-
reflection related to culturally responsive practices. Such knowledge can be shared with
individual educators to continue supporting ongoing growth related to culturally responsive
practices. Marshall and Khalifa (2018) state that instructional coaches who engage educators in
critical reflection help ensure instructional practices are culturally responsive. Instructional
leaders who facilitate ongoing coaching cycles grounded in critical reflection activities help
educators examine and realize biases that inhibit culturally responsive practices (Orange et al.,
2019). It is recommended that school leaders at ANCS facilitate repeated coaching cycles with
educators, guiding them to critically reflect on culturally responsive practices.
Motivation Influences
Increased motivation paired with effective knowledge, skills, and work processes, results
in performance gains (Clark & Estes, 2008). Research has shown that the factors that have the
most influence on choice, persistence, and mental effort are personal and team confidence,
beliefs about organizational and environmental barriers to achieving goals, the emotional climate
people experience in their work environment, and the personal and team values for their
performance goals (Clark, 1998; Clark & Estes, 2008). There is a link between quality
168

instruction and learning outcomes and research has found that, in terms of effectiveness,
educational methods, techniques, practices, and instructional behaviors are all closely related to
educator motivation (Butler & Shibaz, 2014; Han et al., 2015; Retelsdorf & Günther, 2011;
Retelsdorf et al., 2010; Thoonen et al., 2011).
Motivation Recommendations
This study examined influences within three subdomains: interest, emotion, and self-
efficacy. Findings validated organizational needs for all of the three influences across all
stakeholder groups as each validated influence was identified and supported by the data gathered
from interviews, observations, and data analysis. Therefore, Table 15 lists the motivational
influences, assets or needs according to stakeholders (Spanish educators, classroom educators,
and school leaders in the elementary, middle, and high school), the principles from
organizational science research, and context-specific recommendations. Following the table, a
detailed discussion for each cause and recommendation and the literature supporting the
recommendation is provided. Specific activities for the recommendations will be described later
in the chapter in the integrated implementation and evaluation sections.

Table 15
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Motivation Influence Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Interest
Educators need to have
intrinsic interests and
personal relevance in
implementing culturally
responsive practices.
Activating and building upon
personal interest can increase
learning and motivation
(Schraw & Lehman, 2009).

Provide educators with
professional learning
experiences (i.e., professional
development, PLC cycles of
inquiry, and coaching) that
build upon their intrinsic
169

interests and personal
relevance in implementing
culturally responsive practices.

Emotion
Educators need to be
emotionally driven to learn
about and implement
culturally responsive
practices.
Activating positive and
negative emotions can serve
as motivating factors for
learning (Hidi &
Harackiewicz, 2000; Pekrun,
2011)
Provide professional learning
experiences (i.e., professional
development, PLC cycles of
inquiry, and coaching)
activating positive and
negative emotions for
educators, motivating them to
enact culturally responsive
practices.

Self-Efficacy
Educators need to be
confident in their ability to
enact culturally responsive
curriculum, instruction, and
assessment practices.
Feedback and modeling
increase self-efficacy
(Pajares, 2006).

Provide educators with
professional learning
experiences (i.e., professional
development, PLC cycles of
inquiry, and coaching) that
increase self-efficacy beliefs
towards enacting culturally
responsive practices.

Implications for Practice: Interest
Educators need to have intrinsic interests and personal relevance in implementing
culturally responsive practices. The findings validated needs for motivational interest influences
in Table 25, indicating that some of the stakeholders in the elementary, middle, and high school
require ongoing support through collaboration with the educators who know and can share their
understanding of culturally responsive practices. While the findings in the concurrent studies
revealed that classroom educators showed intrinsic interest and personal commitment to
implementing culturally responsive practices, ANCS’s school leaders need additional support in
developing their capacity to engage in this work. A participant stated, “I am excited to work on
170

this, and I want to get started as soon as possible. I know it will be a long process where I need to
unlearn and relearn.” Activating and building upon personal interest can increase learning and
motivation (Schraw & Lehman, 2009). However, school leaders did not express interest in
actively pursuing and persisting the implementation of culturally responsive practices. According
to Griner and Stewart (2013), long-term commitment to social justice issues in education to
discover practical and meaningful strategies to overcome inequitable structures and belief cycles
that contribute to issues such as the achievement gap and disproportionality. It is recommended
that there is a need to create opportunities for educational leaders to be accountable for their
commitment to supporting culturally responsive practices. In addition, to align the school’s
strategic goal with specific and measurable outcomes, ANCS must provide educators with
professional learning experiences through schoolwide professional development, within the PLC
cycles of inquiry, and in coaching to increase intrinsic interests to enact and continue culturally
responsive practices.
Schoolwide Professional Development Experiences
While the study results showed that most educators have an intrinsic interest in culturally
responsive practices, ANCS's school leaders require more support to develop an interest in the
practice. Khalifa (2020) states that if cultural responsiveness is to be present and sustainable in
school, it must foremost and consistently be promoted by school leaders. Since higher levels of
interest and intrinsic motivation activate learning, educators must see school leaders’ interest and
involvement in learning to enact culturally responsive practices (Rueda, 2011). According to
Khalifa (2020), training and modeling focused on culturally responsive practices can foster the
educators’ intrinsic interests. Educators need to be interested in implementing culturally
responsive methods because they want to improve their practices, are strongly driven to fulfill
171

their students' needs, and believe it is empowering work. Therefore, it is recommended that
ANCS provide schoolwide professional development experiences that build upon educators’
intrinsic interests and personal relevance in implementing culturally responsive practices.
PLC Experiences
At a PLC level, educators showed intrinsic interest in implementing culturally responsive
practices. However, some stakeholders require further support in developing this practice, and
some study participants expressed that they had no time to discuss or plan culturally responsive
practices in their PLC meetings. A participant stated,
In our PLC, we rarely speak about cultural responsiveness or issues related to these
practices. Culturally responsive pedagogy (CRP) is not part of our PLC discussion. Who
decides on what and when to include CRP? Is this our PLC leader's decision, or are they
only following orders?
School leadership must be motivated and interested in aligning with culturally responsive
practices. Khalifa (2020) supplied three basic premises: 1. cultural responsiveness is a necessary
component of effective school leadership; 2. if cultural responsiveness is to be present and
sustainable in schools, it must first and foremost be promoted by school leaders; and 3. culturally
responsive school leadership is characterized by a core set of unique leadership behaviors,
namely, self-reflection, developing and sustaining culturally responsive teachers and curricula,
promoting inclusive, anti-oppressive school context and engaging students community context
(Khalifa, 2020). To combine and support the educators’ interest and the school leaders, join them
to restructure the PLCs by creating an environment conducive to collaboration and discussion on
culturally responsive practices. Therefore, it is recommended that ANCS provides a PLC
172

experience that builds upon their intrinsic interests and personal relevance in implementing
culturally responsive practices.
Coaching Experiences
While the data in the concurrent studies revealed that classroom educators were already
interested in implementing culturally responsive practices, ANCS’s school leaders need
additional support in developing an interest in engaging in this work. Social learning theory
(Vygotsky, 1978) indicates that social interactions facilitate learning like those between a coach
and teacher. For example, one participant stated, “I want to talk to someone (coach) who will
give me ideas or guide me to find resources and discuss these findings with them.” A coach can
support educators by developing lessons, observing and giving feedback, and continuing their
interest in culturally responsive practices. Similarly, the teacher and coach relationship can create
a commitment within the teacher to learn and grow (Joyce & Showers, 1981). Educational
leaders have social interaction with a one-on-one coach to create meaningful opportunities to
continue their learning and interest and their commitment to culturally responsive practices.
Therefore, it is recommended that ANCS provides educators with coaching that builds upon their
intrinsic interests and personal relevance in implementing culturally responsive practices.
Implications for Practice: Emotion
Educators need to be emotionally driven to learn about and implement culturally
responsive practices. The findings validated needs for the motivational emotion influences in
Table 25, indicating that some of the stakeholders in the elementary, middle, and high school
require ongoing support through collaboration with the educators who know and can share their
understanding of culturally responsive practices. While the findings in the concurrent studies
revealed that classroom educators were already emotionally driven to learn about and implement
173

culturally responsive practices, ANCS’s school leaders need additional support in developing
their emotional capacity to engage in this work. Clark and Estes (2008) stated that positive
emotional environments support motivation. In addition to positive emotional environments,
emotions perceived as negative can also serve as motivating factors for adult learning (Hidi &
Harackiewicz, 2000; Pekrun, 2011). Whether supporting the continued growth of classroom
educators or developing emotional commitment from school leaders, ANCS must provide
professional learning experiences (i.e., professional development, PLC cycles of inquiry, and
coaching) activating positive and negative emotions for educators, motivating them to enact
culturally responsive practices.
Exploring Emotions in Professional Development
Findings revealed that educators were emotionally driven to learn about and implement
culturally responsive practices. Professional development programs can model culturally
responsive teaching for educators; they can also serve as an arena where educators’ emotional
reactions to instruction continue to heighten their desire to learn (Wlodkowski, 2003).
Professional development seeking to cultivate culturally responsive practices must also continue
to develop educators’ social-emotional stamina to engage in such work (Donahue-Keegan, 2018).
Recognizing that some classroom educators may exhibit emotional pushback when the
organization promotes culturally responsive practices, Khalifa (2020) stated that school leaders
can develop and discuss in advance responses to “guilt, anger, denial, diversion, race-neutral
talk, diversion to gender or socioeconomic status, and other ways that some staff may disengage
from equity work.” As findings in the study revealed that school leaders need to further develop
their own emotional investment in learning about and implementing culturally responsive
practices, the same strategies can be applied to professional leadership development programs. It
174

is thereby recommended that ANCS provide professional development activating emotions
needed to cultivate culturally responsive practices while employing strategies to address
emotions that inhibit them.
Exploring Emotions in PLCs
Findings revealed that educators were emotionally driven to learn about and implement
culturally responsive practices. PLCs that provide emotional support and safety to address
common dilemmas build a sense of continuity in learning (Hairon, 2020). Not only is learning
often an outcome of addressing disorienting dilemmas but critically reflecting and dialoguing
about emotions is vital in this process (Mezirow, 2000). Motivating educators in such a way can
help them be more culturally responsive (Jenkins & Alfred, 2018). Specifically, in PLCs, Cooper
et al. (2009) stated that educators should participate in “multicultural activities that help them
feel more comfortable discussing controversial topics and reflecting on identity issues and
matters of privilege and oppression” (p. 108). Such activities can become culturally responsive
instructional tools that educators use in their own practice (Cooper et al., 2009). Still, it is
important that educators are emotionally committed to being culturally responsive, anti-racist
teachers, and this commitment transcends any feelings of discomfort caused in their learning
journey (Matias, 2013). As Matias and Zembylas (2014) argued, educators should not prioritize
“socially inappropriate emotions into ones that are more acceptable” (p. 321) but rather
demonstrate an “emotional willingness to engage in the difficult work of empathizing with views
that one may find unacceptable or offensive” (p. 333) in the name of culturally responsive, anti-
racist pedagogy. As such, it is recommended that ANCS provide PLC experiences that activate
positive and negative emotions for educators, motivating them to enact culturally responsive
practices.
175

Exploring Emotions in Coaching Conversations
Findings revealed that while some educators were emotionally driven to learn about and
implement culturally responsive practices, other stakeholders, such as school leaders, said that
they were not. Marshall and Khalifa (2018) stated that when coaching for equity, coaches must
establish trust with educators to have uncomfortable conversations about culturally responsive
practices. Aguilar (2020) advised coaches to use data to help educators recognize inequitable
practices while exploring their emotional selves before, during, and after a coaching
conversation. Majors et al. (2020) developed an emotional literacy reflection tool that can further
help educators understand their emotions and thereby enhance culturally responsive practices.
When the results revealed emotional areas of growth, Majors et al. (2020) advised the use of
coaching interventions to support their emotional growth through a culturally responsive
framework. In the process of exploring emotions in coaching conversations and through
coaching interventions, Aguilar (2020) stated that coaches must also recognize that dominant
culture often deems certain emotional expressions as acceptable while inhibiting authentic
coaching experiences for minoritized groups that do not subscribe to these norms. In addition to
engaging in uncomfortable coaching conversations about culturally responsive practices, coaches
must be willing to embrace authentic emotional expressions from minoritized coaches to
facilitate their growth as culturally responsive educators. As such, it is recommended that ANCS
provide coaching cycles activating positive and negative emotions for educators, motivating
them to enact culturally responsive practices.
Implications for Practice: Self-Efficacy
In order to meet the organizational goal, educators must not only know what the
framework of culturally responsive pedagogy encompasses, but they must also value and feel
176

confident in their ability to enact culturally responsive practices, attributing their successes and
failures to their own actions. In a study that developed and implemented a series of quantitative
scales to assess racial fragility and anti-racist educator self-efficacy, Knowles and Hawkman
(2020) found that educators’ levels of racial fragility may create barriers that limit their
motivation to engage in anti-racist or culturally relevant teaching. According to researchers,
educators’ self-efficacy may influence the instructional behaviors, practices, and methods used to
support learners’ growth (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). The findings validated needs for self-
efficacy influences in Table 25 across all stakeholder groups within the larger group known as
educators. To align the school’s strategic goal with specific and measurable outcomes and to
ensure continuity, consistency, and commitment within the organization, ANCS must provide
educators with professional learning experiences such as schoolwide professional development,
PLC cycles of inquiry, and coaching that increase self-efficacy beliefs and confidence in their
ability to enact culturally responsive curriculum, instruction, and assessment practices. This is
not a quick-fix solution as ANCS educators must be given the time to learn, apply learning
within their PLCs, and get feedback through coaching cycles. This is what Dewey (1986) called
reflective practice, and in order for professional development to impact students’ learning, it
must first affect educators’ learning (Desimone, 2009).
Schoolwide Professional Development Experiences
Findings across all stakeholders revealed a gap across the school between the knowledge
and motivation of educators, shown in the self-efficacy beliefs about their own abilities to
effectively enact culturally responsive curriculum, instruction, and assessment practices at
ANCS. In comparison with educators with lower self-efficacy, those with higher self-efficacy
beliefs are more likely to try new strategies, utilize challenging teaching techniques, and use
177

better organized, student-centered, and humanistic classroom instruction (Tschannen-Moran &
Hoy, 2001). Villegas and Lucas (2002) stated that culturally responsive educators believe they
are both accountable for and capable of bringing about educational reform that makes schools
more responsive to all students. Therefore, a recommendation is to provide educators with
schoolwide professional development to increase self-efficacy beliefs towards enacting culturally
responsive practices.
PLC Experiences
The findings revealed patterns of needs in the data, including gaps in the self-efficacy
beliefs of professional learning communities towards enacting culturally responsive practices.
Research has shown that collaboration with others leads to greater critical reflection that results
in higher self-efficacy (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009). And according to Drago-Severson and
Blum-DeStefano (2017), teachers and educational leaders must create “safe, brave, and
collaborative spaces” to create optimal and continuous learning-focused environments (p. 476).
However, one participant communicated that while their PLC colleagues know what to change
and how to change, the stimulus to change, rooted squarely in the collectivist PLC structure,
demotivates movement to culturally responsive, anti-bias, and anti-racist pedagogy. While it is
important to understand the norms, behaviors, and attitudes of the group (Merriam & Bierema,
2013), school leaders must leverage the equitable leadership practice of “fostering an equitable
school culture” (Ishimaru & Galloway, 2014) to ensure the movement in every PLC member
toward the school’s strategic goal of enacting culturally responsive practices. Collective agency
refers to people’s shared perceived capabilities of accomplishing tasks as a group (Ryan et al.,
2019), providing PLCs with the power and responsibility to take actions that lead to individual
growth and societal change (Kumar et al., 2018). Thus, a recommendation is to provide
178

educators with PLC experiences (such as problems to collaboratively solve) that increase self-
efficacy beliefs towards enacting culturally responsive practices.
Coaching Experiences
Findings revealed that educators at ANCS have low self-efficacy beliefs about their own
abilities to enact culturally responsive practices. According to Bandura (1986, 1997), there are
sources of information that educators may use to judge efficacy. The first source might include
the outcomes of previous performances. For example, one participant said, “I have an idea about
what good assessment practices look like, but I'm not, I'm not super confident in my ability to
say ‘is that culturally relevant, responsive--or not?’” A next step may be to connect this
educator’s prior knowledge about assessments while coaching through and to the understanding
of culturally responsive assessment practices. Another participant stated, “I think, although I
think I have a general knowledge of what I could do and how I could do it, and I think that it
would be helpful to have more professional development.” Vicarious observations are a second
source of information and could be connected to the next coaching move of collaboratively
observing classrooms to see, first-hand, how educators use culturally responsive practices. A
third source of information to judge efficacy is encouragement and feedback from others
(Bandura, 1986, 1997). Supporting this idea, Pajares (2006) also found an increase in the self-
efficacy of educators that receive relevant feedback and modeling. Therefore, a recommendation
is to provide educators with coaching that increases their self-efficacy beliefs towards enacting
culturally responsive practices.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Organizational Purpose, Need, and Expectations
179

The organization’s performance goal is that by 2027, educators will implement culturally
responsive curriculum, instruction, and assessment practices 100% of the time. Research
suggests that if every classroom educator can implement these teaching strategies, the academic
achievement gap will be reduced (Gay, 2010; Howard, 2003; Ladson-Billings, 2009). The
achievement of this goal was measured by interviewing educators, observing them in practice,
and through document analyses.
ANCS expects all of its educators to carry out the institutional commitments as well as
support the goals outlined in the school’s strategic plan. In order to meet the organizational goal,
the educators will not only know what the framework of culturally responsive education
encompasses but also feel motivated to enact culturally responsive practices. To ensure educators
are fulfilling the organizational goals related to culturally responsive education, ANCS will have
systems supporting learning, which are driven by its organizational mission and performance
goals. The concurrent case studies corroborate the findings that the interconnected stakeholders
must work in concert to execute the organizational performance goal with fidelity.
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
To design an implementation and evaluation plan for the program recommended to the
stakeholders, this study utilized the New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016). The model includes four levels of training and evaluation: Level 1 Reaction, Level 2
Learning, Level 3 Behavior, and Level 4 Results (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). This model
recommends working backwards from Level 4 to Level 1 to more easily identify the problems
and align the solutions with the organizational performance goals.
180

Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) state, “Level 4 is the degree to which targeted
outcomes occur as a result of the training and the support and accountability package” (p. 31).
This means that Level 4 Results measures the degree by which targeted outcomes and changes in
performance are a result of the application of knowledge and skills gained as a result of the
impact of training and provides proof that the investment in training is justified. In other words,
this level measures whether the results and outcomes show achievement and are in alignment
with the ANCS’s performance goal of increasing the culturally responsive practices in the school.
According to Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016), leading indicators are the “short-term
observations and measurements that suggest that critical behaviors are on track to create a
positive impact on the desired results” (p. 33). Table 16 shows the proposed Level 4 Results and
leading indicators in the form of outcomes, metrics, and methods for external and internal
outcomes for ANCS.

Table 16
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
External Outcomes Metric(s) Method(s)
Increased ANCS profile and
global presence as the
preeminent training ground
for culturally responsive
education in international
schools
Number of conferences in
partnership with
prominent US and
international educational
organizations
Conference announcements
and materials posted
publicly on ASCD website
and the social media
outlets of the top
international education
organizations around the
world

Increased hosting and
facilitation of culturally
Number of culturally
responsive learning
Recorded meetings and
materials shared with the
181

responsive learning
communities with educators
in and outside of ANCS
communities in
collaboration with
International School
Service’s (ISS) Diversity
Collaborative

ISS Diversity
Collaborative’s 1000+
members
Increased culturally
responsive coaching and
school leadership offerings to
educators in and outside of
ANCS
Number of culturally
responsive coaching
modules offered in
partnership with the
Culturally Responsive
School Leadership
Institute (CRSLI)

Public exhibition of learning
in collaboration with the
CRSLI
Internal Outcomes Metric(s) Method(s)
Increased schoolwide
professional development in-
service offerings to learn
about and implement
culturally responsive
practices
Number of professional
development in-service
offerings related to
culturally responsive
education
Culturally Responsive
Professional Development
Scorecard
Increased collaborative
inquiries into culturally
responsive practices

Number of PLC activities
examining culturally
responsive practices

PLC Observation Tool
Increased facilitated coaching
conversations about how to
improve culturally responsive
practices

Number of coaching
conversations about
culturally responsive
practices
Coaching Observation Tool

Level 3: Critical Behaviors
According to Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016), “Level 3 is the degree to which
participants apply what they have learned during training when they are back on the job [...] and
consists of critical behaviors, required drivers, and on-the-job learning” (p. 33). Critical
behaviors are the key behaviors and specific actions, which, if performed in a consistent manner,
will have the greatest impact on the desired results in achieving the organizational performance
182

goal (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Out of the hundreds and perhaps thousands of behaviors
educators might perform on the job, the critical behaviors are the few that have been identified as
most important to achieving organizational success. Aligning the learning outcomes from
training with the critical behaviors and leading indicators ensures the continuation of training
programs that are meaningful and value-added. Table 17 lists the specific metrics, methods, and
timing for each of the critical behaviors.

Table 17
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior(s) Metric(s) Method(s) Timing
Educators design
policies and curricula
through a culturally
responsive lens.
Alignment of policies
and curricula to
characteristics of
culturally responsive
education.
Stakeholder meeting to
evaluate policies and
curricula using a
rubric for Culturally
Responsive Planning
Design

Monthly
Educators evaluate
student and
professional learning
experiences using
culturally responsive
assessment practices.
Alignment of student and
adult learning
assessments to
characteristics of
culturally responsive
education.
Stakeholder meeting to
evaluate student and
adult learning
assessments using a
rubric for Culturally
Responsive
Assessment Design

Bimonthly
Educators facilitate
processes and learning
experiences anchored in
cultural responsiveness.
Alignment of meeting
facilitation and
classroom instruction
to characteristics of
culturally responsive
education.

Stakeholder meeting to
evaluate educators’
facilitation and/or
instruction using
Culturally Responsive
Walkthrough Forms
Weekly

183

Required Drivers
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) describe required drivers as the “processes and
systems that reinforce, monitor, encourage, and reward performance of critical behaviors on the
job [...] and are key to accomplishing the desired on-the-job application of what is learned during
training” (p. 35). They are built-in accountability systems for the stakeholders who choose not to
perform the required behaviors and are support systems for those who need it (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). At this level, it is important to encourage educator accountability through the
responsibility to apply the knowledge and skills from professional learning experiences, as this
will result in increased performance and personal empowerment (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016). Table 18 shows the recommended drivers to support the critical behaviors of educators as
they implement and enact culturally responsive practices at ANCS.

Table 18
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical
Behaviors
Supported
Reinforcing
Provide educators with on-site and off-site professional
development opportunities to generate increasing levels of
understanding about culturally responsive practices

Monthly 1
Provide educators with PLC processes in which they work
collaboratively in recurring cycles of collective inquiry and
action research to implement culturally responsive practices

Bimonthly 2
184

Provide educators with professional coaching to access timely,
relevant, job-embedded feedback related to their understanding
and implementation of culturally responsive practices

Weekly 3
Encouraging
Provide educators with on-site and off-site professional
development opportunities to generate self-efficacy towards
implementing culturally responsive practices

Monthly 1
Provide educators with PLC processes in which they develop
collective efficacy towards implementing culturally responsive
practices

Bimonthly 2
Provide educators with professional coaching to generate self-
efficacy towards implementing culturally responsive practices

Weekly 3
Rewarding
Provide educators with on-site and off-site professional
development opportunities that generate personal interest in
implementing culturally responsive practices

Monthly 1
Provide educators with PLC processes in which they develop
collective interest in implementing culturally responsive
practices

Bimonthly 2
Provide educators with professional coaching that generates
personal interest in implementing culturally responsive
practices

Weekly 3
Monitoring
Evaluate educators’ policies and/or curricula using a rubric for
Culturally Responsive Planning Design

Monthly 1
Evaluate educators’ student and/or adult learning assessments
using a rubric for Culturally Responsive Assessment Design

Bimonthly 2
Evaluate educators’ facilitation and/or instruction using
Culturally Responsive Walkthrough Forms

Weekly 3
185

Organizational Support
ANCS will provide organizational support through the identified drivers to reinforce,
encourage, reward, and monitor the critical behaviors necessary for educators to implement and
enact culturally responsive practices. Critical behaviors must be reinforced by providing
educators with on-site and off-site professional development opportunities through the PLC
processes of collective inquiry and action research, and within professional coaching to access
timely, relevant, job-embedded feedback related to their understanding and implementation of
culturally responsive practices. In addition, the organization will provide additional training, as
needed, if educators ask for or show the need for additional support. To encourage critical
behaviors, ANCS will provide support with on-site and off-site professional development
opportunities through the PLC processes to develop collective interest and within professional
coaching to generate self-efficacy towards implementing culturally responsive practices. One
way to reward educators is by offering professional development opportunities to generate
personal and collective interest in implementing culturally responsive practices, including
options within the PLC processes and job-embedded in professional coaching. The last driver to
support educators’ critical behaviors is monitoring to evaluate educators’ policies and/or
curricula and the student and/or adult learning assessments by utilizing a rubric for culturally
responsive planning design and using culturally responsive walkthrough forms to evaluate
educators’ facilitation and/or instruction.
Level 2: Learning
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) define learning as “the degree to which participants
acquire the intended knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence, and commitment based on their
participation in the learning event” (p. 35). The New World Kirkpatrick model includes
186

confidence and commitment with the aims of closing the gap between learning and behavior and
educators who possess but do not use the required knowledge and skills shown in job
performance. To maintain and improve continuity, consistency, and commitment, ANCS must
provide educators with the learning experiences to acquire the required knowledge and skills and
the motivation shown in educators’ attitude, confidence, and commitment to implement and
enact culturally responsive practices.
Learning Goals
The following learning goals are the results of an improvement study. Specifically, the goals
are based on the identified KMO recommendations identified in the knowledge and motivation
tables. After completing the recommended solutions, educators will be able to:
• Describe the components of culturally responsive education. (Factual)
• Explain the sociopolitical relationship between oppression and advantage underpinning
culturally responsive education. (Conceptual)
• Apply strategies for developing and implementing culturally responsive practices.
(Procedural)
• Critically self-reflect on how to improve culturally responsive practices. (Metacognitive)
• Identify personal relevance of culturally responsive education. (Interest)
• Feel emotionally invested in culturally responsive education. (Emotion)
• Develop confidence in enacting culturally responsive practices. (Self-Efficacy)
Learning Program
The researchers of the study created the Culturally Responsive International Learning
Institute (CRILI). The CRILI program design is based on empirically-validated practices that
support the gap analysis framework (Clark & Estes, 2008). The overarching goal of CRILI is to
187

establish commitment toward implementing culturally responsive practices at ANCS and other
international schools. CRILI offers a comprehensive approach to continuously improving
educators’ knowledge and motivation toward education responsive education. To ensure
consistency, CRILI has developed professional learning design principles based on the work of
Easton (2008). As such, CRILI will offer professional learning that:
1. Arises from and returns benefits to culturally responsive teaching and learning
2. Models culturally responsive practices in the facilitation of adult learning
3. Includes content that is culturally responsive to the participants
4. Requires the collection, analysis, and presentation of data related to culturally
responsive practices
5. Employs the use of culturally responsive learning communities engaged in
collaborative inquiry
6. Seeks to improve culturally responsive practices for minoritized students in
international schools
7. Develops educators’ high quality, culturally responsive practices
8. Sustains culturally responsive learning beyond one-off workshops
9. Leads directly to the application of culturally responsive education in
professional practice
10. Alters time and space to critically self-reflect on cultural values, biases,
assumptions, and perspectives to improve culturally responsive practices
11. Makes professional learning more than just a meeting/planning structure but
constructivist activities for improving culturally responsive practices
188

12. Differentiates professional learning for those new-to-culturally-responsive-
education as well as enrichment to educators experienced in implementing culturally
responsive practices
CRILI’s focus differentiation will not inhibit consistency; rather, CRILI provides a multi-tiered
approach to professional learning to provide multiple pathways for educators to achieve the
organizational goals of culturally responsive education. As shown in Figure 2, this approach
provides schoolwide professional development sessions for all educators, restructures PLCs as
culturally responsive learning communities for small groups, and finally provides individual
educators with a culturally responsive coach who facilitates educators’ critical reflection.

Figure 2
Multi-Tiered Approach to CRILI Professional Learning

189

Culturally Responsive Professional Development. CRILI will transform ANCS into the
preeminent training ground serving the professional learning needs of international educators
within and outside of ANCS. CRILI will use ANCS as a lab site school providing practical,
research-based professional development that is (1) about culturally responsive practices in
international schools, (2) facilitated by international educators grounded in culturally responsive
practices, (3) for international educators to further develop culturally responsive practices, and
finally (4) situated at ANCS, the largest international school in the world.
ANCS will offer on-site conferences, workshops, institutes, and courses related to
culturally responsive education. PD sessions may involve using culturally responsive books or
journals as third-point resources, attending interactive workshops, participating in text studies,
and observing high-quality culturally responsive practices in action. The frequency of PD
sessions may range from three to six times a year, monthly, weekly, or even daily. The duration
of any one session could be three or more hours, one to two hours, or less than thirty minutes.
A hybrid of on-site and virtual sessions will be offered for international educators who are not
able to attend on-site.
For needs that cannot be met on-site and through internal PD offerings, CRILI offers
ANCS educators a network of external support from experts in the field of culturally
responsive education. Through generous contributions from parent donors as well as partners
with peer institutions within the international school community, ANCS (and by extension,
CRILI) will also hold a speaker series where culturally responsive scholars and world-
renowned thinkers will provide keynotes and workshops related to culturally responsive
teaching and leadership practices. Current proposals for speakers include Drs. Gloria Ladson-
Billings and Muhammad Khalifa, among others.
190

Collaborations and partnerships will also be established with various regional
education associations dedicated to advancing culturally responsive practices in international
schools. These organizations will include but are not limited to:
• American International Schools in the Americas (AMISA)
• Association for the Advancement of International Education (AAIE)
• Association of International Schools in Africa (AISA)
• Central and Eastern European Schools (CEESA)
• Council of International Schools (CIS)
• East Asia Regional Council of Overseas Schools (EARCOS)
• European Council of International Schools (ECIS)
• International School Services (ISS)
• Near East South Asia Council of International Schools (NESA)
• Office of Overseas Schools (A/OIS)
• The Association of American Schools of Central America, Colombia–
Caribbean and Mexico (Tri-Association)
These are organizations that the researchers have already established previous relationships
with and presented on the impact of culturally responsive education in international school
settings. Partnerships with these organizations, as well as other peer international schools,
will establish a global network of educators engaging in culturally responsive PD where
knowledge can be shared with ANCS educators, and their hearts can be inspired.
Transforming PLCs into Culturally Responsive Learning Communities. As PLCs are
sites where meaningful professional learning occurs (Dana & Yendol-Hoppey, 2008), CRILI
advocates for the restructuring of PLCs into culturally responsive learning communities
191

(Cooper et al., 2009). ANCS already leverages PLCs as collaborative groups engaged in
cycles of collective inquiry and action. Employing Khalifa’s (2020) strategies for making
PLCs more culturally responsive, CRILI applies culturally responsive expectations and
outcomes for how collaborative time is used during PLCs. Specific uses of time include:
• Establishing shared agreements on culturally responsive practices
• Reflecting on student and adult work through a culturally responsive lens
• Analyzing data to improve culturally responsive practices
• Developing culturally responsive interventions for students who are struggling
• Developing culturally responsive enrichments for students who are meeting
standards
• Evaluating the quality of assessment tasks through a culturally responsive lens
Additionally, Khalifa (2020) offers suggestions for embedding a culturally responsive
focus into the traditional PLC questions. Table 19 shows an adaptation of Khalifa’s
(2020) PLC questions and is already being used in isolated pockets at ANCS; CRILI
advocates its use in all PLCs as a cycle of collective inquiry.

Table 19
PLC Questions Explored Through a Culturally Responsive Lens
Lens PLC Questions Culturally Responsive Focus Questions
Curriculum

Question 1: What
do we want all
students to learn?
How are we ensuring the core curriculum is matched to
culturally responsive learning goals and standards?
— Curriculum includes minoritized communities’
knowledge

192

— Minoritized students and communities are asked what
they should learn

— Curriculum connects to the communities and
experiences of minoritized students

— What students learn (i.e., knowledge) is beneficial to
minoritized communities
Assessment Question 2: How
will we know if and
when they have
learned it?

How are we designing and implementing culturally
responsive assessments?
—The scales and rubrics used are culturally responsive
and seek to minimize cultural bias

— Nontraditional ways of measuring the knowledge of
minoritized students are offered

— Community perspectives are included in how learning
is measured

— Students offered input into the best ways for them to
show what they know
Instruction Question 3: How
will we teach it?
How are we implementing culturally responsive
instructional practices?
— Instructional methods are culturally responsive and
inclusive

— Parents and community members are used to help
connect instruction to student communities/lives
Intervention Question 4: How
will we respond if
some students do
not learn?
How will we use critical self-reflection techniques to
understand when (and why) some minoritized students are
not responding to our instruction and content?
— Schoolwide collaborative process to coordinate
resources within our context to accomplish tiered
prevention and intervention efforts that are culturally
responsive

193

— Structure for coaching to ensure that
instruction/intervention at all levels is high
quality/culturally responsive, delivered with fidelity, and
evaluated to be consistent with evidence- and/or
empirically validated processes and programs
Extension Question 5: How
will we respond if
the students have
already learned?
How will we take responsibility (individually and
collectively) if minoritized students are not learning?
— Tier 1 interventions are differentiated with evidence-
based practices to extend learning for students who need
it, offering greater depth, complexity, abstraction, and/or
cultural responsiveness

— Supplement core curricular materials with more
complex and culturally responsive content where
appropriate

Culturally Responsive Coaching Cycles. Peer coaching is essential in transferring the
knowledge and skills gained in professional development sessions to practice (Joyce &
Showers, 2002). CRILI will use a culturally responsive coaching model to help ANCS
educators apply their learning. Adapting Zwozdiak-Myers’s (2012) dimensions of reflective
practice, CRILI provides a framework for culturally responsive coaches engaging educators
in critical self-reflection. Below are the dimensions of critical self-reflective practice that
educators will engage in with a culturally responsive coach during ongoing coaching cycles:
• Dimension One: culturally responsive coach works with the coachee to decide
on methods to study and record reflections about their culturally responsive practices
(i.e., journals, blogs, audio diaries, videos, etc.)
194

• Dimension Two: culturally responsive coach facilitates coachee’s thinking
about the gaps and issues they would like to address that inhibit their implementation
of culturally responsive practices
• Dimension Three: culturally responsive coach and coachee find models
showing what culturally responsive education looks like in practice
• Dimension Four: culturally responsive coach facilitates coachee’s critical self-
reflection on personal values, emotions, and self-efficacy beliefs inhibiting their
implementation of culturally responsive practices
• Dimension Five: culturally responsive coach facilitates learning conversations
with the coachee helping him explore alternative perspectives and possibilities related
to culturally responsive practices
• Dimension Six: culturally responsive coach encourages coachee to try out
culturally responsive strategies and ideas, innovating their practice
• Dimension Seven: culturally responsive coach works with the coachee to
develop a culturally responsive and inclusive school environment beyond their
workspace
• Dimension Eight: culturally responsive coaches facilitate the coachee’s
development of high-quality, culturally responsive practices to plan, teach/facilitate,
and assess
• Dimension Nine: culturally responsive coach works with the coachee to
develop a plan for engaging in continual professional learning and development.
Coaching thereby cycles back to PD and PLCs tiers
195

This is an ongoing, iterative process that is not linear. It is meant to build the knowledge of
individual educators and positively impact their interest, emotion, and self-efficacy beliefs
toward implementing culturally responsive practices.
Evaluation of the Components of Learning
In order to meet performance goals, ANCS educators must possess the appropriate
knowledge and motivation to transfer new knowledge into practice. Specifically, it is important
to evaluate knowledge and motivation during and after the program implementation. Table 20
lists the evaluation methods and timing for each learning method or activity.

Table 20
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Factual Knowledge “I know it.”
Entry and Exit Tickets for pre- and post-assessment of knowledge of the
components and terminology of culturally responsive practices
Before and after
the training

Knowledge checks (i.e., surveys, games like Kahoot, physical response,
etc.)
During and after
the training

Collaborative discussions (i.e., jigsaw, think-pair-share) to share
understanding
During the
training

Coaching discussion to check for knowledge of the components and
terminology of culturally responsive practice

After the training

Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
Collaborative discussions with other culturally responsive learning
communities to share how to implement culturally responsive curriculum,
instruction, and assessment practice

During and after
the training

196

Collaborative discussions within own culturally responsive learning
community to share how to implement culturally responsive curriculum,
instruction, and assessment practice
During and after
the training

Observations using PLC Observation Tool and Coaching Observation
Tool

During the
training

Coaching feedback from observation

After the training

Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Collaborative discussions with other culturally responsive learning
communities about the value of implementing culturally responsive
practices

During the
training
Collaborative discussions with other culturally responsive learning
communities about the value of implementing culturally responsive
practices

During the
training
Coaching discussion to check in about the value of implementing
culturally responsive practices

After the training
Opportunities for critical self-reflection Before, during,
and after the
training
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Collaborative discussions with other culturally responsive learning
communities about concerns, fears, and potential barriers to the work

During and after
the training

Collaborative discussions within own culturally responsive learning
community about concerns, fears, and potential barriers to the work
During and after
the training

Coaching discussion to check in about concerns, fears, and potential
barriers to the work of implementing culturally responsive practice

After the training
Opportunities for critical self-reflection Before, during,
and after the
training
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Self-evaluating using a rubric for culturally responsive planning design

After the training

197

Making an action plan for next steps in implementing learning from
workshops

During and after
the training
Collaborative discussions within own culturally responsive learning
community to share action plan

After the training
Coaching discussions to share action plan

After the training

Opportunities for critical self-reflection Before, during,
and after the
training

Level 1: Reaction
According to Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016), Level 1 is “the degree to which
participants find the training favorable, engaging, and relevant to their jobs” (p. 38). It includes
the three dimensions of the satisfaction and engagement of the participants and how relevant the
participants deem the training. Satisfaction has a positive correlation to learning and can be used
to identify and eliminate barriers to participant learning during the program (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) state that engagement refers to the degree
of active participation, involvement, and contribution to the learning experience and directly
relates to participant learning. Relevance is the degree to which participants will be able to apply
learning to their own context and content. The alignment of the application timeline to the
learning experience will increase relevance. The goal of Level 1 is to measure the quality of the
training and the instructor and the degree to which it resulted in knowledge and skills that can be
applied on the job (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Table 21 lists the methods or tools used to
determine the participant reactions to the program and the timing for the methods or tools.

198

Table 21
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement

Attendance during the entire training During the training

Active participation in the training During the training

Asking meaningful questions During the training

Individual coaching check-ins to monitor level of engagement After the training

Relevance

Avenues to give feedback on training relevance During the training

Individual coaching check-ins with questions that are relevant to
participant
During and after the
training

Post-training anonymous survey After the training

Customer Satisfaction

Formative questions for feedback During the training

Individual coaching check-ins to monitor level of satisfaction During and after the
training

Post-training anonymous survey After the training

Immediate Evaluation Tool
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) recommend the use of a blended evaluation approach
to gather data that holistically evaluates the effectiveness of a program. After the training, the
evaluation will consist of an immediate evaluation tool to assess the effectiveness of the
workshops and the participant experiences for Level 1 (engagement, relevance, confidence, and
commitment) and Level 2 (factual knowledge, procedural knowledge, attitude, confidence, and
commitment). This evaluation tool will ask participants to rate the relevance of the training
199

session, their engagement with the content, and their overall satisfaction with the learning
experience within the CRILI program (see Appendix F).
Delayed Evaluation Tool
If professional learning experiences at any level are impactful, educators throughout the
organization will continue to engage in the development and implementation of culturally
responsive practices in the future. It is thereby critical to check for implementation of practices
well after the facilitation of professional learning experiences. If educators are not transferring
and applying new knowledge and skills in practice, it may indicate that professional learning
needs to be altered and adjusted to be more responsive to the needs of ANCS educators. As such,
the use of delayed evaluation tools will provide the organization with the information they need
to reassess whether professional learning experiences are leading to the successful development
and implementation of culturally responsive practices. One of the delayed evaluation tools is a
survey that mirrors the immediate evaluation tool and will be given approximately two weeks
after the training. It can be found in Appendix G.
Data Analysis and Reporting
ANCS’s organizational performance goal is for educators to implement culturally
responsive curriculum, instruction, and assessment practices with fidelity to meet student needs.
To meet this goal, ANCS will use the Culturally Responsive International Learning Institute to
offer on-site conferences, workshops, institutes, and courses related to culturally responsive
education. To evaluate progress and areas of growth, ANCS will communicate success to the
stakeholders within the organization by providing access to data and visual representation of
progress paired with the analysis and discussion of the data within the learning organization. This
will be done in collaboration with ANCS’s data analytics specialist and data visualization
200

specialist. Every 90 days, online tools will be used to convert data into digestible reports and
dashboards updating the ANCS community's commitment towards its culturally responsive
education goals, continued challenges, and opportunities for further growth.
Summary of the Implementation and Evaluation
The New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) for not only
implementing KMO solutions but also evaluating and progressing monitoring the learning
outcomes of the program. The development and implementation of culturally responsive
practices must be systematically monitored and evaluated (Minkos et al., 2017) so that ANCS
can meet its improvement goals. Ultimately, by starting with the Level 4 desired outcomes, the
New World Kirkpatrick Model can help organizations “uplift solution[s] of practice” (Watson,
2015, p. 12) rather than first remaining debilitated by its existing problems. The model in itself is
one grounded in critical hope for a better future.
Limitations and Delimitations
The study’s limitations include the low potential for generalizability. ANCS is a private
international school that caters to high socioeconomic stakeholders, and with motivated and
high-performing students, it can be difficult to show a need for change. This is why this study
focused on not only the knowledge, motivation, and organizational barriers but also on
educators’ racial identities as a way to move past the audit culture and performance metrics that
prove that since the students are academically successful that there is no real need for change.
Although the scope and focus of the study will eventually benefit the organization (Dei, 2005),
this is the very thing that created a limitation of this study’s findings. Still, while case studies
focusing on a single situation produce issues of generalizability, Merriam (2009) states that it is
the reader and not the researcher who must take what they learn from a particular case and
201

determine how to apply it to their own context. That is, this case study should serve not as a
blueprint but a guide for making one’s own pathways for culturally responsive education in US
and international schools.
Other limitations included the sheer volume of data and the amount of time and labor it
took to conduct and transcribe interviews, schedule and complete observations, and analyze
documents and code for themes and patterns. In addition, since most educators have already
received professional development focused on cultural competence, much like the Dunning-
Kruger effect in which people overestimate their knowledge or skills (Kruger & Dunning, 1999),
there were possible cognitive biases and assumptions about the level of knowledge obtained
from previous professional learning experiences that may have impacted participants’ equity
consciousness.
This study focuses on the knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs and assets
that contribute to ANCS educators’ ability to implement and enact culturally responsive practices
and to provide an equitable education for all students. This context involves the dominant
stakeholders of the school administration, instructional leaders, teachers, students, parents, and
the community. However, to maintain the feasibility of this study, the study was delimited by
examining the perspectives of three stakeholder groups within the school. In addition, as only a
small percentage of educators (classroom educators inclusive of the subgroup of Spanish
educators, instructional leaders, and divisional principals) within ANCS participated in this
study, this could inhibit the purpose of maximum variation sampling, as Maxwell (2013) argued,
“to ensure that the conclusions adequately capture the entire range of variation, rather than only
the typical members or some ‘average’ subset of this range” (p. 98). Therefore, the findings may
not be generalizable or transferable.
202

One ethical concern is that keeping the study sample size small, bounded within ANCS,
even a promise of anonymity–by removing identifying information and using pseudonyms–may
not fully protect colleagues. This study also considered the confidentiality of the data collected to
ensure a reporting on patterns and trends from the interviews, observations, and document
analyses, not specifics. A final challenge included ensuring that probing interview questions seek
to further elaborate on responses and not harm participants (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017).
Another limitation of this study was self-selection bias since participation was voluntary.
The study was also limited by the design of the interview and observation instruments, as the
validity and reliability of the instruments were not tested across multiple studies. Last but not
least, the biggest limitations to this study are our positionalities as educators who are seeking to
disrupt the very systems that the organization–and educators–consciously or subconsciously
uphold for their own benefits. Racial equity is not a problem to be fixed as much as a call to
liberation that must be heeded. Therefore, during the study, unforeseen biases and assumptions
could have impacted multiple levels, from the design of the methodology to the analysis of the
data to the organization of the findings.
Recommendations for Future Research
There is already little empirical research on the organizational change that emerges from
the work of equity teams, including those working towards culturally responsive improvement in
their respective schools (Ishimaru & Galloway, 2019). There is even a larger gap in the research
when reviewing the literature in international school contexts. As only 7% of ANCS educators
participated in our study, we hope to engage ourselves and others in future research adding to the
body of literature. We draw inspiration from Sukumar and Metoyer’s (2019) framework for
203

replicating qualitative studies to gain a richer and deeper understanding of culturally responsive
practices at ANCS and other international schools.
At ANCS, we hope that a team of independent researchers would be willing to replicate
one or more aspects of our study, whether using the study design, research questions, methods, or
even re-engaging our participants years later to reassess their knowledge, motivation, and
perceptions of organizational influences. Engaging new ANCS participants in a replicated study
would also allow for an “interpretive comparison with a view to corroborate, elaborate, contrast,
or even clarify elements corresponding to the replicated aspects with those [from our] study”
(Sukumar & Metoyer, 2019, p. 2).
We, the researchers in this study, have collectively facilitated culturally responsive
education workshops with over 50 international schools in the past two years. Having access and
relationships with these international schools would hopefully allow us to replicate elements of
our study at other international schools, assessing how peer institutions enact culturally
responsive practices in their respective organizations. We intend for future studies to trace across
individuals, groups, and international contexts, seeking to engage in what Bartlett and Vavrus
(2017) termed a multi-sited ethnography. It will not “contrast places assumed to be unrelated
[but] looks at linkages across place, space, and time” (Bartlett & Vavrus, 2017, p. 7).
We plan on using a comparative case study approach when researching several
international schools in Asia, Africa, Europe, Latin America, and the Middle East over the course
of several years. As Lochmiller and Lester (2017) advised, we will use a number of qualitative
data collection methods to carry out our research study, tracing the evolution of culturally
responsive education across space and time. We plan to conduct interviews and observe monthly
team meetings at a variety of study sites via Zoom and perform document analyses
204

asynchronously. We may further re-invent specific methods using resources on Lupton’s (2021)
“Doing Fieldwork in a Pandemic,” even as COVID-19 measures and travel restrictions are
relaxed.
Conclusion
Off of a street adjacent to ANCS, there is a desire path leading to the side entrance of the
institution. Such desire paths are created on grassy areas originally not intended for humans to
walk on but are created out of human desire to form a new route or path. Even when there is a
structural system people are supposed to use (i.e., sidewalks or roads), these paths emerge
because formal structures do not meet individual or group needs. Urban planners take note of
these desire paths over time and eventually create infrastructure responsive to social and cultural
activity. In other words, what once started as a dirt path by a few individuals eventually becomes
formalized into a concrete sidewalk or road.
Drawing inspiration from Spanish poet Antonio Machado (1912), whose words also
inspired many social movements from around the world: “There is no path, we make the path by
walking.” We, the researchers of this study, are reminded of another quotation related to path-
making. In the early 1900s, after arriving on Ellis Island, one Italian immigrant remarked,
I came to America because I heard the streets were paved with gold. When I got here, [I]
found out three things: First, the streets weren’t paved with gold; second, they weren’t
paved at all: and third, I was expected to pave them. (Hoxhaj, 2015, para. 1)
Even when the paths marginalized groups desire become institutionalized, we will still be called
upon to perform the labor and pave the way. We are not content with simply building an
implementation and evaluation plan in this study (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) focused on
the KMO resources found in Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis framework; we, ourselves, are
205

ready to ready to pave the way in implementing this plan beyond the academic exercise of a
dissertation.
This study, examining the KMO influences that were revealed from interviews,
observations, and document analyses show that ANCS still needs to create pathways towards
culturally responsive education. And even if only one stakeholder group demonstrated a need for
a particular influence, in the spirit of collaboration that this dissertation was written in, it is each
of our responsibility to help ourselves and each other build the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational pathways towards becoming a more culturally responsive school. It is not enough
for educators on the margins to “emerge in defiance of socially toxic environments” as a rose
who grew from the concrete; we must “collectively struggle to replace the concrete completely
with a rose garden” (Duncan-Andrade, 2009, p. 186) where all of us are seeds who can
eventually bloom. With critical hope, so be it! See to it!

206

References
Aguilar, E. (2013). The art of coaching: Effective strategies for school transformation. John
Wiley &. Sons.
Aguilar, E. (2020). Coaching for equity: Conversations that change practice. John Wiley &
Sons.
Akashi, Y., & Yoshimura, M. (Eds.). (2008). New Perspectives on the Japanese Occupation in
Malaya and Singapore, 1941-1945. Nus Press.
Alhanachi, S., de Meijer, L. A., & Severiens, S. E. (2021). Improving culturally responsive
teaching through professional learning communities: A qualitative study in Dutch pre-
vocational schools. International Journal of Educational Research, 105, 101698.
Allen, R. L. (2001). The globalization of white supremacy: Toward a critical discourse on the
racialization of the world. Educational Theory, 51(4), 467.
Anderson, J. D. (1988). The education of Blacks in the South, 1860-1935. Univ of North
Carolina Press.
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing:
A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1974). Theory in practice: increasing professional effectiveness
(1st ed.). Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Au, K. (2009). Isn’t culturally responsive instruction just good teaching? Social Education,
73(4), 179-183.
Au, W. (2015). Meritocracy 2.0. Educational Policy, 30(1), 39-62.
doi:10.1177/0895904815614916
207

Au, W., Bigelow, B., & Karp, S. (Eds.). (2007). Rethinking our classrooms: Teaching for equity
and justice (Vol. 1). Rethinking Schools.
Au, W., Brown, A. L., & Calderón, D. (2016). Reclaiming the multicultural roots of US
curriculum: Communities of color and official knowledge in education. Teachers College
Press.
Averill, R., Anderson, D., & Drake, M. (2015). Developing Culturally Responsive Teaching
through Professional Noticing within Teacher Educator Modelling. Mathematics Teacher
Education and Development, 17(2), 64-83.
Baker, L. (2006). Developmental differences in metacognition: Implications for metacognitively
oriented reading instruction. In Metacognition in literacy learning (pp. 83-102).
Routledge.
Bailey, L., & Gibson, M. T. (2020). International school principals: Routes to headship and key
challenges of their role. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 48(6),
1007-1025.
Baldwin, J., Capouya, E., Hansberry, L., Hentoff, N., Hughes, L., & Kazin, A. (1961). The negro
in American culture. CrossCurrents, 11(3), 205-224.
Baldwin, J. (1997). If Black English isn’t a language, then tell me, what is?. The Black Scholar,
27(1), 5-6.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological
review, 84(2), 191.
Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of
social and clinical psychology, 4(3), 359-373.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.
208

Bandura, A., & Evans, R. I. (2006). Albert Bandura. Insight Media.
Banks, J. A. (1989). Approaches to multicultural curriculum reform. Trotter review, 3(3), 5.
Banks, J. A. (1997). Educating citizens in a multicultural society. Teachers College Press.
Banks, J. A., Cookson, P., Gay, G., Hawley, W. D., Irvine, J. J., Nieto, S., & Stephan, W. G.
(2001). Diversity within unity: Essential principles for teaching and learning in a
multicultural society. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(3), 196-203.
Bartlett, L., & Vavrus, F. (2017). Comparative case studies: An innovative approach. Nordic
Journal of Comparative and International Education (NJCIE), 1(1).
Bell, D. A. (1995). Who’s afraid of critical race theory. U. Ill. L. Rev., 893.
Bocala, C., Holman, R., & Malcolm, X. (2021). Coaching for Equity Demands Deeper Dialogue.
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 78(6), 66-71.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1991). Leadership and management effectiveness: A multi-frame,
multi-sector analysis. Human resource management, 30(4), 509-534.
Bonilla-Silva, E. (2006). Racism without racists: Color-blind racism and the persistence of
racial inequality in the United States. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative research
journal.
Boykin, A. W. (2000). The talent development model of schooling: Placing students at promise
for academic success. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 5(1-
2), 3-25.
Boykin, A. W., Tyler, K. M., & Miller, O. (2005). In search of cultural themes and their
expressions in the dynamics of classroom life. Urban Education, 40(5), 521-549.
209

Bradley-Levine, J. (2018). Advocacy as a Practice of Critical Teacher Leadership. International
Journal of Teacher Leadership, 9(1), 47-62.
Bradshaw, C. P., Pas, E. T., Bottiani, J. H., Debnam, K. J., Reinke, W. M., Herman, K. C., &
Rosenberg, M. S. (2018). Promoting cultural responsivity and student engagement
through double check coaching of classroom teachers: An efficacy study. School
Psychology Review, 47(2), 118-134.
Brayboy, B. M. J., Castagno, A. E., & Maughan, E. (2007). Chapter 6 equality and justice for
all? Examining race in education scholarship. Review of research in education, 31(1),
159-194.
Brookfield, S. (2009). The concept of critical reflection: Promises and contradictions. European
Journal of Social Work, 12(3), 293-304.
Brookfield, S. D., & Holst, J. D. (2010). Radicalizing learning: Adult education for a just world.
John Wiley & Sons.
Brookfield, S. D. (2017). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. John Wiley & Sons.
Brown, A. L., & Au, W. (2014). Race, memory, and master narratives: A critical essay on US
curriculum history. Curriculum Inquiry, 44(3), 358-389.
Buch, K., & Wetzel, D. K. (2001). Analyzing and realigning organizational culture. Leadership
& Organization Development Journal.
Bush, M. E. (2011). Everyday forms of whiteness: Understanding race in a 'Post-Racial' World.
Rowman & Littlefield.
Butler, R., & Shibaz, L. (2014). Striving to connect and striving to learn: Influences of relational
and mastery goals for teaching on teacher behaviors and student interest and help
210

seeking. International Journal of Educational Research, 65, 41–
53.10.1016/j.ijer.2013.09.006
Carson, R. L., & Chase, M. A. (2009). An examination of physical education teacher motivation
from a self-determination theoretical framework. Physical Education and Sport
Pedagogy, 14, 335–353.10.1080/17408980802301866
Chouari, A. (2016). Cultural diversity and the challenges of teaching multicultural classes in the
twenty-first century. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ), 7(3), 3-17.
Clark, R. E. (1998). Motivating performance. Performance Improvement, 37(8), 39-47.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Clark, K. R. (2018). Learning theories: Cognitivism. Radiologic Technology, 90(2), 176-179.
Clutterbuck, R. (2019). Conflict and violence in Singapore and Malaysia 1945-1983. Routledge.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2009). Teacher research as stance. The Sage Handbook of
Educational Action Research. London: Sage, 39-49.
Cooper, C. W., Allen, R. M., & Bettez, S. C. (2009). Forming culturally responsive learning
communities in demographically changing schools. In The handbook of leadership and
professional learning communities (pp. 103-114). Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
Cummins, J. (2007). Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual classrooms.
Canadian journal of applied linguistics, 10(2), 221-240.
Cunningham, J. (2018). Missing the mark: Standardized testing as epistemological erasure in US
schooling. Power and Education, 175774381881209.
211

Curby, T. W., Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., & Ponitz, C. C. (2009). Teacher–child interactions and
children’s achievement trajectories across kindergarten and first grade. Journal of
educational psychology, 101(4), 912.
Dana, N. F., & Yendol-Hoppey, D. (2008). The reflective educator’s guide to professional
development: Coaching inquiry-oriented learning communities. Corwin Press.
Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009).
Professional learning in the learning profession. Washington, DC: National Staff
Development Council, 12.
Darling-Hammond, L. & Lieberman, A. (Eds.). (2012). Teacher education around the world:
Changing policies and practices. Routledge.
DeCuir, J. T., & Dixson, A. D. (2004). “So when it comes out, they aren’t that surprised that it is
there”: Using critical race theory as a tool of analysis of race and racism in education.
Educational researcher, 33(5), 26-31.
Dei, G. J. S. (2005). Chapter one: Critical issues in anti-racist research methodologies: An
introduction. Counterpoints, 252, 1-27.
Delgado, R. & Stefancic, J. (2017). Critical Race Theory (Third Edition): An Introduction. NYU
Press.
Delpit, L. (2006). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. The New Press.
DeMatthews, D. E., Mungal, A. S., & Carrola, P. A. (2015). Despite best intentions: A critical
analysis of social justice leadership and decision making. Administrative Issues Journal,
5(2), 3.
Denler, H., Wolters, C., & Benzon, M. (2009). Social cognitive theory.
http://www.education.com/reference/article/social-cognitive-theory/
212

Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development:
Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational researcher, 38(3), 181-199.
Dewey, J. (1986, September). Experience and education. In The educational forum (Vol. 50, No.
3, pp. 241-252). Taylor & Francis Group.
Donahue-Keegan, D. (2018). Cultivating culturally responsive teaching in teacher preparation.
The teaching self: Contemplative practices, pedagogy, and research in education.
Drago-Severson, E., & Blum-DeStefano, J. (2017). The Self in Social Justice: A Developmental
Lens on Race, Identity, and Transformation. Harvard Educational Review, 87(4), 457–
481. https://doi.org/10.17763/1943-5045-87.4.457
Dumas, M. J. (2018). Beginning and ending with Black suffering: A meditation on and against
racial justice in education. In Toward What Justice? (pp. 29-45). Routledge.
Duncan-Andrade, J. (2009). Note to educators: Hope required when growing roses in concrete.
Harvard educational review, 79(2), 181-194.
Easton, L. B. (2008). Powerful designs for professional learning. National Staff Development
Council.
Farinde-Wu, A., Glover, C. P., & Williams, N. N. (2017). It’s not hard work; it’s heart work:
Strategies of effective, award-winning culturally responsive teachers. The Urban Review,
49(2), 279-299.
Ford, D. Y., & Trotman, M. F. (2001). Teachers of gifted students: Suggested multicultural
characteristics and competencies. Roeper Review, 23(4), 235-239.
Freire, P. (1970). Cultural action for freedom (pp. 476-521). Harvard educational review.
Freire, P., & Macedo, D. (2005). Literacy: Reading the word and the world. Routledge.
213

Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist, 36(1), 45-56.
Galloway, M. K., & Ishimaru, A. M. (2020). Leading equity teams: The role of formal leaders in
building organizational capacity for equity. Journal of Education for Students Placed at
Risk (JESPAR), 25(2), 107-125.
Gardner-McTaggart, A. (2018). International schools: Leadership reviewed. Journal of Research
in International Education, 17(2), 148-163.
Gardner-McTaggart, A. C. (2021). Washing the world in whiteness; international schools’
policy. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 53(1), 1-20.
Gay, G. (1995). Bridging Multicultural Theory and Practice. Multicultural Education, 3(1), 4-9.
Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of teacher education,
53(2), 106-116.
Gay, G. (2010). Acting on beliefs in teacher education for cultural diversity. Journal of teacher
education, 61(1-2), 143-152.
Gay, G. (2018). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. Teachers
College Press.
Genao, S. (2021). Doing it for Culturally Responsive School Leadership: Utilizing Reflexivity
from Preparation to Practice. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 16(2), 158-
170.
Gillborn, D. (2005). Education policy as an act of white supremacy: Whiteness, critical race
theory and education reform. Journal of education policy, 20(4), 485-505.
Gillborn, D. (2010). The white working class, racism and respectability: Victims, degenerates
and interest-convergence. British Journal of Educational Studies, 58(1), 3-25.
214

Gillborn, D. (2013). Interest-divergence and the colour of cutbacks: Race, recession and the
undeclared war on Black children. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of
Education, 34(4), 477-491.
Ginsberg, M. (2015). Excited to learn: Motivation and culturally responsive teaching. San
Francisco, CA: Corwin.
Giroux, H.A. (2005). Border crossings: cultural workers and the politics of education (Second
edition.). Routledge.
Gonzalez, M. (2022). Critical Hope for Culturally Responsive Education: An Improvement
Study. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Southern California.
Goodman-Scott, E., Betters-Bubon, J., & Donohue, P. (Eds.). (2019). The school counselor’s
guide to multi-tiered systems of support. Routledge.
Gorski, P. (2019). Avoiding racial equity detours. Educational Leadership, 76(7), 56-61.
Grant, R. A. and Asimeng–Boahene, L. (2006). Culturally responsive pedagogy in citizenship
education: Using African proverbs as tools for teaching in urban schools. Multicultural
Perspectives, 8: 17–24.
Griner, A. C., & Stewart, M. L. (2013). Addressing the achievement gap and disproportionality
through the use of culturally responsive teaching practices. Urban Education, 48(4), 585-
621.
Gulati-Partee, G., & Potapchuk, M. (2014). Paying attention to white culture and privilege: A
missing link to advancing racial equity. The Foundation Review, 6(1), 4.
Hairon, S. (2020). Back to the future: Professional learning communities in Singapore. Asia
Pacific Journal of Education, 40(4), 501-515.
215

Hammer, M. R., & Bennett, M. J. (1998). The intercultural development inventory (IDI) manual.
Intercultural Communication Institute.
Hammerness, K., & Matsko, K. K. (2013). When context has content: A case study of new
teacher induction in the University of Chicago’s Urban Teacher Education Program.
Urban Education, 48(4), 557-584.
Hammond, Z. (2015). Culturally responsive teaching and the brain: promoting authentic
engagement and rigor among culturally and linguistically diverse students. Corwin, a
SAGE Company.
Han, J., Yin, H., & Wang, W. (2015). Exploring the relationship between goal orientations for
teaching of tertiary teachers and their teaching approaches in China. Asia Pacific
Education Review, 16, 1–11.
Harris, C. I. (1993). Whiteness as property. Harvard law review, 1707-1791.
Harmon, D. A. (2012). Culturally Responsive Teaching through a Historical Lens: Will History
Repeat Itself? Interdisciplinary Journal of Teaching and Learning, 2(1), 12-22.
Hayes, C., & Juárez, B. (2012). There is no culturally responsive teaching spoken here: A critical
race perspective. Democracy and Education, 20(1), 1.
Hayes, C. (2016). Unhooking from Whiteness and the Assault that Follows. In Unhooking from
Whiteness (pp. 13-25). SensePublishers, Rotterdam.
Hidi, S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2000). Motivating the academically unmotivated: A critical
issue for the 21st century. Review of educational research, 70(2), 151-179.
hooks, b. (1995). An aesthetic of blackness: strange and oppositional. Lenox Avenue: A Journal
of Interarts Inquiry, 1, 65-72.
hooks, b. (2003). Teaching community: A pedagogy of hope (Vol. 36). Psychology Press.
216

hooks, b. (2014). Teaching to transgress. Routledge.
Hopf, S. C., Crowe, K., Verdon, S., Blake, H. L., & McLeod, S. (2021). Advancing workplace
diversity through the culturally responsive teamwork framework. American Journal of
Speech-Language Pathology, 30(5), 1949-1961.
Hoxhaj, R. (2015). Wage expectations of illegal immigrants: The role of networks and previous
migration experience. International Economics, 142, 136-151.
Howard, T. C. (2003). Culturally relevant pedagogy: Ingredients for critical teacher reflection.
Theory into practice, 42(3), 195-202.
Howard-Hamilton, M. F. (2000). Creating a Culturally Responsive Learning Environment for
African American Students. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2000(82), 45–
53. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.8205
Hynds, A., Sleeter, C., Hindle, R., Savage, C., Penetito, W., & Meyer, L. H. (2011). Te
Kotahitanga: A case study of a repositioning approach to teacher professional
development for culturally responsive pedagogies. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher
Education, 39(4), 339-351.
Ighodaro, E., & Wiggan, G. (2013). Curriculum Violence: America’s New Civil Rights Issue.
Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated.
Irby, D. J. (2021). Stuck Improving: Racial Equity and School Leadership. Race and Education
Series. Harvard Education Press.
Ishimaru, A. M., & Galloway, M. K. (2014). Beyond individual effectiveness: Conceptualizing
organizational leadership for equity. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 13(1), 93-146.
217

Ishimaru, A. M., & Galloway, M. K. (2019). Hearts and minds first: Institutional logics in
pursuit of educational equity. Educational Administration Quarterly,
0013161X20947459.
Jenkins, C., & Alfred, M. (2018). Understanding the motivation and transformation of White
culturally responsive professors. Journal of Adult and Continuing Education, 24(1), 81-
99.
Johnson, L. (2014). Culturally responsive leadership for community empowerment.
Multicultural Education Review, 6(2), 145-170.
Joyce, B. R., & Showers, B. (1981). Transfer of training: The contribution of “coaching.” The
Journal of Education, 163(2), 163–172.
Joyce, B. R., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development (Vol. 3).
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Kaplan, A. (2012). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Education.com
Kayser, A. A., Nash, A. M., & Kayser, B. (2020). Change-makers: A grassroots approach to
culturally responsive leadership and teaching. Journal of Education Human Resources,
38(1), 35-56.
Kegan, R., & Lahey, L. L. (2009). Immunity to change: How to overcome it and unlock the
potential in yourself and your organization. Harvard Business Review Press.
Kennedy, K. (2019). Centering equity and caring in leadership for social-emotional learning:
Toward a conceptual framework for diverse learners. Journal of School Leadership,
29(6), 473-492.
Khalifa, M. A., Gooden, M. A., & Davis, J. E. (2016). Culturally responsive school leadership: A
synthesis of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1272-1311.
218

Khalifa, M. (2020). Culturally responsive school leadership. Harvard Education Press.
Kincheloe, J. L. (2004). The knowledges of teacher education: Developing a critical complex
epistemology. Teacher Education Quarterly, 31(1), 49–66.
King, M. L. (1968). Letter from a Birmingham jail. Martin Luther King Jr. Center for Nonviolent
Social Change.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick's four levels of training evaluation.
Association for Talent Development.
Klein, E. J., & Riordan, M. (2009). Putting professional development into practice: A framework
for how teachers in expeditionary learning schools implement professional development.
Teacher Education Quarterly, 36(4), 61-80.
Knight, J. (2007). Coaching: Approaches and perspectives. Corwin Press.
Knight, D. S., Hock, M., & Knight, J. (2016). Designing instructional coaching. In Instructional-
Design Theories and Models, Volume IV (pp. 285-302). Routledge.
Knoester, M., & Au, W. (2015). Standardized testing and school segregation: Like tinder for
fire? Race Ethnicity and Education, 20(1), 1-14.
Knowles, R. T., & Hawkman, A. M. (2020). Anti-racist quantitative research: Developing,
validating, and implementing racialized teaching efficacy and racial fragility scales. The
Urban Review, 52(2), 238-262.
Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing
one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of personality and
social psychology, 77 6, 1121-34.
Kumar, R., Zusho, A., & Bondie, R. (2018). Weaving cultural relevance and achievement
motivation into inclusive classroom cultures. Educational Psychologist, 53(2), 78-96.
219

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995a). But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant
pedagogy. Theory into practice, 34(3), 159-165.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995b). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American
educational research journal, 32(3), 465-491.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1998). Just what is critical race theory and what's it doing in a nice field
like education?. International journal of qualitative studies in education, 11(1), 7-24.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding
achievement in US schools. Educational researcher, 35(7), 3-12.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2008). Yes, but how do we do it?”: Practicing culturally relevant pedagogy.
City kids, city schools: More reports from the front row, 162-177.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2009). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American
children. John Wiley & Sons.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2013). Critical race theory—What it is not! In Handbook of critical race
theory in education (pp. 54-67). Routledge.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2014). Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0: aka the remix. Harvard
Educational Review, 84(1), 74-84.
Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate, W. F. (Eds.). (2016). “Covenant Keeper”: Derrick Bell’s Enduring
Education Legacy. Peter Lang.
Lämsä, A. M., & Sintonen, T. (2006). A narrative approach for organizational learning in a
diverse organisation. Journal of Workplace Learning.
Larson, C. L., & Ovando, C. J. (2001). The color of bureaucracy: The politics of equity in
multicultural school communities. Taylor and Francis Group, 7625 Empire Dr., Florence,
KY 41042.
220

Leonard, A. M., & Woodland, R. H. (2022). Anti-racism is not an initiative: How professional
learning communities may advance equity and social-emotional learning in schools.
Theory Into Practice, 61(2), 212-223.
Leonardo, Z. (2009). Race, whiteness, and education. Routledge.
Lieberman, A., & Grolnick, M. (1996). Networks and reform in American education. Teachers
college record, 98(1), 7-46.
Lochmiller, C.R. & Lester, J. N. (2017). An introduction to educational research: Connecting
methods to practice. Sage Publications.
Lopez, A. E. (2016). Culturally responsive and socially just leadership in diverse contexts: From
theory to action. Springer.
Lorde, A. (1984). The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house (Comments at the
“The personal and the political panel,” Second Sex Conference, New York, September
29, 1979). In Sister outsider (pp. 110–113). Sister Visions Press. (Original work
published 1979).
Love, B. L. (2016). Anti-Black state violence, classroom edition: The spirit murdering of Black
children. Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy, 13(1), 22-25.
Lupton, D. (editor) (2021). Doing fieldwork in a pandemic (crowd-sourced document), revised
version. Available at:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1clGjGABB2h2qbduTgfqribHmog9B6P0NvMgVui
NvMg8/edit?usp=sharing
Lynch, K., & Baker, J. (2005). Equality in education: An equality of condition perspective.
Theory and research in education, 3(2), 131-164.
221

Machado, A. (1912). ‘Proverbios y cantares’, in Campos de Castilla. Retrieved 15 May 2022
from https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/34610.Antonio_Machado
Majors, R., Simmons, L. E., & Ani, C. (2020). Social and Emotional Education and Emotional
Wellness: A Cultural Competence Model for Black Boys and Teachers. In The
International Handbook of Black Community Mental Health. Emerald Publishing
Limited.
Marshall, S. L., & Khalifa, M. A. (2018). Humanizing school communities: Culturally
responsive leadership in the shaping of curriculum and instruction. Journal of
Educational Administration.
Marx, H. (2016). Preparing culturally responsive teachers. Internationalizing Teaching and
Teacher Education for Equity: Engaging Alternative Knowledges Across Ideological
Borders, 21.
Marzano, R. J. (2005). A handbook for classroom management that works. ASCD.
Matias, C. E. (2013). Check Yo’self before You Wreck Yo’self and Our Kids: Counterstories
from Culturally Responsive White Teachers?... To Culturally Responsive White
Teachers!. Interdisciplinary Journal of Teaching and Learning, 3(2), 68-81.
Matias, C. E. (2016). Feeling white: Whiteness, emotionality, and education. In Feeling White.
Brill.
Matias, C. & Zembylas, M. (2014). ‘When saying you care is not really caring’: emotions of
disgust, whiteness ideology, and teacher education. Critical Studies in Education. 55.
319-337. 10.1080/17508487.2014.922489.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. (3
rd
ed.). SAGE.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
222

Merriam, S. B., & Bierema, L. L. (2013). Adult learning: Linking theory and practice. John
Wiley & Sons.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. John Wiley & Sons.
Meyer, C. F., & Rhoades, E. K. (2006). Multiculturalism: Beyond Food, Festival, Folklore, and
Fashion. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 42(2), 82–87.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00228958.2006.10516439
Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning as Transformation: Critical Perspectives on a Theory in Progress.
The Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series. Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Milner IV, H. R. (2007). Race, culture, and researcher positionality: Working through dangers
seen, unseen, and unforeseen. Educational researcher, 36(7), 388-400.
Minkos, M. L., Sassu, K. A., Gregory, J. L., Patwa, S. S., Theodore, L. A., & Femc‐Bagwell, M.
(2017). Culturally responsive practice and the role of school administrators. Psychology
in the Schools, 54(10), 1260-1266.
Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & González, N. (2006). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using
a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. In Funds of knowledge (pp. 83-
100). Routledge.
Montenegro, E., & Jankowski, N. A. (2017). Equity and assessment: Moving towards culturally
responsive assessment. Occasional Paper, 29.
Morales, D. M., Ruggiano, C., Carter, C., Pfeifer, K. J., & Green, K. L. (2020). Disrupting to
sustain: Teacher preparation through innovative teaching and learning practices. Journal
of Culture and Values in Education, 3(1), 1-20.
223

Moreno, G., & Wong-Lo, M. (2011). Practical Considerations for Working with Latino and
Asian American Students and Families. Multicultural Learning and Teaching, 6(1).
https://doi.org/10.2202/2161-2412.1074
Morgan, H. (2022). Resisting the movement to ban critical race theory from schools. The
Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 95(1), 35-41.
Morrison, T. (2004). Beloved. 1987. New York: Vintage.
Mueller, J. (2020). Racial Ideology or Racial Ignorance? An Alternative Theory of Racial
Cognition. Sociological Theory, 38(2), 142–169.
Muhammad, G.E. (2020). Cultivating genius: An equity model for culturally and historically
responsive literacy. Scholastic.
Mullen, C. (2009). The handbook of leadership and professional learning communities. Springer.
Murakami-Ramalho, E. (2008). Domestic practices in foreign lands: Lessons on leadership for
diversity in American international schools. Journal of Studies in International
Education, 12(1), 76-95.
Nieto, S. (2004). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education,
Boston, MA: Pearson Allyn & Bacon.
Nieto, S. (2009). Multicultural education in the United States: Historical realities, ongoing
challenges, and transformative possibilities. In The Routledge international companion to
multicultural education (pp. 99-115). Routledge.
Nortvedt, G. A., Wiese, E., Brown, M., Burns, D., McNamara, G., O’Hara, J., Altrichter, H.,
Fellner, M., Herzog-Punzenberger, B., Nayir, F., & Taneri, P. O. (2020). Aiding
culturally responsive assessment in schools in a globalising world. Educational
Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 32(1), 5-27.
224

Obiakor, F. E., & Green, S. L. (2014). Educating culturally and linguistically diverse learners
with special needs. Multicultural education for learners with special needs in the twenty-
first century, 1-14.
Orange, T., Isken, J. A., Green, A., Parachini, N., & Francois, A. (2019). Coaching for equity.
The Learning Professional, 40(6), 45-49.
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy during childhood and adolescence. Self-efficacy beliefs of
adolescents, 5, 339-367.
Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and
practice. Educational researcher, 41(3), 93-97.
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.
Paris, D., & Alim, H. S. (Eds.). (2017). Culturally sustaining pedagogies: Teaching and learning
for justice in a changing world. Teachers College Press.
Pearson, N.O. (2022, March 4). Elite international schools have a racism problem: around the
world, finishing schools for the Davos class teach excellence—as long as the excellence
is White, Western, and English-speaking. Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/asia
Pekrun, R. (2011). Emotions as drivers of learning and cognitive development. In New
perspectives on affect and learning technologies (pp. 23-39). Springer, New York, NY.
Pianta, R. C., Belsky, J., Vandergrift, N., Houts, R., & Morrison, F. J. (2008). Classroom effects
on children’s achievement trajectories in elementary school. American educational
research journal, 45(2), 365-397.
Picower, B. (2009). The unexamined whiteness of teaching: How white teachers maintain and
enact dominant racial ideologies. Race ethnicity and education, 12(2), 197-215.
225

Pinar, W. F. (2012). What is curriculum theory?. Routledge.
Pintrich, P. R. (1994). Continuities and discontinuities: Future directions for research in
educational psychology. Educational Psychologist, 29(3), 137-148.
Project LEE, Project ELLIPSES, & Project ELITE (2019). Culturally and linguistically
responsive response to intervention within multitiered system of supports: Fidelity of
implementation rubric. US Office of Special Education Programs.
Retelsdorf, J., Butler, R., Streblow, L., & Schiefele, U. (2010). Teachers' goal orientations for
teaching: Associations with instructional practices, interest in teaching, and burnout.
Learning and instruction, 20(1), 30-46.
Retelsdorf, J., & Günther, C. (2011). Achievement goals for teaching and teachers’ reference
norms: Relations with instructional practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27,
1111–1119.10.1016/j.tate.2011.05.007
Reinke, W. M., Lewis-Palmer, T., & Merrell, K. (2008). The classroom check-up: A classwide
teacher consultation model for increasing praise and decreasing disruptive behavior.
School psychology review, 37(3), 315-332.
Roche, C., & Passmore, J. (2021). Racial Justice, Equity and Belonging in Coaching.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance: finding the right
solutions to the right problems. Teachers College Press.
Ryan, R., Schunk, D., & Usher, E. (2019). Social Cognitive Theory and Motivation.
Saldaña, J., & Omasta, M. (2016). Qualitative research: Analyzing life. Sage Publications.
Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schraw, G., & Lehman, S. (2009). Interest. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/interest/
226

Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M. (2006). Information processing theory. Retrieved from http://
www.education.com/reference/article/information-processing-theory/
Schunk, D. H., Meece, J. L., & Pintrich, P. R. (2008). Motivation in education: theory, research,
and applications (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.
Schunk, D. (2020). Learning theories: An educational perspective (8th ed.). Boston,
MA: Pearson Education.
Scott, S., & Palincsar, A. (2013). Sociocultural theory.
Sealey-Ruiz, Y. (2021). The critical literacy of race: Toward racial literacy in urban teacher
education. The handbook of urban education, 281-295.
Siwatu, K. O. (2007). Preservice teachers’ culturally responsive teaching self-efficacy and
outcome expectancy beliefs. Teaching and teacher education, 23(7), 1086-1101.
Siwatu, K. O. (2011). Preservice teachers’ culturally responsive teaching self-efficacy-forming
experiences: A mixed methods study. The Journal of Educational Research, 104(5), 360-
369.
Sleeter, C. E. (1996). Multicultural education as social activism. SUNY Press.
Sleeter, C. E. (2011). An agenda to strengthen culturally responsive pedagogy. English
Teaching: Practice and Critique, 10(2), 7–23.
Sleeter, C. E. (2012). Confronting the Marginalization of Culturally Responsive Pedagogy.
Urban Education, 47(3), 562–584. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085911431472
Sleeter, C. E. (2018). Multicultural education past, present, and future: Struggles for dialog and
power-sharing. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 20(1), 5-20.
Smith, L. T. (2012). Chapter 2: Research through imperial eyes. In Decolonizing methodologies:
Research and indigenous peoples. (pp. 42-57). Zed Books, Ltd.
227

Solomon, R. P., Portelli, J. P., Daniel, B., Campbell, A. (2005). The discourse of denial: How
white teacher candidates construct race, racism and ‘white privilege’. Race Ethnicity and
Education 8(2): 147–169.
Solórzano, D. G., & Yosso, T. J. (2002). Critical race methodology: Counter-storytelling as an
analytical framework for education research. Qualitative inquiry, 8(1), 23-44.
Sondel, B., Kretchmar, K., & Hadley Dunn, A. (2019). “Who do these people want teaching their
children?” White saviorism, colorblind racism, and anti-blackness in “no excuses” charter
schools. Urban Education, 0042085919842618.
Sprick, R. S., & Sprick, R. S. (2010). Coaching classroom management: Strategies & tools for
administrators & coaches. Pacific Northwest Publishing.
Spring, J. (2016). Deculturalization and the struggle for equality: A brief history of the education
of dominated cultures in the United States. Routledge.
Steketee, A., Williams, M. T., Valencia, B. T., Printz, D., & Hooper, L. M. (2021). Racial and
language microaggressions in the school ecology. Perspectives on Psychological Science,
16(5), 1075-1098.
Stembridge, A. (2019). Culturally responsive education in the classroom: An equity framework
for pedagogy. Routledge.
Stiles, K. E., & Loucks-Horsley, S. (1998). Professional development strategies. The Science
Teacher, 65(6), 46.
Stoiber, K. C., & Gettinger, M. (2016). Multi-tiered systems of support and evidence-based
practices. In Handbook of response to intervention (pp. 121-141). Springer, Boston, MA.
Sukumar, P.T. & Metoyer, R. (2019). Replication and transparency of qualitative research from a
constructivist perspective.
228

Taylor, T. A. (2021). Yes, There is Racism in International Schools: A Discussion about the
Black Experience in American International Schools. Annual Review of Comparative and
International Education 2020.
Thoonen, E. E. J., Sleegers, P. J. C., Oort, F. J., Peetsma, T. T. D., & Geijsel, F. P. (2011). How
to improve teaching practices: The role of teacher motivation, organizational factors, and
leadership practices. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47, 496–
536.10.1177/0013161X11400185.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct.
Teaching and teacher education, 17(7), 783-805.
Tuck, E., & Gaztambide-Fernández, R. A. (2013). Curriculum, replacement, and settler futurity.
Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 29(1).
US Department of State. (2021). 2021-2022 World Wide Fact Sheet Now Available. Office of
Overseas Schools. https://www.state.gov/2021_worldwide_fact_sheet.
Vaught, S. E., Castagno, A. E. (2008). “I don’t think I’m a racist”: Critical race theory, teacher
attitudes, and structural racism. Race Ethnicity and Education 11(2): 95–113.
Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Preparing culturally responsive teachers: Rethinking the
curriculum. Journal of teacher education, 53(1), 20-32.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Walle, A. (2010). Indigenous People and Human Resource Management. International Journal
of Business Anthropology, 1(1).
Walpole, S. (2021). Curriculum and Coaching: Maximizing our Investments in Teaching. The
Reading Teacher, 75(2), 189-196.
229

Watkins, W. H. (2001). The White architects of Black education: Ideology and power in
America, 1865-1954. Teachers College Press.
Watson, V. (2015, December 7). “The Black Sonrise” [Video]. Youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yzXd4_C328
Watts, G. D., & Castle, S. (1993). The time dilemma in school restructuring. Phi Delta Kappan,
75(4), 306-310.
Weale, S. (2022, March 7). Ofsted downgrades American School in London over focus on social
justice. The Guardian. Retrieved May 15, 2022, from
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/mar/07/ofsted-downgrades-american-
school-in-london-over-focus-on-social-justice
Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2007). Schooling by design: Mission, action, and achievement.
ASCD.
Windust, W. (2022). Critical Hope for Culturally Responsive Education: An Improvement
Study. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Southern California.
Wlodkowski, R. J., & Ginsberg, M. B. (1995). A framework for culturally responsive teaching.
Educational Leadership, 53(1), 17-21.
Wlodkowski, R. J. (2003). Fostering motivation in professional development programs. New
directions for adult and continuing education, 2003(98), 39-48.
Wlodkowski, R. J., & Ginsberg, M. B. (2017). Enhancing adult motivation to learn: A
comprehensive guide for teaching all adults. John Wiley & Sons.
Wong-Lo, M., & Bai, H. (2013). Recommended Practices: Cultivating a Culturally Responsive
Learning Environment for Chinese Immigrants and Chinese American Students.
Preventing School Failure, 57(1), 17–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2013.731272
230

Woodson, C. G. (2006). The mis-education of the Negro. Book Tree. (Original work published
1933)
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. Sage
publications.
Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community
cultural wealth. Race ethnicity and education, 8(1), 69-91.
Yosso, T. J. (2014). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community
cultural wealth. In Critical race theory in education (pp. 181-204). Routledge.
Young, E. (2010). Challenges to Conceptualizing and Actualizing Culturally Relevant Pedagogy:
How Viable Is the Theory in Classroom Practice? Journal of Teacher Education, 61(3),
248–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/002248710935977
Zwozdiak-Myers, P. (2012). The Teacher's Reflective Practice Handbook: How to Engage
Effectively in Professional Development and Build a Portfolio of Practice. Routledge

231

Appendix A: Interview Protocols

Classroom & Spanish Educators
Thank you for taking the time for this interview. By 2027, SAS expects all educators to
use culturally responsive practices in their classrooms. The purpose of this interview is to learn
about where you are in your understanding and what you think will help or hinder your ability to
implement culturally responsive practices in your day-to-day practice and educational
environment.
There are no right or wrong answers. I would like you to feel comfortable sharing your
knowledge, perceptions, and opinions and saying what you really think and feel. My goal is to
understand where we are as a community so that I can make recommendations to better support
educators. If it’s okay with you, I will be recording our conversation. I want to be attentive to our
conversation but make sure I capture your perspectives accurately. Your information will be de-
identified. This means that while the answers will be collated from all interviews and shared,
your responses will be confidential, and your identity will remain anonymous.
Questions
1. What might it mean to be a culturally responsive educator? For example, What do culturally
responsive educators teach? How do culturally responsive educators assess students?
2. How do you feel about implementing culturally responsive practices (CRP)?
3. How do you feel about your ability to enact culturally responsive practices?
a. How do you feel about your ability to enact culturally responsive curriculum
practices?
b. How do you feel about your ability to enact culturally responsive teaching
practices?
c. How do you feel about your ability to enact culturally responsive assessment
practices?
4. Could you describe step-by-step:
a. How would you design a culturally responsive lesson for students?
b. How would you teach a culturally responsive lesson?
c. How would you assess students’ learning in culturally responsive ways?
5. What resources might an educator need to enact culturally responsive practices at SAS?
232

a. How well-resourced do you think SAS currently is in supporting the
implementation of culturally responsive practices?
6. What systems are in place/might need to be put into place to enact culturally responsive
practices at SAS?
7. How effective are the systems currently in place at SAS in supporting the implementation
of culturally responsive practices?
8. What values might a school need to have in order to enact culturally responsive
practices?
a. How aligned are SAS’s values to the ones you just mentioned?
9. What policies might educators need to implement/adopt for SAS to live out these values?
10. How might racism influence how educators at our school teach, if at all?
If we have time:
11. How might white privilege influence how educators at our school teach, if at all?
12. Are there any questions you wish I would have asked?
Closing
I’ll be analyzing the information from this and other interviews to look for common
themes about where we are in our journey to becoming more culturally responsive to the needs
of our learners. I will make sure to share this information with you and may ask for a follow-up
interview if needed. Thank you so much for sharing your perceptions and your time.
School Leaders
Thank you for taking the time for this interview. By 2027, SAS expects all educators to
use the practices of culturally responsive pedagogy in their classrooms. As educational leaders
and coaches, we play a critical role in fostering teaching and learning environments that
encourage culturally responsive teaching. The purpose of this interview is to learn about where
you are in your understanding, and what you think will help or hinder your ability to develop
educators’ capacity to teach in culturally responsive ways.
There are no right or wrong answers. I would like you to feel comfortable sharing your
knowledge, perceptions, and opinions and saying what you really think and feel. My goal is to
understand where we are as a community so that I can make recommendations to better support
educational leaders and coaches. If it’s okay with you, I will be recording our conversation. I
want to be attentive to our conversation, but make sure I capture your perspectives accurately.
233

Your information will be de-identified. This means that while the answers will be collated from
all interviews and shared, your responses will be confidential and your identity will remain
anonymous.
Questions
1. What might it mean to be a “culturally responsive” educator?
2. Could you describe step-by-step:
a. How a classroom educator might design a culturally responsive lesson for students?
b. How a classroom educator might teach a culturally responsive lesson?
c. How a classroom educator might assess students’ learning in culturally responsive
ways?
3. How do you feel about supporting classroom educators’ capacity to implement culturally
responsive practices?
a. How do you feel about your ability to support classroom educators in designing a
culturally responsive curriculum?
b. How do you feel about your ability to support classroom educators teaching in
culturally responsive ways?
c. How do you feel about your ability to support classroom educators in assessing
students in culturally responsive ways?
4. What resources might school leaders need to support educators’ capacity to implement
culturally responsive practices at SAS?
5. How well-resourced do you think SAS currently is in supporting the implementation of
culturally responsive practices?
6. What values might SAS need to have in order to enact culturally responsive practices at our
school?
7. How aligned are SAS’s values to the ones you just mentioned?
8. How might racism influence how school leaders at our school lead, if at all?
9. Is there anything else you would like to share?
Closing
I’ll be analyzing the information from this and other interviews to look for common themes
about where we are in our journey to becoming more culturally responsive to the needs of our
234

learners. I will make sure to share this information with you and may ask for a follow-up
interview if needed. Thank you so much for sharing your perceptions and your time.

235

Appendix B: Observation Protocols
The purpose of the observation is to provide evidence that during meetings and in classrooms:
• Use knowledge, facts, information, and terminology related to culturally responsive
practices.
• Exhibit behavioral evidence of educators’ motivation related to culturally responsive
practices.
• Demonstrate understanding of the organizational components; understand and see the
alignment of resources, policies, processes, and procedures with the ANCS’ culture.

Culturally Responsive Classroom Educator Observation Protocol
Use this protocol to observe culturally responsive classroom educators in action. The
researcher will look for evidence of educators’ knowledge and motivation to enact culturally
responsive practices and the organizational influences that may impact practice through the
following four critical behaviors:
1. Establishes and supports a culturally responsive environment that is inclusive of
community members, cultural artifacts, languages, and behaviors.
2. Creates and uses culturally responsive curriculum, instruction, and assessment
practices to facilitate educators’ understanding of their identity, their community, and
the world.
3. Actively participates in intellectually engaging, culturally responsive professional
development that deepens their sociopolitical consciousness and leads them to identify,
analyze, and solve real-world problems.
4. Engages in frequent critical self-reflection to learn from the knowledge, beliefs, values,
assumptions, biases, and experiences that contribute to perspectives of their identity,
community members, and the world

Observer:
Date of Observation:
Educator Observed (assigned number):
236

Description of People Present (ex: number of students in a classroom)
Location of Observation:
• Classroom
• Meeting
• Professional Development
• Professional Learning Community
• Transitional Space
Start Time of Observation:

End Time of Observation: Total Time of Observation:

Effective educators establish and support a culturally responsive environment that is inclusive
of community members, cultural artifacts, languages, and behaviors.
K,M,O Purpose Possible Observation Items Observation
Notes
K 1. The classroom educator
communicates high
expectations for all students.
• Creates opportunities for students
to show that they are invested in
their own and others’ learning by
working to achieve goals (e.g.,
individually, collaboratively).
• Establishes systems of access so
that all students receive the same
content and learning experiences as
their classmates.
• Ensures that students are aware of
and use the available supports,
learning scaffolds, and resources
and how to use them when
encountering a complex task.
• Promotes an inclusive, safe, and
anxiety-free learning environment
for students of all identity groups.

237

K 2. The classroom educator
maintains positive
perspectives about and
relationships with the
families of students from all
identity groups.
• Seeks to mitigate assumptions and
biases (e.g., when discussing
students’ families).
• Encourages parents and
community members to participate
in student learning experiences
(e.g., learning celebrations, panel
discussions, exhibitions).
• Acknowledges parents’ and
community members’ funds of
knowledge and encourages them to
share their experiences and
expertise with students.
• Reaches out to build parental social
capital networks to ensure
inclusivity and access to resources.

K 3. The classroom educator
knows and values all of the
students in their
classroom(s).
• Welcomes students by name
(correctly pronounced) as they
enter the learning space.
• Differentiates patterns of
interaction to ensure cultural
congruence with students’ cultural
norms and possible interpretations
(e.g., eye contact, proximity, direct
interactive style).
• Discretely communicates with
individual students (e.g., giving
praise, offering assistance,
addressing behavior).

K 4. The classroom educator
cultivates a caring learning
community that is student-
centered and inclusive of all
learners.
• Remains supportive, caring, and
flexible in all interactions with
students, not sarcastic,
authoritarian, and/or rigid.
• Engages students in ways that
neither privileges nor excludes
groups, identities, or experiences.
• Creates a classroom community
that is safe and responsive to the

238

needs of all students, never posing
a risk to their dignity and self-
worth.
• Leverages power structures to give
students voice and choice in what
and how they learn.
• Partners with students to organize
classroom structure around
communal responsibility rather
than compliance and punishment.
• Incorporates and practices healing
practices (e.g., lessons that support
social and emotional learning,
restorative circles, mindfulness,
yoga, art therapy, and affinity
groups).
K 5. The classroom educator
creates an atmosphere that
engenders culturally
respectful learning
experiences.
• Encourages connection and
collaboration through intentional
classroom design (e.g., seating
options, displays, walkways).
• Curates and displays positive and
affirming messages and images
about students’ cultures and
intersecting identities (e.g., books,
posters, quotes).

Educators with knowledge of how to create and use culturally responsive curriculum,
instruction, and assessment practices will facilitate learners’ understanding of their identity,
their community, and the world.
K,M,O Purpose Possible Observation Items Observation
Notes
K 1. The classroom educator
understands the
sociopolitical relationship
between oppression and
advantage underpinning
• Uses the understanding of the
interrelationship of oppression/
advantage and educational practices
while planning curriculum,
instruction, and assessment.

239

culturally responsive
practices.
• Democratizes learning to ensure a
culture of participation
K
M
2. The classroom educator
utilizes the components of
culturally responsive
practices to ensure student
learning.
• Enacts and continues to
use culturally responsive curriculum,
instruction, and assessment practices.
• Develops and uses culturally
responsive pedagogies as a means for
engaging and deepening student
learning by recognizing students’
experiences (funds of knowledge) as
a foundation on which to build
knowledge.
• Encourages students to use their
linguistic abilities through
translanguaging to connect to and
validate their funds of knowledge.
• Seeks to develop students’ language
and cultural knowledge to affirm
their membership in all identity
groups.
• Collaborates with students in the
education-related development
process (e.g., content, instructional
activities, the learning environment,
assessment practices).
• Ensures that the curricular content is
accurate, with no stereotypes or bias
(such as by omission, generalization,
or imbalance).
• Connects students’ interests to a
joyful curriculum, alongside anti-
bias, anti-racist practices.
• Cultivates diversity as a resource for
culturally responsive practices,
including the regular use of materials
and teaching activities from all

240

identity groups along with high
expectations for all students.
• Integrates learning goals and
outcomes with quality, culturally
sustaining instructional strategies and
materials.
• Promotes the development, growth,
and quality of life for students by
incorporating a humanizing
assessment ecology (e.g.,
competency-based systems of
holistic assessment based in value-
added rather than deficit
perspectives).
• Provides opportunities for students to
show their learning in nontraditional
ways that honor and affirm student
identity.

For educators who actively participate in intellectually engaging, culturally responsive
professional development, the results are twofold as they deepen sociopolitical consciousness
and seek to apply teaching and learning beyond the confines of school to identify, analyze, and
solve real-world problems.
K,M,O Purpose Possible Observation Items Observation
Notes
M 1. The classroom
educator seeks
professional
development to learn
about and implement
culturally responsive
practices.
• Gives verbal/nonverbal
communication cues that may show
interest when culturally responsive
practices are introduced and discussed.
• Seeks ongoing training in culturally
responsive methodologies and
practices (e.g., student-directed
learning, restorative circles, anti-bias,
anti-racist (ABAR) teaching practices,
building authentic relationships with
students and families, performance-
based assessments).

241

K 2. The classroom
educator uses their
learning from
professional
development to enact
and improve their
culturally responsive
practices.
• Uses student data to identify disparities
and plan to redress inequities.
• Disrupts and replaces educational
practices and norms that disadvantage
certain identity groups (e.g., identity
markers assigned by race, ethnicity,
ability, socioeconomic status, sexual
orientation, and gender).

O 3. The classroom
educator receives
organizational resources
through professional
development to enhance
culturally responsive
learning.
• Time: How much time is spent on
learning about culturally responsive
practices?
• Finances: How much money is
allocated towards PD centered on
culturally responsive learning?
• Staff: How many staff members are
tasked with enhancing culturally
responsive learning?
• Resources

Educators who engage in frequent critical self-reflection introspectively learn from the
knowledge, beliefs, values, assumptions, biases, and experiences that contribute to
perspectives of their identity, community members, and the world.
K,M,O Purpose Possible Observation Items Observation
Notes
K
M
The classroom educator
knows how to critically
self-reflect and is
motivated to work on
their cultural
competency to improve
their culturally
responsive practices.
• Uses self-reflection tools to understand
how lived experiences and membership
in various identity groups affects their
beliefs and actions (e.g., learning
journals, diaries, contemplative walks,
reading responses, guided
reflections, portfolios).
• Publicly self-reflects on how their own
knowledge, beliefs, values,
assumptions, biases, and experiences
affect how they see and understand the
world.

242

• Shows an awareness of how the
membership in their identity groups
affects the interactions with people in
different groups (e.g., how identity
shapes interactions with students,
colleagues, parents, and community
members).
Observational Analysis

Critical Behavior 1: Critical Behavior 2: Critical Behavior 3: Critical Behavior 4:

243

Culturally Responsive School Leader (Observation Protocol)
This protocol seeks to observe school leaders developing culturally responsive teachers. The
researcher will observe and look for evidence of school leaders exhibiting the following four
critical behaviors:

1. Establishes and supports a culturally responsive environment that is inclusive of
community members, cultural artifacts, languages, and behaviors
2. Creates and uses culturally responsive curriculum, instruction, and assessment
practices to facilitate educators’ understanding of their identity, their community, and
the world
3. Actively participates in intellectually engaging, culturally responsive professional
development that deepens their sociopolitical consciousness and leads them to identify,
analyze, and solve real-world problems
4. Engages in frequent critical self-reflection to learn from the knowledge, beliefs, values,
assumptions, biases, and experiences that contribute to perspectives of their identity,
community members, and the world

As school leaders play a number of roles in schools (Killion & Harrison, 2017), they exhibit
these critical behaviors in a variety of ways in order to develop culturally responsive teachers.
Based on the many and varied roles of school leaders, a list of indicators will be used to look
for evidence of these critical behaviors.

These indicators are inexplicably linked to all four critical behaviors. Using these indicators,
the researcher will observe and take notes on school leaders’ procedural knowledge (they can
do it), interest (they believe this is worthwhile), self-efficacy (they are confident they can do
it), and emotional affect (facial expressions and body language). Following the observation,
observation notes are interpreted through the lens of the four critical behaviors of culturally
responsive school leaders.
Observer (e.g., name and behavior):
Date of Observation:
Location of Observation:
• Classroom
• Meeting
• Professional Development
• Professional Learning Community
• Transitional Space
244

Description of Physical Setting (e.g., visible resources, policies, procedures, processes, values,
beliefs, attitudes, and other concrete manifestations that appear within observed activity
setting):

Description of People Present (e.g., number of educators present in a meeting):

Start Time of Observation:

End Time of
Observation:
Total Time of
Observation:
Role Purpose Observational Items Observation Notes
Culturally
Responsive
Resource
Provider
To expand educators’ use
of resources supporting
culturally responsive
pedagogy.
• Assists educators in
locating culturally
responsive
information,
materials, examples
of promising
practices, and
assessments
• Offers and
recommends
culturally responsive
resource sites
• Updates staff about
current culturally
responsive practices
• Finds alternative
teaching materials
for culturally
responsive
instruction
Knowledge (K):

Interest (I):

Self-efficacy (S):

Emotional Affect (E):

Culturally
Responsive
Data Coach
To disaggregate and
analyze data by student
subgroups (i.e., those
assigned by race, ethnicity,
ability, socioeconomic
status, sexual orientation,
and gender) to uncover
potential disparities at the
classroom and school level.
• Identifies
schoolwide and
grade-level
department trends
by student
subgroups to
uncover potential
disparities
K:

I:

S:

E:
245

• Supports educators
using data to
implement culturally
responsive
instruction
• Facilitates data
conversations that
analyze learning by
student subgroups
and identify
culturally responsive
interventions and
extensions
Culturally
Responsive
Instructional
Specialist
To align culturally
responsive instruction with
curriculum, meeting the
needs of culturally diverse
students.
• Assists in the
selection and
implementation of
culturally responsive
instructional
strategies
• Assists educators in
the implementation
of culturally
responsive teaching
strategies
• Works with
individual and
groups of educators
to reflect on the PLC
Cycle of Inquiry
through the lens of
culturally responsive
pedagogy
K:

I:

S:

E:
Culturally
Responsive
Curriculum
Specialist
To ensure implementation
of a culturally responsive
curriculum.
• Deepens educators’
knowledge of
multicultural
content
• Aligns written,
taught, and assessed
K:

I:

S:

246

curriculum
grounded in
culturally responsive
pedagogy
• Integrates
multicultural content
across disciplines to
provide additional
opportunities for
students to practice
and apply their
learning relevant to
their lives
E:
Culturally
Responsive
Classroom
Supporter
To increase the quality and
effectiveness of culturally
responsive teaching in the
classroom.
• Models and
demonstrates
culturally responsive
instructional
strategies
• Co-plans and/or co-
teaches culturally
responsive lessons
• Observes and gives
feedback to
educators on
culturally responsive
practices
K:

I:

S:

E:
Culturally
Responsive
Learning
Facilitator
To design culturally
responsive professional
learning opportunities for
educators.

• Coordinates
culturally responsive
learning
opportunities for
educators
• Designs and delivers
culturally responsive
PD
• Ensures that the
design PD models
culturally
responsiveness
K:

I:

S:

E:
247

according to the
needs, interests, and
cultures of
participating
educators
Culturally
Responsive
Mentor
To increase the culturally
responsive instructional
skills of educators and
support schoolwide
induction of culturally
responsive practices.
• Mentors educators
to be culturally
responsive and
supports the work of
developing
culturally responsive
coaches
• Demonstrates/co-
teaches lessons
and/or co-plans
instructional
strategies that are
culturally responsive
• Assists with “new-
to-culturally-
responsive-
teaching” questions,
issues, and
dilemmas
• Assists with
implementing
culturally responsive
positive behavioral
interventions and
supports
K:

I:

S:

E:
Culturally
Responsive
School
Leader
To work collaboratively
(with formal and informal
leaders) to plan,
implement, and assess
culturally responsive
school initiatives to ensure
alignment and focus on
intended results.
• Centers a culturally
responsive lens
when
facilitating/serving
on leadership teams
within the school
• Ensures coaches
and/or resource
K:

I:

S:

E:
248

personnel views the
implementation of
culturally responsive
practices as one of
their core
responsibilities
• Serves as another set
of eyes for school
leaders embarking
on culturally
responsive change
initiatives
• Facilitates alignment
among individual
educator goals and
school goals related
to culturally
responsive
pedagogy
Culturally
Responsive
Agent Of
Change
To create disequilibrium
with the current state as an
impetus to explore
culturally responsive
alternatives to current
practice.
• Introduces culturally
responsive
alternatives or
refinements
• Makes observations
about where current
practices may not be
aligned with
culturally responsive
pedagogy
• Asks hard questions
about current
practices and their
alignment to
culturally responsive
pedagogy
• Engages educators
in critical reflection
about practices not
aligned to culturally
K:

I:

S:

E:
249

responsive
pedagogy
Culturally
Responsive
Learner
To model continuous
learning in order to keep
current, be a thought leader
in the school, and model
reflecting on culturally
responsive practices.
• Models attitudes and
behaviors educators
need to successfully
implement culturally
responsive practices
• Models applications
of culturally
responsive learning
• Proactively
advocates for their
own culturally
responsive learning
opportunities
• Creates their own
culturally responsive
learning
communities
K:

I:

S:

E:
Observational Analysis

Critical Behavior 1: Critical Behavior 2: Critical Behavior 3: Critical Behavior 4:

250

Appendix C: Document Analysis Protocols
The analysis of documents will not only seek to determine the presence of culturally
responsive practices at ANCS but also the presence of culturally unresponsive practices reflected
in ANCS’s knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences. That is, relevant documents
seek to understand both the KMO influences and barriers pertaining to (1) factual, conceptual,
procedural, and metacognitive knowledge of culturally responsive practices, (2) motivational
factors of interest, emotion, and self-efficacy driving the enactment of culturally responsive
practices, and (3) resources, policies, processes, procedures, cultural models, and cultural
settings supporting the enactment of culturally responsive practices. A comprehensive array of
documents will be collected and then analyzed to gain a deeper understanding of KMO factors
influencing the enactment of culturally responsive practices.
Culturally Responsive Material (Document Analysis Protocol)
This protocol seeks to analyze materials for cultural responsiveness. The researcher will look
for documentary and archival evidence of teacher educators exhibiting the following four
critical behaviors:

1. Establishes and supports a culturally responsive environment that is inclusive of
community members, cultural artifacts, languages, and behaviors
2. Creates and uses culturally responsive curriculum, instruction, and assessment
practices to facilitate educators’ understanding of their identity, their community, and
the world
3. Actively participates in intellectually engaging, culturally responsive professional
development that deepens their sociopolitical consciousness and leads them to identify,
analyze, and solve real-world problems
4. Engages in frequent critical self-reflection to learn from the knowledge, beliefs, values,
assumptions, biases, and experiences that contribute to perspectives of their identity,
community members, and the world

A list of indicators of critical behaviors will be used to look for documentary evidence of
cultural responsiveness.

These indicators are inexplicably linked to all four critical behaviors. Using these indicators,
the researcher will collect documents and artifacts related to knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences. Following the collection of these documents and artifacts, they
251

will be interpreted through the lens of the four critical behaviors of culturally responsive
classroom educators.
Documenter:
Name of Document:
Source of Document:
Description of Documentary Context (e.g., resource, policy, procedure, process, value
statement, institutional belief, attitudinal survey, and other cultural models it seeks to reflect in
the cultural setting):

Date Requested:
Date Received:
Document Purpose Indicators Documentary
Notes
Culturally
Responsive
Resources
To analyze resources
supporting culturally
responsive pedagogy.
• Provides educators with
culturally responsive
information, materials,
examples of promising
practices, and assessments
• Offers and recommends
culturally responsive
resource sites
• Updates staff about current
culturally responsive
practices
• Finds alternative teaching
materials for culturally
responsive instruction
Knowledge
(K):

Interest (I):

Self-efficacy
(S):

Emotional
Affect (E):

Resource (R):

Policy,
Process,
Procedure
(P):

Cultural
Model (CM):

Cultural
Setting (CS):

252

Culturally
Responsive
Data
To disaggregate and
analyze data by student
subgroups (i.e., those
assigned by race,
ethnicity, ability,
socioeconomic status,
sexual orientation, and
gender) to uncover
potential disparities at the
classroom and school
level.
• Identifies schoolwide and
grade-level department
trends by student
subgroups to uncover
potential disparities
• Supports educators using
data to implement
culturally responsive
instruction
• Facilitates data
conversations that analyze
learning by student
subgroups and identify
culturally responsive
interventions and
extensions
K:

I:

S:

E:

R:

P:

CM:

CS:

Culturally
Responsive
Instructional
Strategies
To align culturally
responsive instruction
with curriculum meeting
the needs of culturally
diverse students.
• Assists in the selection and
implementation of
culturally responsive
instructional strategies
• Assists educators in the
implementation of
culturally responsive
teaching strategies
• Reflects on the PLC Cycle
of Inquiry through the lens
of culturally responsive
pedagogy
K:

I:

S:

E:

R:

P:

CM:

CS:

Curriculum
Materials
To ensure implementation
of a culturally responsive
curriculum.
• Deepens educators’
knowledge of multicultural
content
• Aligns written, taught, and
assessed curriculum
grounded in culturally
responsive pedagogy
• Integrates multicultural
content across disciplines
to provide additional
opportunities for students
to practice and apply their
K:

I:

S:

E:

R:

P:

CM:
253

learning relevant to their
lives

CS:

Culturally
Responsive
Classroom
Supports
To increase the quality
and effectiveness of
culturally responsive
teaching in the classroom.
• Provides models and
demonstrations of
culturally responsive
instructional strategies
• Provides culturally
responsive plans and/or
lessons
• Provides observations and
feedback notes to educators
on culturally responsive
practices
K:

I:

S:

E:

R:

P:

CM:

CS:

Culturally
Responsive
Learning Plans
To design culturally
responsive professional
learning opportunities for
educators.

• Explains how culturally
responsive learning
opportunities are or will be
coordinated for educators
• Provides instructional
designs of culturally
responsive PD
• Shows how the design PD
models culturally
responsiveness according
to the needs, interests, and
cultures of participating
educators
K:

I:

S:

E:

R:

P:

CM:

CS:

Culturally
Responsive
Mentor Texts
To increase the culturally
responsive instructional
skills of educators and
support schoolwide
induction of culturally
responsive practices.
• Provides mentor texts
showing how educators can
be culturally responsive
and how to develop
culturally responsive
coaches
• Provides examples of
lessons and/or instructional
strategies that are culturally
responsive
K:

I:

S:

E:

R:

P:
254

• Addresses “new-to-
culturally-responsive-
teaching” questions, issues,
and dilemmas
• Provides a model for
implementing culturally
responsive positive
behavioral interventions
and supports

CM:

CS:

Culturally
Responsive
Leadership
To work collaboratively
(with formal and informal
leaders) to plan,
implement, and assess
culturally responsive
school initiatives to
ensure alignment and
focus on intended results.
• Provides a set of culturally
leadership behaviors for
facilitating/serving on
leadership teams within the
school
• Outlines how to ensure
coaches and/or resource
personnel view the
implementation of
culturally responsive
practices as one of their
core responsibilities
• Discusses how to build
partnerships with
stakeholders when
embarking on culturally
responsive change
initiatives
• Aligns individual educator
goals and school goals
related to culturally
responsive pedagogy
K:

I:

S:

E:

R:

P:

CM:

CS:

Culturally
Responsive
Change
To create disequilibrium
with the current state as
an impetus to explore
culturally responsive
alternatives to current
practice.
• Introduces culturally
responsive alternatives or
refinements
• Makes observations about
where current practices
may not be aligned with
culturally responsive
pedagogy
• Asks hard questions about
current practices and their
alignment with culturally
responsive pedagogy
K:

I:

S:

E:

R:

P:

CM:
255

• Critically reflects on
practices not aligned to
culturally responsive
pedagogy

CS:

Culturally
Responsive
Learning
To model continuous
learning in order to keep
current, be a thought
leader in the school, and
model reflecting on
culturally responsive
practices.
• Outlines attitudes and
behaviors educators need
to successfully implement
culturally responsive
practices
• Outlines potential
applications of culturally
responsive learning
• Proactively advocates for
culturally responsive
learning opportunities
• Discusses and/or provides
a framework for creating
own culturally responsive
learning communities
K:

I:

S:

E:

R:

P:

CM:

CS:
Document Analysis

Critical Behavior 1: Critical Behavior 2: Critical Behavior 3: Critical Behavior 4:

256

Appendix D: Informed Consent/Information Sheet
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Pkwy, Los Angeles, CA, 90089

Culturally Leadership and Teaching: A Gap Analysis
You are invited to participate in a research study. Research studies include only people who
voluntarily choose to take part. This document explains information about this study. You should
ask questions about anything that is unclear to you.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This study aims to examine the knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors that prevent
ANCS educators from bridging the gap between the theory and practice of culturally responsive
pedagogy.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to take part in an interview or observation.

CONFIDENTIALITY
There will be no identifiable information obtained in connection with this study. Your name,
address or other identifiable information will not be collected.

Required language:
The members of the research team, the funding agency, and the University of Southern
California’s Human Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews
and monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

When the results of the research are published or discussed at conferences, no identifiable
information will be used.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
Darnell Fine - darnellf@usc.edu
Monica Gonzalez - Szakallgonzalez@gmail.com or monicabg@usc.edu
Wendy Windust - wsnell@usc.edu

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los
Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu

257

Appendix E: Recruitment Email
Dear Colleagues,
Darnell Fine, Monica Gonzalez, and Wendy Windust are doctoral students at the
University of Southern California and would like to conduct a series of interviews with educators
who are interested in sharing how the school can best support educators in the implementation of
culturally responsive practices. The data gathered during each interview will provide data for our
qualitative case study, seeking input to help educators and improve ANCS’s current status with
cultural responsiveness. If you are willing to participate in this study, please indicate below by
________________. Participation is completely voluntary. If you are willing to participate, one
of us will reach out to you with more information next week. If you are not interested in
participating, you may delete this email now. Each interview will last between 30 and 60 minutes
and will take place during your planning time.

258

Appendix F: Immediate Evaluation Tool
Anonymous Surveys to Give at the End of Each Session

Professional Development Date: Topic:
Directions: Thank you for your engagement in today’s professional development. To help ensure
the quality of future professional learning experiences, please respond to the following items.
There is space for additional feedback or topic suggestions for future professional development
at the conclusion of the survey items.

1. How important do you believe this session is to:

1. What you teach learners 1 2 3 4
2. How you teach learners 1 2 3 4
3. How you assess learning 1 2 3 4
4. How your PLC responds when individuals are not learning 1 2 3 4

2. Session Feedback:

1. I liked my session. 1 2 3 4
2. My time was well spent. 1 2 3 4
3. The content was useful and made sense. 1 2 3 4
4. I acquired knowledge and skills relevant to my work. 1 2 3 4
5. What I have learned and/or reflected on will positively impact
learning outcomes, whether students’ or adults’.
1 2 3 4
259

6. What I have learned and/or reflected on will positively impact my
work with colleagues.
1 2 3 4

3. Anything else you want to share?

260

Appendix G: Delayed Evaluation Tool
Anonymous Surveys to Give Two Weeks After Each Session

Date: Topic:
Directions: To gauge the effectiveness of the professional development from (date), please
respond to the following items. There is space for additional feedback or topic suggestions for
future professional development at the conclusion of the survey items.

1. As you reflect on your experience in the professional development
session, how important do you now believe this session was to:

1. What you teach learners 1 2 3 4
2. How you teach learners 1 2 3 4
3. How you assess learning 1 2 3 4
4. How your PLC responds when individuals are not learning 1 2 3 4

2. Professional Development Session Feedback:

1. I liked my session. 1 2 3 4
2. My time was well spent. 1 2 3 4
3. The content was useful and made sense. 1 2 3 4
4. I acquired knowledge and skills relevant to my work. 1 2 3 4
5. What I have learned and/or reflected on has and will continue to
positively impact learning outcomes, whether students’ or adults’.
1 2 3 4
261

6. What I have learned and/or reflected on has and will continue to
positively impact my work with colleagues.
1 2 3 4

3. Anything else you want to share?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This improvement study adapted the gap analysis problem-solving framework (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011) as the conceptual framework to identify the performance gaps that keep Anglia Naxos Community School (ANCS, a pseudonym) from reaching its performance goals and to analyze the obstacles educators face when trying to implement culturally responsive practices. The gap analysis examined three factors: school leader and classroom educator knowledge and skills, motivation, and the organizational factors that act as barriers to organizational change. The study methodology was a qualitative case study that included interviews, observations, and document analysis for data collection. Based on the study’s findings, research-based solutions addressed the organization’s performance challenges. In addition, an improvement plan and evaluations were suggested using the New World Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Critical hope for culturally responsive education: an improvement study

PDF

Critical hope for culturally responsive education: an improvement study

PDF

Reflecting Asian American students in our social studies curriculum through culturally relevant pedagogy: a gap analysis

PDF

Cultural intelligence and self-efficacy of trip leaders on short-term international educational programs

PDF

Teachers assumptions on the importance of executive function: a gap analysis evaluation study

PDF

Collaboration among interdisciplinary teaching teams: a gap analysis

PDF

The implementation of response to intervention: an adapted gap analysis

PDF

The impact of culturally responsive teaching on the suspension rate of African American students: an evaluation study

PDF

The enactment of equitable mathematics teaching practices: an adapted gap analysis

PDF

Developing standards-based Chinese curricula in international schools: a gap analysis for Eagle American School

PDF

Employee standardization for interchangeability across states: an improvement study

PDF

Raising special needs: an evaluation study of respite care for medically fragile children living with autism and other illnesses

PDF

Examining teachers’ perceptions of diversity, equity, and inclusion professional development

PDF

An examination of a social justice teacher cohort and its capacity to support transformational professional learning

PDF

Principals’ impact on the effective enactment of instructional coaching that promotes equity: an evaluation study

PDF

The role of higher education in bridging workforce skills gaps: an evaluation study

PDF

The factors supporting or inhibiting Teachers of Color to accept and stay in an international school in Southeast Asia

PDF

Equity and sustainability in career education funding: a gap analysis

PDF

Implications of a tracked mathematics curriculum in middle school

PDF

Narrowing the English learner achievement gap through teacher professional learning and cultural proficiency: an evaluation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Windust, Wendy Lynn (author)

Core Title Critical hope for culturally responsive education: an improvement study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Educational Leadership

Degree Conferral Date 2022-08

Publication Date 08/06/2022

Defense Date 08/06/2022

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

Tag culturally responsive education,instructional coaching,international schools,OAI-PMH Harvest,professional development,professional learning communities

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Robles, Darline (committee chair), Picus, Lawrence (committee member), Yates, Kenneth (committee member)

Creator Email wsnell@usc.edu,wwindust@sas.edu.sg

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC111376218

Unique identifier UC111376218

Legacy Identifier etd-WindustWen-11119

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Windust, Wendy Lynn

Type texts

Source 20220806-usctheses-batch-971 (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. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

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