University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

DO YOU SEE YOU IN ME!? NO, I DO NOT. I OTHER YOU.

By

Joanna Clifton

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

December 2022

Copyright 2022 Joanna Clifton

ii

Dedication
This labor of educational growth, this journey, is dedicated to the following people:
DeShun II, DeShunaye, and DeAndre, I love you my phenomenal children. I thank you for
loving me, for allowing me to attend school for your entire lives, and for encouraging me to
complete this marathon. My Fajardo family, Angela, Regina, Luis, Marina, Jorge, and Veronica,
thank you for praying for me, feeding me, and helping me pay for school, TE AMO MUCHO mi
familia. Thank you, Elberta M. Williams-Smith my Grand Ma El, for always believing in me, for
supporting me, for loving me, and for your encouraging words, “Try it and let’s just see how it
will work out.” Thank you, Charles Philip Ivory Penniman (CP), my little-big brother, you are
exceptionally magnificent, you love people for who they are, and you taught me to do the same.
Thank you to my parents Renee and Leonard Lamkin, and most Importantly, thank you Jesus,
thank you God from whom all blessings flow.
I am blessed with a village, a family that I belong to. It is not the biological family with
whom I share my DNA, it is the family who has taken care of and supported me, before this
journey, during this journey, to its completion. Thank you, my alien, Tambera Thompson, for
healing me mentally and refocusing my efforts, for teaching me to walk in faith and let it be well.
Many thanks to Cheryl Alexander, Rhonda Schruby, Ms. Lu, Ms. Toscano, Ginifer Collins,
Steve Donohue, Drew Gamet, and Douglas Howard for the immense support you all provided
me and my children. Thank you Shaana Muhammad, my sister-friend, the best un-biological
sister in the world. Thank you to Tiffany Spellman for wanting to be my friend, getting me
through my proposal, and proofreading my dissertation. Thank you, Leslie Hayden, for being my
friend and helping me with tuition. Thank you, Anton S. Blakely, for sharing Amir (my
Munchkin) with my family, for my puppy Kaos-Toejam, and his dad Havoc, for loving my

iii

children, for the title of my dissertation, and for helping me tease out the revisions to my
conceptual framework. Thank you to Mrs. Linda Anderson for praying for me, mentoring me,
and supporting me, even when things were difficult for you. Thank you, Maria Armero, for
getting DeAndre into high school, for reminding me to take time to do my homework, and for
being my friend. Thank you, Dr. Wanda L. Armstrong for sharing your USC experience with me,
encouraging me to complete this course of study, for proofreading my proposal, and always
demonstrating African American Excellence. Thank you, Ms. Frances, and Mr. German, for
being my first test subjects, your time and honesty was and still is appreciated. Although you are
no longer here, your wisdom is still with me, Shayla Warren, Florine Bristo, and Danny Bryant.
To my sister Shonnie, I am so sorry I did not call you, that I let you leave here, and did not tell
you I love you. Finally, to anyone I did not name, please charge it to my head and not my heart
for I am grateful and appreciate everyone who helped me.

iv

Acknowledgements
I want to acknowledge my dissertation chair Dr. Julie Slayton for your tireless support
and guidance throughout this process, you are simply the best! Thank you to Dr. Artineh
Samkian for being an excellent teacher, for providing the foundational knowledge needed to
complete this task. Thank you to Dr. Rene Rosas for being my English language learner subject
matter expert and encouraging me to complete this process. I am very appreciative of all of you
for being my committee. I would like to thank Dr. Ilda Jimenez and Dr. Evelyn for the assistance
provided during the weekend writing workshops, your guidance is greatly appreciated. There is a
professor who helped me in my first year, I cannot recall her name, however, I want her to know
without her I would not have made it to this point. A special thank you to the faculty and staff as
the Rossier School of Education, all of you are wonderfully magnificent!

v

Table of Contents
Dedication…………………………………………………………………………………………ii
Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………………… iv
List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………………vii
Abstract……………………………………………………...…………………………………..viii
Chapter 1: Introduction- Overview of the Study……….………...…….…………………………1
Background of the Problem……………………….….………..…………………2
Statement of the Problem………………………….………….………………….6
Purpose of the Study…………………………….…………….…………………7
Importance of the Study………………………….…………….………………...8
Organization of the Dissertation…………………….………….………………..9

Chapter 2: Literature Review…………………………….……………………………………...11
Teacher Ideology………………………………………………………………...12
Theoretical Literature Deficit Ideology of Teachers…………………………….14
Empirical Studies on Deficit Teacher Ideology and
Student Learning Opportunities………………………………………………… 25
Empirical Studies on Asset Teacher Ideology and
Student Learning Opportunities……………………………………….…………38
Culturally Relevant Pedagogy……………………………………….…………..57
Culturally Relevant Pedagogy in the Classroom………………….……………..75
Meaningful Learning Experiences……………………………………………… 99
Constructivism…………………………………………………………………...99
Sociocultural Theoretical Perspective……………………………………….….108
Conclusion…………………………………………………...…………………117
Conceptual Framework………………………………………………….……...118
Ideology……………………………………………………………….………..121
Culturally Relevant Pedagogy………………………………………………….123
Meaningful Learning Experience………………………………………………126
Conclusion……………………………………….……………………………..130

Chapter Three: Methods………………………………………………………………………..132
Research Design………………………………………………………………..132
Sample and Population…………………………………………………………133
Site Selection…………………………………………………………………...133
Participant Selection……………………………………………………………135
Instrumentation and Data Collection Procedures………………………………136
Interview………………………………………………………………………..136
Observations……………………………………………………………………138
Data Analysis…………………………………………………………………...138

vi

Limitations and Delimitations…………………………………………………140
Limitations……………………………………………………………….…….140
Delimitations…………………………………………………………………...141
Credibility and Trustworthiness………………………………………………..141
Ethics…………………………………………………………………….……..145
Conclusion……………………………………………………………….……..146

Chapter Four: Findings………………………………………………………………………...147
Case Study 1: Ms. Gonzalez…………………………………………………………..147
Ideology: Deficit Mindset with respect to her students’
Academic Ability & Behavior…………………………………………….……151
Low Expectations & Deficit Beliefs About Academic Ability………….……..151
Low Expectations & Deficit Beliefs About Students’ Behavior………….……156
Instructional Practices…………………………………………………….…….167
Lack of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy…………………………………….…...167
Lack of Meaningful Learning Experiences…………………………….….……177
Case Study 2: Mrs. Nelson…………………………………………………….….……194
Ideology: Constructed as an Early Childhood Educator………………..………196
Identity as an Early Childhood Educator……………………………….………197
Ideology Reflected in Pedagogy……………………………………….……….198
Deficit Belief with Respect to Students’ Academic Abilities………….……….201
Students’ Academic Opportunity Limited by Low Expectations……….……...205
Differentiated Behavior Modifications and Low Expectations………….……..216
Lack of Meaningful Learning Opportunities…………………………….……..226
Summary……………………………………………………………….……….237
Cross-case analysis……………………………………………………….…….238
Identity influenced Instructional Choices……………………………….……...239
Lack of Belief in the Students’ academic Abilities…………………….………241
Behavior Expectations Influenced Student Learning……………….………….244
Students were not Provided Meaningful learning Opportunities….…………...248
Revised Conceptual Framework…………………………….…………………251

Chapter 5: Summary……………………………………………………………….…………..256
Summary of Findings……………………………………………………….…258
Implications and Recommendations……………………………………….…..261
Practice………………………………………………………………………...261
Policy…………………………………………………………………………..270
Research…………………………………………………………………….…273

References……………………………………………………………………………………..275

vii

List of Figures
Figure 1: Cycle of Social Conditioning and Compliance with Deficit Ideology. (P. Gorski,
Counter points, p. 159)..………………………………………………………………………....17
Figure 2: Conceptual Framework…………………………………………………..…..………119
Figure 3: Revised Conceptual Framework.……………………………………………..…………..252

viii

Abstract
This qualitative study examined the beliefs, pedagogical practices, and behavioral
expectations of two elementary school teachers, one African American and one Latina, and the
influence on the learning opportunities of African American and Latina/o students. The beliefs
of the teachers’ regarding the students' educational abilities will be explored, the types of the
lessons presented to the students will be examined, the responses to students’ behavior will be
addressed, and solutions will be offered. The study looked at the teachers’ ideology and how
their ideology influenced their instructional methods. Data collection was conducted via
interviews and classroom observations. The data was triangulated to identify teacher beliefs,
pedagogical practices, and behavioral expectations.
The findings were the African American and Latina teacher held deficit beliefs regarding
their students’ academic abilities, neither used culturally relevant pedagogical practices nor did
they provide meaningful learning experiences. Finally, their behavioral expectations led them to
use punitive methods to elicit desired behavior from their students. In the two case studies the
following themes emerged: deficit ideology regarding students’ academic ability and behavior,
lack of culturally relevant pedagogy, lack of meaningful learning experiences, teachers’ ideology
reflected in pedagogy, and behavior used as a method to construct social order. The themes were
consistent with the literature regarding the education of historically marginalized and minoritized
students. The exception was the teachers were the same ethnicity as the students. The themes
encompassed instructional expectations and practices that perpetuate the lack of access to quality
education programs for historically marginalized and minoritized students.

1

Chapter One: Overview of the Study
In the foreword of Orfield and Ashkinaze’s “The Closing Door: Conservative Policy and
Black Opportunity” (1991), civil rights activist Andrew Young made the following statement:
... the civil rights movement was not aimed at ending poverty. It did not focus on
economic issues; not because we didn’t think economic issues were important, but
because we didn’t think we could win on economic issues. If you talked too much about
class and poverty, you were characterized as a communist, therefore very few wanted to
raise economic issues at that time. The primary battle in the 1950s and 1960s was to right
the wrongs against a population that was already qualified and middle class but was still
denied the basic right to public accommodations in America. (p. ix)
Therefore, the goal was not to address historically entrenched inequities for all African American
or other historically marginalized and minoritized people who faced continuous oppression and
were denied opportunity. Instead, according to Young, the goal was to “break the color barrier
for those who were exceptionally well-qualified” (p. ix) and were already located in the middle
class. Prior to reading Orfield and Ashkinaze (1991), I thought the civil rights movement had
been a fight for the rights of all those who had been oppressed. I thought it was meant to ensure
access for all people, regardless of their color or economic standing. However, after reading
Orfield and Ashkinaze (1991), my educational and subsequent life experiences made sense to
me. This discovery also provided me with the impetus for my dissertation.
The purpose of this study was to understand how one African American and one Latina
teacher’s beliefs about historically marginalized and minoritized African American and Latino/a
students of low socio-economic status would be demonstrated in their pedagogical practices and
the types of learning experiences the teachers created for their students. In this chapter I set the

2

context of the study by presenting the background information on issues related to the historical
marginalization and minoritizing of African American and Latino/a students, the deficit ideology
held by teachers of the same ethnicity and culture, the lack of culturally relevant pedagogy, and
the lack of meaningful learning experiences provided to the students by the teachers. I then
present the statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, research questions and the
importance of the study.
Background of the Problem
The issues of disenfranchisement, marginalization, and denial of access to a high-quality
education faced by African American and Latino/a students of low socioeconomic status are not
new. African American and Latino/a students have historically faced situations in educational
setting that are obstacles to their academic success (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Ogbu, 1997). One
of the many problems African American and Latinos face is the belief held by educators that
they are less capable and uneducable (Gorski, 2011). This belief is held even if the teacher is of
the same ethnicity of the students, they are tasked with providing an education (Milner &
Tenore, 2011).
Federal court cases focusing on the educational biases affecting historically marginalized
and minoritized students began in 1945 with Mendez v. Westminster. In this case, Latino/a
students were viewed as inferior and provided only with remedial schools (Aguirre, 2005). In a
similar case, in 1954 the Supreme Court declared that separate but equal school facilities was an
oxymoron (Brown v. Board of Education, 1954) and integration was enforced via federal
authorities (Orfield & Ashkinaze, 1991). These cases were just the beginning. A litany of court
cases exposed the inequities faced by African American and Latino/a students. The subsequent
lawsuits addressed the lack of facilities, resources, and qualified teachers who were used to

3

provide education to predominantly African American and Latino/a students of low socio-
economic status (Orfield & Ashkinaze, 1991). The cases that followed included Serrano v. Priest
(1971), San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973), Edgewood Independent
School District v. Kirby (1991) and, most recently, Vergara v. California (2014). This most
recent case addressed the lack of qualified teachers for students in urban areas who were of low
socio-economic status. However, in 2016 the California Supreme Court ended the Vergara v.
California cases, in favor of maintaining teacher tenure (Washington Post, 4/14/2016).
In addition, data has consistently indicated that historically marginalized and minoritized
students experience lower academic performance than their Caucasian and Asian peers. Data
collected for the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) shows that in 2015 only
19% of African American students and 26% of Latino/a students demonstrated proficient or
advanced via standardized testing (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2016). While the
longitudinal data from 1990-2015 demonstrated an increase in the achievement of African
American and Latino/a students of low socio-economic status, 24% scored proficient or
advanced, there is still a persistent educational gap between historically minoritized and
marginalized students as compared to Caucasian and Asian students (National Center for
Education Statics, 2015).
In more recent data, scores were lower in 2019 than 2017. Furthermore, there was not a
significant change in the number of students that were proficient in math and reading (NAEP,
2019). Though there were gains, African American and Latina/o students continue to experience
lower academic performance than their Caucasian and Asian peers (Ed Source, 1/7/2022). The
current data was limited as of the 3.1 million students eligible to test, only 744,000 students were
tested (Ed. Source, 1/7/2022). Of the students tested there was an overall drop in the number of

4

students demonstrating proficiency, 48.9% of students met or exceeded standards in English
language arts in 2021, down from 52.2% in 2019. In math, 33.6% met or exceeded standards,
down from 38.2% in 2019 (Ed. Source, 2022). There was an overall decline in scores from 2019
to 2017, the data indicates there was a 12% decrease in math and 6% decrease in English
language arts. However, for African American scores declined 9% in math, and 7% in English.
Latina/a students’ scores declined 22% in math and 10% in English (Ed. Source 2022).
According to the state testing dashboard only 20.54% of African Americans and 28.05% of
Latina/o students were proficient in Math (Ed. Source, 2022). In English the scores were slightly
higher, African Americans students 33.01% and Latina/o students 40.56%. However, neither
African American nor Latina/o students are near the 50% of proficiency in Math and English
(Ed. Source, 2022).
However, Gay (1993) and others (cf., Camangian, 2015; Ladson-Billings, 2014; Moje et
al., 2000; Moll et al., 2005; Paris, 2012; Paris & Alim, 2014) assert that to address the academic
underachievement of students of color, educators need to know the cultural indicators of the
racially diverse students. Further, they need to know how to bring them to the classroom to make
learning more compatible with the students’ cultural awareness. Moreover, researchers (Allen &
Boykin, 1992; Gay, 1993; Villegas, 1988) argue that African American and Latino/a students’
non-academic experiences are often deemed irrelevant by educators making it harder for them to
connect to the content and engage in meaningful learning. In other cases, researchers contend
that the solution to the cultural mismatch between most teachers and students of color is to hire
more teachers who represent the student population (Allen & Boykin, 1992; Gay, 1993; Villegas,
1988).

5

However, other researchers claim that the racial background of teachers does not
necessarily contribute to the problem of cultural discontinuity and lack of educational
opportunities and outcomes for students of color (Gorski, 2011; Darling-Hammond, 2000; Ogbu,
1997). Rather, it is the teachers’ personal ideologies that are the underlying problem. Teachers’
deficit ideology may be expressed by low expectations for historically marginalized and
minoritized students and are apparent in pedagogical practices that obstruct historically
marginalized and minoritized students’ opportunities to learn (Milner, 2011).
Bartolomé (2004) explains that for teachers who embrace hegemonic ideologies, it is
difficult to create equitable academic learning experiences for students of color that are
meaningful and affirming. Chavez and Guido-DiBrito (1999) and Helms (1997) argue that
Caucasian, middle-class cultural values are the norm in K–12 educational institutions, and
hegemony in the classroom positions differences in culture, ways of communicating, varying
experiences, and knowledge as directly opposite and deficient (Chavez & Guido-DiBrito, 1999).
These deficit perspectives, held by many teachers, position students of color as less
intelligent, talented, qualified, and deserving (Bartolomé, 2004). McKenzie and Scheurich
(2004) describe deficit perspectives of students of color as equity traps in which individual or
collective ways of thinking and behaving prevent the academic success of students of color.
These equity traps are based on perceptions, attitudes, beliefs, and assumptions that justify the
inequality students of color experience in academic institutions (McKenzie & Scheurich,
2004). Furthermore, Haberman (1991) describes the pedagogical practices grounded in the low
expectations held by teachers as the “pedagogy of poverty.” He indicates that teachers do not
provide rigor when delivering lessons to historically marginalized and minoritized students.
Teachers who use this type of instruction focus on basic skills via directive instructional

6

practices based on the ideological perspective that historically marginalized and minoritized
students need to be controlled and lack the ability to perform rigorous tasks.
This type of instructional methodology comes from teachers’ gaps in knowledge and
understanding of other pedagogical practices. The pedagogies of limited ability elucidated by
Haberman (1991) are currently used in urban classrooms with teachers of students of African
American and Latino/a decent (Milner, 2011). Educators with a deficit perspective, using these
pedagogies, are not effective in allowing their students the opportunity for academic and
behavioral success (Milner, 2011).
Deficit ideologies regarding students of African American and Latino/a decent pervade
many teachers’ ideology, regardless of their racial, ethnic, cultural, and socio-economic
background. Therefore, teachers of any racial, ethnic, and socio-economic class have
demonstrated an inability to provide academic and meaningful learning experiences for African
American and Latino/a students.
Statement of the Problem
The ideology of teachers regarding their historically marginalized and minoritized
students significantly influences teachers’ expectations of the students they serve. The teachers’
beliefs, whether conscious or unconscious, influence their pedagogical practices used in the
classroom when teaching historically marginalized and minoritized African American and
Latino/a students. Moreover, educational research tends to focus on addressing educational
opportunities and experiences of specific groups of historically minoritized and marginalized
students. For instance, the theory of culturally relevant responsive pedagogy was developed to
address the educational needs of African American students (Ladson-Billings, 1995; 2004), and
research on the theory of funds of knowledge was developed for Latino/a students (Moll et al.,

7

1992). However, these theories do not address how the lack of implementation of culturally
relevant pedagogy and funds of knowledge negatively affect historically minoritized and
marginalized students (Santamaria, 2018).
Furthermore, the learning experiences of students are based on the beliefs held by the
teachers charged with providing learning opportunities. There is research that investigates the
ways in which teachers’ ideology influences their means of working with historically
marginalized and minoritized students (Milner, 2011). There is also research that highlights the
pedagogical practices used by these teachers to create learning opportunities for students (Hatt,
2010; Rist, 2000). Educational research has also investigated the learning outcomes of
historically marginalized and minoritized students, and how teachers’ beliefs are articulated to
students through pedagogical practices. Less is known about the way that the ideologies held by
African American and Latina/o teachers of historically marginalized and minoritized students
(African American and Latino/a) are revealed in their pedagogical practices and how these
practices shape the learning experiences of African American and Latino/a students.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to investigate how African American and Latino/a teachers’
ideologies were demonstrated through their pedagogical practices and the student learning
opportunities they provided to their students from historically marginalized and minoritized
African American and Latino/a students. This study was guided by the following research
question: How are African American and Latino/a teachers’ academic and behavioral
expectations revealed or reflected in their instructional practices and in their students’ learning
opportunities?

8

Importance of the Study
According to Allen and Boykin (1992), Gay, (1993), and Villegas (1988), it is not enough
that the teacher looks like the students they teach. The educators must also share a connection
with the students; they must believe the students deserve to learn and are educable. There is
literature that delineates the dominant oppression of historically minoritized and marginalized
African American and Latino/a students of low socio-economic backgrounds (SES), and its
influence on their learning outcomes. However, there is limited literature on the ideology and
teaching practices of middle-class African American and Latino/a teachers and their influence on
African American and Latino/a students’ meaningful learning experiences.
The literature presumed to view the Caucasian teacher, and his or her lack of cultural
awareness of historically minoritized and marginalized students, as the dominant negative aspect
of the learning experiences of these students. However, this was not the case. Even though the
literature is limited it clearly delineated the biases and challenges presented in classrooms where
the teacher is of the same ethnicity and culture, and may have experienced the same
marginalization, but the teacher reproduced the same hegemonic deficits as those of the
dominant culture, when providing instruction to their historically marginalized and minoritized
students.
I chose to do this study because I am a product of the public education system. I was told
I was fortunate to have minority teachers. However, I realized those teachers both African
American and Latino/a, did not provide me with access to a quality education. The African
American and Latino/a teachers did not provide me with the academic rigor I needed to be
successful. This phenomenon continued when I became a teacher, and I heard other African
American and Latino/a teachers speak of the children they were charged to teach in negative

9

terms. They justified a lack of rigorous instruction, simply because the students needed to be
controlled and taught to behave, not provided standards-based instruction.
This study is significant as it contributes to our understanding of how the beliefs of
African American and Latino/a teachers and their pedagogical practices, which have been
assumed to be beneficial for African American and Latino/a students because they are of the
same ethnicity, is not true. It is this understanding that I hope would shed light the biases
possessed by African American and Latino/a teacher. Additionally, it will inform their
pedagogical practices with historically marginalized and minoritized students, aid them in being
critically reflective of their teaching practices with historically minoritized and marginalized
African American and Latino/a students.
Furthermore, it would allow for reflection in how the lessons being provided to the
students need to be inclusive of the students’ culture, allow for inquiry, and rich in depth of study
to provide meaningful learning experiences. Hopefully, this study will be used as a guide to
inform professional learning for teachers of color, of students of color, and help them to become
critically reflective of their teaching practices with historically minoritized and marginalized
African American and Latino/a students.
Organization of the Dissertation
This dissertation is organized into five chapters. Chapter one provided the background
and statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, the research question, and the
significance of the study.
Chapter two presents both theoretical and empirical literature that explores teacher
ideology, culturally relevant pedagogy (CRP), and meaningful learning experiences via socio-

10

cultural and constructivist theories. This literature also outlines the conceptual framework that
guided my research.
Chapter three provides the research methods used for this study, including the rationale
for choosing a qualitative research design, the sample and population, and a description of the
data collection, instrumentation, and data analysis methods. This chapter also addresses the
measures that were taken to ensure the credibility and trustworthiness of the findings study as
well as measures that were taken during the data collection and analysis to ensure my study was
conducted ethically.
Chapter four presents the findings from two elementary teachers at two different public
schools, in the same district. The findings were derived from teacher interviews and classroom
observation data. Additionally, this chapter contains my revised conceptual framework that
emerged because of what was revealed and learned after the data was collected and analyzed.
Chapter five presents a summary of the findings for the study. In this chapter, I discuss
the implications and recommendations for practice and policy, as well as areas for future
research.

11

Chapter Two: Literature Review
I was interested in understanding how the ideology of teachers of the same ethnicity as
their students played out in their pedagogical practices. Thus, the research question for this study
asked: How are African American and Latina/o teachers’ academic and behavioral expectations
revealed or reflected in their instructional practices and in their students’ learning opportunities?
To answer this question, I drew on three bodies of literature: Teacher Ideology, Culturally
Relevant Pedagogy (CRP), and Constructivism and Sociocultural Learning Theories.
First, I offer literature on teacher ideology. This literature provided me with insight into
the behaviors teachers knowingly and unknowingly enacted upon their historically marginalized
and minoritized students. This ideology was based on both conscious and unconscious beliefs
created by the dominant society (Bartolomé 2004, 2008). This is followed by literature on
teacher pedagogy. The literature on teacher pedagogy centered on culturally relevant and
responsive pedagogies, and how (if used) they: 1) validated historically marginalized and
minoritized students’ cultural backgrounds as actual foundations of knowledge and, 2) included
that knowledge in students’ academic learning, to boost existing knowledge and skills, as well as
create new academic skills and knowledge (Bartolomé 2008; Gay 1998; Ladson-Billings, 1994).
Finally, I examined literature that discussed constructivist and socio-cultural learning
perspectives, to explore how teachers create meaningful learning opportunities (Anthony, 1996)
for historically marginalized and minoritized students. According to constructivism, a learner’s
prior knowledge is the foundational piece upon which new knowledge is constructed (Anthony,
1996). Furthermore, Tharp and Gallimore (1998) contended, from a socio-cultural perspective,
culture and social interactions were central to acquiring new knowledge and skills. This chapter

12

concludes with my conceptual framework that served as the basis for my approach to sampling,
data collection, and analysis.
Teacher Ideology
In this section, I present literature focused on teacher ideology. First, I introduce the
general concept of teacher ideology and then move to specific forms of ideology including
deficit ideology (Bartolomé, 2004), colorblind ideology (Milner, 2010).
Bartolomé (2004) defined ideology as a framework of “thought constructed and held by
members of society to justify or rationalize an existing social order” (p. 97). She extended her
definition of ideology to include a “complex web of thinking that is built and used by society”
(2008, p. xiii) as the specific habits and customs of everyday life that demonstrate and reflect
“the unconscious lived experience and the influences of societal institutions” (2008, p. xiv).
Cadeiro-Kaplan, (2008) asserted, ideology influences not just an individual’s knowledge but,
also how one represents that knowledge in the world. Therefore, ideology is reproduced in both
the conscious and unconscious beliefs of teachers within their day to day lives, including their
work and interaction with the students they are charged to serve (Bartolomé, 2004).
Bartolomé (2004) asserted, the ideology of a person comes from their life experiences
and social conditions. Furthermore, there is a deeply rooted belief in American society that
minoritized people are responsible for their disadvantaged position (Bartolomé, 2004).
Moreover, she believed that the absence of critical reflection of the macro-system (political,
social, economic) realities within the United States, has generated a genuine belief that
minoritized people have the same access as Caucasian-Americans to employment, opportunities,
and education. In the absence of being aware of the need of this reflection, people are deficient in
their ability to consider the reality of the consistent oppression and marginalization of

13

minoritized people (Bartolomé, 2004). Moreover, the insufficient, and in most cases, absence of
attention to prospective teachers’ ideologies in teacher education programs has created a teacher
workforce that unknowingly harbors beliefs and attitudes that mirror society’s dominant
ideological stance, which is extremely harmful to historically marginalized students (Bartolomé,
2004).
In the absence of a critical analysis of teachers’ internal belief systems, they are not
aware of, nor are they able to deal with their fundamental negative ideological perspectives,
hence they perpetuate the dominant societal status quo, which is undoubtedly harmful to the
students they serve (Bartolomé, 2004, 2008). A workforce dominated by people without a clear
ideological orientation entering the teaching profession, is extremely problematic, since they will
be entering classrooms with an increasing number of minoritized, multilingual students of color
(Bartolomé, 2004, 2008). Given the ongoing shift of student demographics, it is important that
teachers analyze their ideologies, as a means of not continuing the dominant, harmful hegemonic
and deficit systems that permeate the educational system (Bartolomé, 2008).
Bartolomé (2004) suggested, in the absence of socio-political and ideological clarity,
teachers may not deeply analyze the existing conditions in their classrooms and schools and, in
turn consider them acceptable, employing teaching and learning methodologies of the dominant
culture (assimilationists), that are inherently deficit and counter-productive to the minoritized
student (Bartolomé, 2004).
The formation of ideological and political clarity depends upon the analysis and
awareness of consciousness regarding the macro-system (socio-political), and economic truths
that influence their lives, and their ability to transform those circumstances (Bartolomé 2008).

14

Moreover, there is a need for the awareness of the correlation between political, economic, and
social components, of the educational achievement in the classroom.
Ideological clarity is an individualized struggle to gain insights into one’s own
interpretation of the current socioeconomic and political hierarchy (Bartolomé, 2008). With a
knowledge and understanding of both, it opens a teacher’s ability to be reflective about their
beliefs and examine how those beliefs parallel those of the dominant society. Additionally,
ideological clarity may alter the course of the inequity created by such ideological beliefs and
political structures (Bartolomé, 2008). Teachers must deal with their ideological perceptions, on
the grounds that their ideology shapes how they provide instruction to the students they serve
(Milner, 2010).
Theoretical Literature Deficit Ideology of Teachers
According to Valencia (1997), deficit ideology evolved from the compulsory ignorance
laws adopted in the Southern United States in the mid-18th century. The laws imposed harsh
penalties for any person caught teaching enslaved Africans to read or write or use them as
scribes. The laws were based in the belief that enslaved Africans were mentally deficient, having
severe limitations on their ability to benefit from having an education (Valencia, 1997).
The view continued into the 19th century with the belief that African and Mexican
American students were intellectually inferior, linguistically limited in English, unmotivated, and
immoral (Valencia, 1997). The reasons were used to impose strict segregation laws in the 20th
century to keep Caucasian students away from students of color, as a means of ensuring
Caucasian students’ progress would not be impeded by having to interact with children of color.
Amidst educators’ deficit ideology, is the belief that parents of students of low socio-economic
status do not value education. Therefore, neither do their children, because the parents have not

15

instilled the importance of education into their children. The results are educators view parents of
low socio-economic status as non-participative, disinterested, and uninvolved in the educational
attainment of their children (Valencia, 1997).
Gorski (2011) asserted that deficit ideology is a deflection tactic used as a means of
maintaining the status quo, this is the “blame the victim,” position. The victims are the students
who are oppressed by the myth of deficit ideology, where the onus is placed on them for the
inequitable educational opportunities being provided. The perception that poor people are
responsible for their own station in society is rooted in the myth of meritocracy. The mentality of
holding those accountable for what they have no control over is the thought that an entire group
of people are in a bad situation due to moral, cultural, intellectual, and behavioral deficiencies,
which are inherently prone to that ethnic group (Gorski, 2011).
According to Gorski (2011), deficit ideology does not look at the over-arching systemic
conditions such as racism and economic injustice. Those key factors are avoided, the ideology
methodology is to rehabilitate the marginalized and minoritized, instead of fixing or destroying
and rebuilding the system that caused them to be disenfranchised. Furthermore, Gorski asserted,
deficit ideology is used as a tool of manipulation. Systemic deficit ideology dulls societal
consciousness, and keeps the attention focused on the marginalized, not the macro-systemic and
socio-political conditions that are behind the conditions that created the disenfranchised
communities.
When there is a continued recycling of deficit ideological misperceptions of the
marginalized, the heinously flawed rhetoric justifies the existence of the societal inequities
(Gorski, 2011). Gorski (2011) asserted that in the United States, educators are indoctrinated into
and American capitalistic and consumerist hegemony whereby, educators are accepting of the

16

myths and stereotypes that are evidenced in their beliefs and classroom practices. Educators who
buy into such beliefs and practices are an indicator of their willingness or lack thereof, to
working towards attaining social, political, and economic justice for the low socio-economic,
marginalized and minoritized people (Gorski, 2011). Moreover, Gorski (2011) brought to light a
cyclical type of social brainwashing and acceptance that normalizes deficit ideology via the
proliferation of class-based mythology, which gives prominence to the middle-class, by the
existence of a lower-class a type of “othering.”
According to Gorski (2011), class-mythology is prominent in the educational system. The
core of this myth is the rhetoric of the ethic of hard work. The discussion encompasses the
thought that opportunity is available to all who seek it, the system is equitable for everyone
(Gorski, 2011). Nevertheless, Gorski (2011) argued that the system is not equitable, the
structures and systems that created the achievement gap are sidestepped, thereby bolstering the
belief in the American structure of meritocratic opportunity. Conjoined with the existence of the
mythology of class, the current social order has accepted the awareness of a lower-class, “other”
(Gorski, 2011). The lower-class “other” is comprised of marginalized communities, and those in
the middle-class and above see these communities as inherently deficient, therefore causing their
impoverished status (Gorski, 2011). Further, he argued a change has happened where the
attributions of poverty from earlier decades, pre-1970s, acknowledged as an aspect of social
conditions. Now poverty is associated with the people in a state of poverty, as a perceived lack of
the ethic of hard-work and moral values (Gorski, 2011).
The current view of the lower-class as the “other” is akin to the current sociopolitical
context, influenced by politicians and their portraying the impoverished as dependent (Gorski,
2011). Additionally, the theory of the “culture of poverty” and its rise to prominence as a major

17

factor for the “othering” of the lower-class (Gorski, 2011). Even with the theory being dismissed
and disproved by several studies, nevertheless the damage has already been enacted upon those
most vulnerable (Gorski, 2011). The “culture of poverty” has influenced the perception of the
marginalized, society views those in poverty as subjugated and see their communities as
deficient (Gorski, 2011).
The proliferation of the mythology of class effects those of the lower-class “other,”
leading to the normalization of a deficit ideology. The normalization of a deficit ideology leads
to the proliferation of the mythology of class, hence forming Gorski’s (2011), cyclical
representation of societal conditioning and acceptance of deficit ideology (Figure 1).
Figure 1
Cycle of Social Conditioning and Compliance with Deficit Ideology.

Adapted from “Unlearning deficit ideology and the scornful gaze: Thoughts on authenticating
the class discourse in education,” P. Gorski, Counter points, p. 159.

Gorski’s (2011) theory provided insight into the systemic aspects that ideology has on society.
Milner (2010) offered what he calls the “opportunity gaps framework” as a means of
challenging educators to be open-minded about their belief systems, change their way of
thinking, and revamp their educational practices to deal with the persistent opportunity gaps that

18

exist in the educational arena. Milner’s (2010) framework of five interconnected mind-sets
compose a set of beliefs that teachers may hold that inhibit student success as well as impact the
teacher’s instructional choices. The five aspects of his framework consist of: color blindness,
cultural conflicts, the myth of meritocracy, low expectations and deficit mindset, and a context-
neutral mindset. Milner (2010) asserted that if teachers recognize these belief systems, mind-sets,
and practices, then they can overcome them and create an alternative-anecdote, for minoritized
and historically marginalized students.
The first aspect of Milner’s ideology is color blindness. Milner (2010) stated when
teachers do not recognize students’ racial backgrounds, they are in effect hindering students
learning opportunities. Furthermore, that mindset bolsters the majority’s privilege and affirms
their racial identity, while simultaneously treating their students as incomplete beings, by
denying the student’s racial identities.
The colorblind ideology only widens the cavernous educational opportunity gap (Milner,
2010). A teacher’s colorblind mindset demonstrates their lack of knowledge, sensitivity, and
empathy, which is needed to work with racially diverse students, those who are minoritized and
historically marginalized in education (Milner, 2010). Moreover, colorblind ideologies that are
particularly ruinous to students are those that include a teacher’s dread of being labeled a racist,
politically incorrect, or they believe race has no applicability in the classroom.
Further, Milner (2010) contended a lack of acknowledgement of race only makes it more
prevalent within the classroom, as well as highlights the inequality that continues to exist.
Renouncing colorblindness provides educators with the opportunity to fundamentally understand
that race does matter for everyone in the educational realm, as well as acknowledging the
obstacles that impact minoritized students. The acknowledgment of colorblindness (race) allows

19

for recognition of the perpetual issues in education that tend to marginalize students of color
(Milner, 2010). It recognizes the issues that perpetuate the achievement gap, continues the over-
representation of historically marginalized students in special-education classes, high rates of
suspensions of marginalized and minoritized students, as well as the lack of minoritized students
recognized as high-achieving and gifted and placed in the proper classes to enrich their education
experience.
The next frame of mind associated with Milner’s opportunity gap is cultural conflicts.
Milner (2010) argued cultural conflicts come from teachers not having the knowledge of the
students’ culture in which they serve. Therefore, attaining the knowledge in how to address and
de-escalate cultural conflicts, is another key aspect in closing the persistent achievement gaps.
He went on to state, cultural conflicts that occur in the classroom are due to a divergence
between the teachers and students’ cultural practices (Milner, 2010). Teachers transacting from
their cultural perspective, can be foreign to students who do not share the same cultural
experiences. The conflict arises from the teacher’s struggle for power, and the students not
wanting to be controlled (Milner, 2010). Although I was first interested in understanding how
teachers of the same racial/ethnic background of their students supported those students, it was
also the case that those same teachers were responsible for teaching students who did not share
their racial/ethnic backgrounds and this concept of cultural conflict allowed me to investigate
those relationships as well.
The teacher’s process for gaining and preserving power, in most instances is in direct
conflict with the students’ culture, producing a combative, oppositional relationship between the
students and the teacher (Milner, 2010). One method to address the dissemblance is for the
teacher to teach the students the rules of engagement of the power structure.

20

When students are explicitly taught the rules of the culture, the knowledge provides
students of color with the understanding needed and they are more likely to accept and follow
acceptable behaviors. Moreover, knowledge of the over-arching power system assists students in
comprehending, as well the means to challenge and question the oppressive system that
marginalizes and minoritizes them (Milner, 2010). Additionally, students must be instructed in
being critical of the power structures, not just in learning the information and then conforming
and operating in the system, but to oppose the marginalization and oppressive rules, which
widens the opportunity gap in education (Milner, 2010).
The cultural conflict mind-set is followed by what Milner calls the myth of meritocracy.
This aspect of the Opportunity Gaps framework is unique as many educators will not discuss
race, but they are more comfortable with discussing the disparities of students’ socio-economic
standing and the impact it has on the students attaining an education, as well as the opportunity
gaps associated with the students’ socio-economic status (Milner, 2010).
Meritocracy is the belief that success is a direct result of merit. People, in this case
students, are recipients of their success or failure in the educational setting or the larger society,
because they have procured them of their own volition. Milner (2010) argued teachers using the
Eurocentric cultural mind-set believe that everyone has the same opportunities to attain success,
by working hard, their individual aptitude, talents, intelligence, and tenacity.
However, merit (access) is not equitable (Milner, 2010). Therefore, educators must be
aware of the many circumstances, out of students’ hands, that inhibits their success. An
educator’s deficit ideology is obstacle to access for historically marginalized students. In the
opportunity gaps framework, teachers need to be conscious of the things over and above merit
that contribute and shape students’ educational and societal access and success. Many educators

21

are not aware of the real-world socioeconomic disadvantages historically marginalized students
must contend with, that are not an issue for the those of privilege (Milner, 2010). The core of
meritocracy is opportunity, however the distribution of wealth, as well as educational
opportunities are neither equal, nor equitable. Nevertheless, many educators believe in this
principle. This mind-set places blinders on educators, and they miss the fundamental
impediments within the system that inhibit access, and are detrimental to student achievement
(Milner, 2010).
Furthermore, when educators are unaware or refuse to recognize the connection between
education and socioeconomic standings, it is implausible they will institute educational
conditions that will assist their students in acquiring the knowledge needed to change their
impoverished situations (Milner, 2010). Additionally, if the educational system and current
societal structures are beneficial to the educator, it is unlikely they will be the change-agent
needed to challenge the status-quo. Educators must be conscious of the inequitable myth of
meritocracy, they must be able to provide their students with the knowledge of how to navigate
the current system, to move from poverty and change their lives (Milner, 2010).
Moreover, teachers must be aware of their expectations of students. In the fourth aspect
of his analysis, are the teacher’s expectations of the students, specifically, the teacher’s low
expectations and deficit mind-sets (Milner, 2010). This mind-set contains the “blame the child
(victim)” mentality. It places the onus of the student’s position in society on the minoritized and
historically marginalized groups of students, not the over-arching systemic oppression or the
educational system’s deficiencies. Teachers with low expectations and deficit mind-sets do not
create rigorous and challenging lessons for students. They view historically minoritized and

22

marginalized students as socially, culturally, and intellectually inferior, therefore they teach in
ways that are not inclusive of the students’ intellectual aptitude (Milner, 2010).
The way teachers speak of students with other educators, the way they look at data, all
play a role in how the teachers’ beliefs infiltrate educational choices (Milner, 2010). Teachers
with deficit mind sets and low expectations view themselves as simply showing up at work,
providing a space away from the students’ home life, and feeling sorry for the students. This
mind-set is seen as being considerate of the students, as well as going easy on them as a mean of
being empathetic to “those” poor students (a form of othering as mentioned by Gorski, 2011).
This type of stereotypical behavior based on the belief in tenet four, further perpetuates the
opportunity gap, creating a lack of students of color in gifted-high achieving classes, as well as
an over representation of students of color in special education classes (Milner, 2010).
Moreover, Milner (2010) asserted lowered expectations and deficit mind-set create an
iterative cycle, where students are not taught inquiry and critical thinking skills. They are not
learning at their grade level, their test scores are low, and there is no critical reflection by the
teachers on their part in the students’ lack of achievement. The students are blamed and at no
point are the teachers questioned as to their methods or the role they play in the students lack
achievement, and all involved cannot think of a reason why the lack of student achievement
continues to occur (Milner, 2010).
Instead of viewing students through a stereotyped low-expectation and deficit mind-set,
teachers need to access the students’ funds of knowledge, use the students’ cultural capital as an
asset not a liability (Milner, 2010). Using the students’ funds of knowledge as scaffolding to
provide rigorous and relevant learning experiences and develop critical thinking skills as a means
of moving towards eradicating the achievement and opportunity gaps (Milner, 2010).

23

The final aspect of the opportunity gaps framework is identified by Milner (2010) as the
context-neutral mind-set. Educators with a context neutral mind-set do not consider the
disparities in the communities in which they teach (Milner, 2010). The social context must be
taken into consideration when venturing to make sense of both opportunity and diversity, and the
importance they have on both educators’ and students’ conduct, achievement, and outcomes
(Milner, 2010).
A context-neutral mind-set is destructive, when considering that many new teachers teach
in urban and high-poverty schools. When research has proven teachers with more experience
have students who make more progress in reading during a school year. In addition, teachers in
these high need areas teach outside of their credentialed area of expertise (Milner, 2010).
Furthermore, teacher attendance rates in urban and high need schools are very low, meaning
more students are taught by substitute teachers, who may not be trained in the subject-matter
content. Moreover, there is a lack of commitment and persistence because many of the teachers
are just teaching in the urban schools until a more desirable opportunity becomes available
(Milner, 2010). There are always students with greater needs in urban districts, however the
same funding is not provided for urban schools with fewer resources and more need, versus
affluent schools with less need and more resources.
Therefore, it is not a mystery as to why urban and high-poverty schools deal with
continuous obstacles, putting historically marginalized and minoritized students’ educational
attainment in constant peril (Milner, 2010). It is necessary for educators to be conscious of the
obstacles and how they negatively impact historically marginalized and minoritized students’
educational opportunities. Knowledge of these critical factors enables educators to delve into
how social-context structures opportunity. This knowledge enables them to analyze and access

24

students’ needs, thereby making strides towards increased student success, instead of placing the
lens squarely on the students’ lack of achievement or low-test scores. When educators have a
wider view of the over-arching social context, this gives them an opening for a deeper awareness
of the communities and students they will be charged with serving (Milner, 2010).
Therefore, the way education is delivered is also tantamount to providing opportunity to
students. Education provided in a multicultural approach is obligatory, not just for the
historically marginalized and minoritized students, but for all students (Milner, 2010). Students,
including privileged students, must develop the knowledge, skills, and attitudes, needed for them
to be successful in a global society. Students of privilege will eventually deal with the issues of
diversity (Milner, 2010).
Consequently, all students must know how to function in multicultural settings, as well as
varied power structures. Furthermore, it behooves teachers to be prepared to know more than
their subject matter, as Milner (2010) asserted, “Responsive teaching requires that educators
know more than their subject matter; they must understand the differences, complexities, and
nuances inherent in what it means to teach in urban, suburban, and rural environments” (p. 41).
The understanding of the social context enables teachers to advance beyond negative stereotypes
that will enable them to learn about the students they teach, how communities are classified,
what they may encounter, and how working with communities, empowers the people to improve
their communities (Milner, 2010).
Furthermore, an analysis of one’s beliefs and standing puts the educator in control, and
not the ideology in control of the educator. Hence, just like the other four aspects of Milner’s
opportunity gap’s framework, color blindness, cultural conflicts, myth of meritocracy, a deficit
mind-set and low expectations, educators must be constantly attentive to learning about the

25

social context of their work, and the role it plays in student’s opportunity and access (Milner,
2010).
Milner (2010) extended the theory of deficit ideology into the school system, specifically
K-12 classroom. Most of the teaching workforce is comprised of people of European decent, he
pointed out deficit thinking to teachers’ lack of interaction with people of color (Milner, 2010).
Hence, the knowledge the teachers take with them regarding people of color comes from
stereotypical images from the media, family biases and descriptions, to ascertain their views of
people of color (Milner, 2010). Their views are indoctrinated in the orientation of the deficit
ideology, and these teachers take this ideology to work with them. The views are based on
stereotypes. These view/stereotypes are taken into the classrooms and enacted on the children
they are charged to teach (Milner, 2010).
Deficit ideological orientations influence the pedagogical decisions teachers make
regarding students of color (Milner, 2010). Employing deficit thinking, teachers carrying with
them the belief that students of color do not possess the skills and knowledge required for
success in learning. The inaccuracy associated with such thinking is perilous to the in-class
experience for these students. The deficit mind-set of the teacher that students of color bring no
knowledge and experience into the learning environment, is a key factor in low student
achievement. Milner (2010) explained, deficit ideological thinking causes teachers of
marginalized and minoritized students to view them as liabilities, and not focus on the assets
contained in the funds of knowledge the students bring to the classroom.
Empirical Studies on Deficit Teacher Ideology and Student Learning Opportunities
In this section I move from theory to empirical literature, as a means of explaining
teachers’ deficit ideology and the negative consequences it has on student learning experiences.

26

Specifically, I offer empirical literature that illustrates how deficit teacher beliefs are expressed
by words and actions towards low socio-economic, historically disenfranchised and minoritized
students. Additionally, I present empirical literature that revealed teacher perceptions and
expectations of the learning and behaviors of low socio-economic, historically disenfranchised
and minoritized students. I examine how the words, actions, perceptions, and expectations of
teachers with deficit beliefs influenced the pedagogical and learning opportunities teachers made
regarding their students.
Furthermore, this literature provides the contextual examples connected to the theory of
teacher ideology, presented earlier in this literature review. Lastly, the literature offers insight
because it focuses on deficit teacher beliefs, perceptions, actions, and words, and the influence
they have on teachers providing learning opportunities to historically marginalized and
minoritized students in the urban environment.
The empirical studies used are not intended to explain deficit beliefs. However, the
research findings expose the principles of deficit beliefs. Therefore, they were worthy of my
attention to provide myself with a clear delineation of how theory was put into practice. This
literature provided me with the understanding I needed to answer my research question, as it
focused on low socio-economic, historically disenfranchised students, teacher perceptions, and
instructional practices. The literature provides examples of circumstances that form the ideas
connected to teacher ideologies as discussed in the preceding sections of the literature review.
Lastly, the literature gave me further understanding of my question as the research lens was
centered on urban contexts.
Rist (2000) revisited his 1970 longitudinal qualitative study of African American teachers
and African American students. The purpose of this study was to examine what is regarded as a

27

“crucial aspect of the classroom experience for the children involved–the process whereby
expectations and social interactions give rise to the social organization of the class” (Rist, 2000,
p. 267). He suggested that inside the classroom a socialization occurred between the students and
teacher, strangers to each other, before the commencement of the school year, factors came forth,
such as: patterns of behavior, expectations of performance, and a mutually accepted system of
stratification, clearly delineating the students performing well in class, from those students not
performing well in class (Rist, 2000).
Of tantamount importance was the relationship of the educator’s expectations of the
academic potential of the students based on the students’ social status, and the influence the
children’s kindergarten experience had on the children in subsequent grade levels (Rist, 2000). A
crucial goal of the study was to find out the significance of the primary expectations of the
teacher and the relationship to the students’ opportunities for “success or failure within the
public-school system” (Rist, 2000, p. 276,). The fundamental stance offered in this study was the
development of expectation by the teachers, regarding the differential academic potential and
ability of students, was notably dependent upon the subjectively of interpreted attributes of the
students (Rist, 2000).
Rist (2000) conducted the study in a low socio-economic urban area, where 98% of the
population was African American, and greater than half (55%) of the residents of the area
received government assistance. The teachers in the study were middle-class, African American
women. The school site was one of five selected and made available for research by the district
superintendent.
The study utilized a cohort of elementary students for 2½ years. Rist (2000) conducted
formal observations in the classroom two-times per week in 1½ hour increments during the

28

students’ kindergarten and second grade experiences. He informally observed the students on
four separate occasions during their first-grade school year (The kindergarten and second grade
teachers were also interviewed). During the formal visits, hand-written notes were taken of the
activities and interactions, which were taking place in the classroom (Rist, 2000). During the
informal visits, there were no notes taken.
Rist (2000) gathered data in an urban school in the late 1960s. The school served students
from kindergarten through eighth grade, with a student population of 900. There were 26
teachers on staff when the study took place, all the Administrators, teachers, staff, and students
were African American. The first informant, a kindergarten teacher, Mrs. Caplow, was reared in
a “middle-class home, which valued education, religion, neat appearance, and the use of standard
American English” (Rist, 2000, p. 276). Mrs. Caplow was married, an active member of many
community groups, and her local church.
There was no indication of how the researcher chose Mrs. Caplow’s kindergarten class.
There were 30 students assigned to her classroom, with differing backgrounds, from students
whose families received welfare, to students with one or two parents who were employed and did
not receive public assistance (Rist, 2000). The children’s parental educational attainment differed
as well from some parents having stopped at grade school, high school, or parents who had
attended college. Lastly, the family households’ numbers varied regarding the number of siblings
and whether both parents were present (Rist, 2000).
The researcher found the kindergarten students received differentiated treatment based
upon whether they possessed the attributes the teacher considered necessary for a successful
student (Rist, 2000). He observed the teacher placing the kindergarten students in permanent
seating arrangements by the eighth day of school, arranged in three different tables. Based on the

29

data, Rist found that in the kindergarten class, the students were seated based on four criteria
collected prior to the beginning of school. The criteria utilized by the teacher was a pre-
registration form, a list of students whose families were receiving public assistance, information
from an initial interview of the mother of the child that occurred before the beginning of the
school year or within the first few weeks of the school year, and experiences that the teacher or
her colleagues had with older siblings (Rist, 2000).
In addition to the previous criteria, the students were further sorted via observations of
the students by the teacher based on physical appearance (including body odor), interactional
behavior with each other and the teacher, use of language (Standard American English or Black
Dialect), societal factors (such as income, education, and family size), and the students’
performance on tasks assigned early during the class (Risk, 2000). Furthermore, Rist emphasized
that none of the sources of information utilized by the teachers included cognitive information.
However, IQ test results from Mrs. Caplow’s Kindergarten class indicated no statistical
difference between the students.
Rist (2000) observed that the students at the table groups were sorted in four ways. The
students at table 1 were neatly dressed, compared with students at tables 2 and 3 who were
poorly dressed in tattered, unwashed clothing. There was a marked difference in the ways the
students interacted with the teacher. Students at table 1 were the leaders and indicated a sense of
ease when interacting with the teacher (Rist, 2000). Whereas students from tables 2 and 3 were
not as comfortable with interacting with the teacher and stayed on the fringe of the group of
students nearest the teacher. The third grouping of the students was based on their use of the
English language. Students at table 1 used Standard English language, the language of the
teacher (Rist, 2000). Moreover, the students at table 1 responded to the teacher’s questions more

30

often than the students at tables 2 and 3. According to the researcher, the students at table 1 were
three-times more likely to respond to the teacher’s questions than their classmates. Lastly, the
students at table 1 were unlike the students at tables 2 and 3 based on their home conditions,
which were known to the teacher prior to the beginning of school (Rist, 2000).
The researcher surmised the four criteria duly influenced the expectations the teacher
held regarding her students’ potential academic performance (Rist, 2000). Mrs. Caplow utilized
the expectations as a means of grouping the students according to what she deemed similarities
in their expected performance, all of this was done by the eighth day of school.
Additionally, responses from interviews of the teacher indicated that Mrs. Caplow grouped
students based on who she judged to be “fast” and “slow” learners (Rist, 2000).
The interaction between the students at the “fast-learner” table was frequent and positive.
Most of her instructional time, attention, conversations, and non-aggressive behaviors was
extended to the students at the “fast-learner” table (Rist, 2000). Conversely, the teacher provided
less instructional time with the “slow-learner” tables. She gave them less attention, limited
conversations, and displayed a most aggressive countenance towards those students (Rist, 2000).
Furthermore, the researcher noted Mrs. Caplow ignored the students at tables 2 and 3, focusing
much of her attention on the students at table 1. Her instructional choices and biases created an
unfavorable learning environment for the students at tables 2 and 3 (Rist, 2000). The students
placed at the “slow-learner” tables occupied their time in what the researcher termed, secondary
learning. The researcher described this as knowledge that was not gained by direct instruction
from the teacher. The students listened to the instruction being provided to the other students,
because the teacher did not speak directly to them. The students talked among themselves about

31

the information that was being taught to the “fast-learners,” sans the benefit of the teacher’s
direct interaction with them (Rist, 2000).
Moreover, Rist observed that the students at table 1 were used as an example of model
behavior and successful student achievement, which students at tables 2 and 3 should strive to
achieve (Rist, 2000). It was observed that the teacher focused her instructional time and energy
mainly on the students at table 1. For instance, Rist indicated the teacher usually positioned the
lesson on the chalkboard space directly in front the students at table 1 to explain mathematical
problems and illustrations. He also noted, during a 1-hour observation of Mrs. Caplow and the
students, she did not interact directly with any of the children at tables 2 or 3, with the exception
being, a harsh verbal reprimand to tell a student to “sit-down.” The way the class was organized
by the eighth day of school, was the rational for the treatment of the students for the entire school
year (Rist, 2000).
The core reasoning behind the division of the class into those expected to learn versus
those not expected to learn saturated the teacher’s positioning within the classroom (Rist, 2000).
The teacher’s justification for the singular focus on a select group of students, was based on her
reasoning that the students at tables 2 and 3 were lost as to what was occurring in the classroom,
were not focused on learning (Rist, 2000). Furthermore, the teacher articulated to Rist that she
felt some could learn and some could not learn, their ability had nothing to do with the teaching,
some students were just low achievers. The thoughts articulated by the teacher demonstrated her
dismissiveness of the students seated at tables 2 and 3. Moreover, her words and interactions
with the students were indicative of her belief system, which influenced her treatment of the
students, and as a result the students’ academic experience (Rist, 2000).

32

During the study, Rist learned it was not only the academic aspects of the students that
were negatively impacted by the teacher’s actions towards the students, but it was also the social
interactions, amongst their peers as well. During an observation, Rist (2000) noted, the students
from table 1, responded to the students at tables 2 and 3, in the same negative manner as the
teacher. He observed the students from table 1 mimicked the teacher’s behavior towards the
students seated at tables 2 and 3. The students at table 1 positioned themselves to maintain their
station in the teacher’s good graces and advised the students from tables 2 and 3 to do the same.
The researcher surmised the student from table 1 had internalized the behaviors and attitudes of
the teacher towards the students from tables 2 and 3 (Rist, 2000).
Additionally, students at tables 2 and 3, were not likely to verbalize their knowledge,
acquired during the lessons (Rist, 2000). The researcher indicated that the teacher felt if the
students could not discuss the knowledge they had acquired in Standard English, they had not
learned, acquired any knowledge (Rist, 2000). The students having started the school year with
social differences, not cognitive differences, Rist surmised, the teacher’s expectations and
actions, based on non-cognitive factors, formed the students’ educational experiences and
subsequent academic performance (Rist, 2000).
As mentioned earlier the study was conducted over a 2½ year period, the researcher
found the first and second grade teachers utilized similar table group arrangements as that of the
kindergarten teacher (Rist, 2000). The students from table 1, “fast-learners,” were seated
together, and the same for the “slow-learners” (Rist, 2000). During the students second grade
year, the students were grouped via reading levels. It is indicated the students from kindergarten
from the “fast-learners” were grouped into the higher reading group, while the students from the
“slow-learners” were grouped into the lower reading groups. The students having received a

33

higher level of instruction during the previous two-years, perpetually demonstrated progress at
elevated levels than their peers, who had been deemed “slow-learners,” within the first 8 days of
their kindergarten school experience (Rist, 2000).
Finally, there was IQ assessment data provided to the kindergarten teacher at the
beginning of the school year, that indicated all the students measured at the same intellectual
level (Rist, 2000). However, the teacher’s sorting of the students into the groups, was based
primarily her own criteria and definitions of success that followed the students into first and
second grades. The sorting of the students by the teacher in the primer-grade allowed for no
positive movement for the “slow-learners” and provided continued growth and achievement for
the students considered “fast-learners.” Therefore, the students in both groups achieved at the
level of expectation the kindergarten teacher assigned them in the first 8 days of their education.
The self-fulfilling prophecy became apparent, when the teacher’s initial expectations of success
for the students, became the actual outcomes of the students’ academic achievement (Rist, 2000).
In the above study, the students were categorized into an in-class caste system. Where
their academic attainment was in various ways prohibited by the teacher’s subjective tools used
to inhibit some of the students, while allowing a few to flourish. The next study is very similar,
where the students’ abilities were based not on their academic ability, but their behavior.
Hatt (2011) conducted a 1-year ethnography as a means of gaining understanding of the
concept of smartness as a cultural practice in the setting of a kindergarten classroom. According
to the author, kindergarten was the commencement of a major portion of school socialization: it
was “a key juncture where children enter a new world, with new rules, and begin to understand
themselves differently as a result” (Hatt, 2011, p. 8). While several guidelines, conduct, and
reasons were assumed, and not considered, by the time children reached first grade, while in

34

kindergarten the behaviors and actions had yet to be pinpointed and specified by name. Hatt
chose kindergarten because of the significance of the dispensation as a study of smartness.
Hatt’s (2011) study took place in a school in a partly rural town, it was selected because
of its “intersection of families with minority and working-class families” (p. 8). The school’s
population was comprised of the extra students from the university community, in a city near the
school, serving diverse working-class communities. The kindergarten classroom was comprised
of a population of 25 students, 15 Caucasian and 10 African American. There was one teacher
(Mrs. Rayburn), a middle-class Caucasian woman who had been teaching for 4-years, and a
teaching assistant (Mrs. Daniel), a middle-class Caucasian woman, who had worked with the
teacher for 3-years.
The author utilized Holland et al.’s (1998) concept of figured worlds, the rules and or
forces that tell people how to behave (act, speak). Hatt (2011) used three elements of figured
worlds in her research findings: objects (artifacts), discourses (dialogue), and academic identities
(smartness). Hatt concluded that the special artifacts in the classroom were used by the adults to
establish which students were smart and which were not, and the teacher’s and aid’s dialogue
exposed their belief of which students they deemed smart. Also, the study revealed the students’
academic identities were both negatively and positively influenced by their experiences within
the classroom (Hatt, 2011).
The researcher found the artifacts in the classroom were used by the teacher and teacher’s
aide to indicate a students’ smartness. The study indicated the artifacts were not based on the
academic abilities of the students, but upon how the students behaved in the classroom (Hatt,
2011). In the kindergarten classroom used in the study, the two key artifacts utilized to determine
the students’ smartness were: the stoplight and the shoe tyer’s club. The teacher used the

35

stoplight as a classroom management tool (Hatt, 2011). When the students behaved in an
undesirable fashion, the students were required to move their cars, from green, to yellow or red
on the stoplight. Additionally, the movement of the car resulted in the loss of privileges (Hatt,
2011).
The researcher found that many of the students in the classroom required to move their
cars were the working-class African American and Caucasian students, rarely were the affluent
Caucasian students required to move their cars. Additionally, she found that if the affluent
Caucasian students were doing the same things the other non-affluent and minority students were
doing that caused them to move their cars, the affluent students were not directed to move their
cars (Hatt, 2011). As a result, it was revealed during interviews with the students that you were
smart if you did not have to move your car, and which students fit the model of smart. Therefore,
in kindergarten, the students had constructed what it meant to be smart and the types of students
who were considered as smart. Thus, when queried to name specific smart students in the
classroom, the teacher and the teacher’s assistant, along with the students, listed students along
racial and social class lines, indicating Caucasian, middle-class students were smart, and poor
and African American student were not smart (Hatt, 2011).
The other artifacts used as an example of smartness within the classroom was the shoe
tyer and phone numbers club (Hatt, 2011). A prominently displayed chart was used to indicate
which students could tie their shoes and remember their phone numbers. Students not indicated
on the chart were publicly humiliated, and not assisted in learning to complete either of the tasks.
The researcher learned that the ability of students to site their phone numbers and tie their shoes
were not skills taught in class, those skills needed to have been acquired at home. The student
that could complete the tasks were the affluent Caucasian students (Hatt, 2011).

36

Therefore, the students whose parents worked multiple jobs or were not in the home as
much with their children, those students were at a marked disadvantage (Hatt, 2011). The
students not able to complete the tasks did not receive the positive praise and feedback from the
teacher, which indicated their smartness for completing those skills. In this classroom
organization, it indicated to students the idea of smartness being innate, not based upon one’s
home life or what was learned in class (Hatt, 2011).
In addition to artifacts, the researcher found that the classroom discourse indicated to the
students who was smart (Hatt, 2011). On the first day of school Hatt observed the teacher as she
watched a female student tie her shoes. After the student completed the task, the teacher said
“You’re so smart! Did you tie your shoes by yourself? We have a shoe tyer’s club. “You’re
gonna be a part of it.” “Two thumbs up!” (Hatt, 2011, p. 14). Further uses of language to indicate
smartness were, “making good choices” and “first grade work.” The adults in the classroom used
language to communicate the social order of the class. Additionally, the researcher found the
teacher and the aide would use words such as: “you’re so smart” or “genius” as a means of
positively reinforcing desired behaviors and actions of the students (Hatt, 2011). It was found the
positive reinforcing was generally directed towards the affluent Caucasian students, where as
“good choices” were the words used to indicate a student was not exhibiting the desired
behaviors and actions. The prior statement was most often utilized with the low-income and
minority students (Hatt, 2011).
Furthermore, Hatt (2011) asserted there was a link between those students who were
designated as smart and those who earned extra rewards. The students labeled as “smart” for
behaving in the desired fashion, were also given measures of power and autonomy within the
classroom. Those students were provided jobs in the classroom, as well as added independence

37

in the classroom. The students not labeled as smart were not afforded such privileges (Hatt, 201).
The identification and labeling of students as smart based on their behavior affected the choices
of both the teacher and the aide (Hatt, 2011).
The researcher also contended that smartness was not only connected to behavior it was
connected to ethnicity and class as well. Being Caucasian and middle-class indicated better
behavior outcomes. She indicated that the teacher’s “race-and class-based stereotypes had
significant implications for which students were identified as smart” (Hatt, 2011, p. 12). For
instance, the teacher and the aide were looking for a student who made positive “good choices”
(Hatt, 2011, p. 11), an African American female student, from a low-income family asserted, “I
make good choices,” “I always make good choices, I’ve always been on green” (Hatt, 2011, p.
11). However, the African American student was ignored by both the teacher and the aide, and a
middle-class female Caucasian student was chosen for the job. Moreover, Caucasian, middle-
class male students who misbehaved in the class, went unnoticed by the teacher and the aide.
However, the African American male students, who were often in trouble for the same
actions as their middle-class, Caucasian classmates, were always noticed by the teacher. They
got in trouble first and were doled out the most severe punishments (Hatt, 2011). The objects and
language used by the teacher and the aide in the classroom those tools were utilized to define the
concept of smartness. Smartness was used in this class as a tool used for social positioning and
social control (Hatt, 2011). The students were taught and eventually understood their positioning
in the classroom, and being smart, was predicated on acquiring positive recognition and praise
from the teacher, and the privileges associated with the acknowledgment of students’ smartness.
Finally, the adults in the classroom were able to use smartness as a means of social
control. By indoctrinating students into the mind-set of engaging in the desired behaviors of the

38

teachers, this made them smart (Hatt, 2011). Nevertheless, the low-income and students of color,
who could not meet the teachers’ expectations, believed they were not smart. This resulted in
them having a divested interest and eventually becoming withdrawn from learning during the
schoolyear (Hatt, 2011).
In conclusion, teachers’ beliefs, and expectations of their students’ potential, whether
they perceived their students as having the ability for success or teachers possessed a deficit
mind-set, positively or negatively influenced the teachers’ instructional choices within the
classroom (Bartolomé, 2004; Hatt, 2011; Milner, 2010; Rist, 2000). Moreover, teachers’
ideological stances influenced not just their instructional choices, they influenced the
arrangement of the classroom, as well as how the students were organized within the classroom
environment, for their learning experiences (Hatt, 2011; Rist, 2000). Finally, those choices made
by the teacher and enacted on the students, influence how the students interact with their peers
(Hatt, 2011; Rist, 2000).
Empirical Studies on Asset Teacher Ideology and Student Learning Opportunities
In the section, I move from the empirical literature that focuses on deficit teacher
ideology to asset teacher ideology. Specifically, I examine empirical literature that illustrates
how asset teacher ideology was expressed by words and actions towards low socio-economic,
historically disenfranchised and minoritized students. Additionally, I present empirical literature
that revealed teacher perceptions and expectations of the learning and behaviors of low socio-
economic, historically disenfranchised and minoritized students. Furthermore, I examine how the
words, actions, perceptions, and expectations, influenced the pedagogical and learning
opportunities teachers made regarding the students.

39

The empirical studies in this section of the literature review focus on key aspects of my
research question, how teacher ideology influenced student learning opportunities. The studies
include literature that focuses on teachers’ expectations, specifically asset ideologies of teachers,
and teachers with demonstrated success in educating disenfranchised students in the urban
environment. Additionally, the literature that focuses on low socio-economic and historically
disenfranchised students, and how teacher perceptions, influenced their pedagogical choices. The
studies provide insight to the role of teacher ideology and the learning opportunities provided to
historically disenfranchised and minoritized students. Moreover, this literature provided me with
the contextual examples connected to the theory of teacher ideology, presented earlier in this
literature review.
Bartolomé (2004) conducted a study where she examined four educators (three teachers
and one principal), who possessed the ideological clarity to understand the effect asset ideologies
have on the way they delivered learning opportunities to their students from low socio-economic
and historically disenfranchised backgrounds specifically, Latina/o students. She wanted insight
into how educators’ awareness of teaching not being an “apolitical undertaking” (Bartolomé,
2004, p. 101) developed critical understanding of how the unbalanced power relations were
revealed in the educational setting. Additionally, they formulated strategies for their students to
counter potential biases they may have experienced. Bartolomé (2004) contended educators held
unquestioned beliefs and attitudes regarding the existing social order that preserved hegemonic
ideologies, that are extremely harmful to marginalized and minoritized students. Furthermore, in
the absence of political and ideological clarity, educators might not critically scrutinize the
existing social order. This lack of awareness lent itself to the acceptance of things as they were,
leading to the implementation of educational practices that perpetuated the dominant narrative.

40

Educators who were unaware of this continued with perspectives that were based on deficit
ideologies, instead of employing counter-hegemonic practices that were “culturally responsive,
integrative, and transformative” (Bartolomé, 2004, p. 100).
In her study, Bartolomé’s (2004) sample population was educators known for their
exemplary reputations constructed by the descriptions given by administration and colleagues.
The educators were known to possess critical awareness of the oppressiveness of the dominant
practices that persistently disenfranchised their students. Furthermore, the educators were known
for their intense advocacy and commitment to establishing and preserving an equitable
environment for the students they served Bartolomé (2004).
The educators were Dr. Peabody (a White, female principal), Mr. Broadbent (a White,
math teacher), Mrs. Cortland (a White English teacher), and Mr. Tijerina (a Chicano history
teacher). All the educators worked for Riverview High School (RHS), the school was in
Southern California, 18-miles north of the Mexican border. The high school was both culturally
and linguistically diverse. The school demographics: 70% Latino/a and 8% Filipino American.
Sixty-two percent of the students of RHS were from homes where English was the second
language. Most of the students also qualified for free and reduced lunch.
Bartolomé (2004) conducted this qualitative study with a colleague, in this study, the
informants were asked open-ended questions to provoke replies that provided insight into their
personal experiences and beliefs in educating historically marginalized, non-Caucasian, second
language learners, and the issues associated with educating them (Bartolomé 2004).
The study revealed four findings. The first finding was the educators truly believed the
school’s environment of concern and equity for historically disenfranchised students was a major
factor for the students’ academic success. Next, the educators in the study, scrutinized the

41

dominant ideologies and completely rejected deficit views of their students. Also, the educators
did not subscribe to the over-arching dominant, mainstream Caucasian, middle-class culture, nor
the idea of meritocracy, it was truly a myth to them. In one way or another they had had their
own experiences with having been marginalized in some way. Lastly, the educators were staunch
advocates for their students’ success. They assisted them by providing guidance in how to
function in the school culture, to ensure the students would not be disadvantaged, by the
educational structures (Bartolomé 2004).
The data derived from the interviews of the educators revealed they truly discounted the
myth of meritocracy. They were firmly aware that hard work and talent were not the sole
determinants in ensuring their students’ acquired success. In its place, they acknowledged that
racism and economic obstacles created disadvantages, which their students would need skills to
overcome. Additionally, they understood merit and ability did not give the population of students
they served the same advantages as Caucasian, middle-class students. Those students with the
financial foundation to gain access to greater opportunities. Furthermore, the educators
acknowledge the importance of the real limits levied on the students they served due to their
social and economic status (Bartolomé, 2004).
The next ideological element presented in the interview data was the educators’ refutation
of a deficit perspective of their students. They were fully aware of the persistent negative views
of low socio-economic minoritized students and made concerted efforts to the contrary to
remove those views from their practice. The educators grasped the necessity to critical analyze
their own ideologies and challenge their own deficit beliefs and propensities, as a means of
providing the students the opportunity to do the same.

42

Two of the four educators, Mr. Broadbent, and Mr. Tijerina, placed great emphasis on
the students valuing their own culture, not assimilating into the White middle-class. For example,
Mr. Broadbent, acknowledge the White-middle class structure was flawed, he believed the
students he served possessed many positives in their culture, and they should see it in a positive
light. He did not see it necessary to assimilate, rather the introduction to the culture as a guide for
students to use as a means of improving their economic position. Similarly, Mr. Tijerina,
emphasized the positive aspects of the Mexican culture. He pointed out the fact that his students
were hard-working, had great family connectivity, and possessed the desire to improve their lives
(Bartolomé, 2004).
Moreover, just as emphasized by Mr. Broadbent, the students did not have the
information and needed help from their teachers to navigate the social structure to attain their
goals. The male teachers differed in their positions, whereas Mr. Broadbent focused on the
students’ socio-economic status, Mr. Tijerina’s focus was the students’ race and ethnicity. Even
though their approaches were different, both educators encouraged their students to appreciate
their culture and achieve without assimilating into the white-middle class culture (Bartolomé
2004).
The female educators, Dr. Peabody, and Mrs. Cortland, emphasized the students being
provided with opportunity, access, learning that it was not a lack of desire, but their economic
positions that deterred them form certain tasks. The principal used her position to ensure the
students were given access to opportunities that would be denied to them based on their low
economic status. For example, a teacher (not included in the study), decided not to provide the
students the information for the California Scholarship Federation Honor Society, because she
did not believe they could compete with the more affluent students. Extremely frustrated by the

43

teacher’s choice, Dr. Peabody, made sure the students were given the information. She was
appalled at the fact that students, because of their background, even if the field was leveled for
that moment, were not give the opportunity to compete (Bartolomé 2004).
In another example, Mrs. Cortland, realized the students were not able to compete in a
competition not due to motivation, but lack of economic ability. Realizing every dollar counted,
and it was a great imposition for the students to pay for extra-curricular activities, no matter how
significant they were to their future success. Therefore, she created a means for the students to
participate without it being an economic hardship to their families. It was clear via the interview
data that the educators did not hold the students’ economic deprivation against them. The
educators did not see the students as deficient because they were poor (Bartolomé 2004).
There was a firm belief in this study by the four educators that the dominant Caucasian
culture was not to be copied by their students. The educators believed the students should be
taught to celebrate their own culture, traditions, customs, and history. Furthermore, the educators
felt that the Caucasian culture was filled with pretense, deceitfulness, conceit, and disrespectful
behaviors. The affluent White-middle class students displayed sense of entitlement and a
complete lack of gratitude and empathy. The students at RHS did not display such poor character
traits; they were more inclusive of students of different ethnicities and disabilities. Mr. Tijerina
believed that the Latino/a cultural ideology of family humility, respect, and family values should
be incorporated in the mainstream high school culture (Bartolomé, 2004).
The third theme that emerged from the study was the connection the educators had their
students, as well as true empathy the educators had for their students. This connection was
created due to the educators having had a variety of not so positive experiences in the middle-
class realm, where they felt the sting of being disenfranchised (Bartolomé, 2004).

44

Bartolomé (2004) introduced this section by explaining the difference between a true
“border-crosser” and a “blind, voyeur, tourist, border-crosser” (p. 101). The former was one who
“is willing and able to develop empathy with the cultural “Other” and to authentically view as
equal the values of the “Other,” while conscious of the cultural group’s subordinated social
status in the greater society” (Bartolomé, 2004, p. 101). The authentic border-crosser seriously
reflected on the assets of the cultural traits of the “Other,” while simultaneously analyzing and
evaluating the discriminatory practices of the dominant culture, which creates the
disenfranchised “Other.” The true “border-crosser, simultaneously accepted the “Other,” and
“divests from their cultural privilege that functions as a cultural border itself “(Bartolomé, 2004,
p. 109). Whereas the latter, the “blind, voyeur, tourist, border-crosser,” was one who was able to
auspiciously move among an alternate environment without critically analyzing the problems of
the hegemonic power structure that subordinated people into the status of “Other” (Bartolomé
2004).
The voyeuristic “border-crosser” of the dominant culture did not divest from their
privileged stations, they examined the “Other” in a “detached and curious manner without ever
recognizing that cultural groups occupy different positions of power and status and that many
cultural perceptions and practices resulted from such power asymmetries” (Bartolomé, 2004, p.
109). The sight-seeing border-crosser lacked the ability to be critical of the station of the
“Other,” due to their unconscious dominant hegemonic and deficit cultural ideologies.
The educators in the Bartolomé (2004) study were authentic border-crossers, who saw the
inequities of the system and, as a result, divested from their privilege to advocate for their
students. The educators, viewed by Bartolomé (2004) as border-crossers, had developed empathy
for their students, the culturally “Other,” hence viewing them as equals, simultaneously being

45

conscious of their students’ subordinated social class. The educators’ border crossing
experiences were the impetus for them to work towards ensuring the negative views of their
students would be eliminated (Bartolomé, 2004).
The marginalization the educators experienced was based on different factors, such as
ethnicity (Mr. Tijerina), choices (Dr. Peabody), and socio-economic status (Mrs. Cortland and
Mr. Broadbent). Mr. Tijerina was a student at RHS and experienced the Caucasian students’
wrath for him being Mexican. He was called horrible names, assumed to not be a citizen of the
United State, and most often totally ignored by the majority. He was always aware of the second-
class position assigned to him as a working-class Mexican. However, he ascribed his
perseverance to the strong pride in being Mexican, and the values, customs and strong heritage
implanted in him by his father. Hence, assimilation was never a choice for him, he used his
family connection to become an advocate at the school where he was once marginalized
(Bartolomé 2004).
Dr. Peabody’s border-crossing experience was being the minority in a diverse
community. She was one of the few Caucasian people in a predominately African American,
working-class community. She learned about the strength in diversity. She saw what it was like
to be given privilege based on her ethnicity not provided to the minoritized people of her
community. There she realized it was her place to allow people of color to use her position in the
social order to be the voice of the unheard, to be a change-agent (Bartolomé 2004).
Mrs. Cortland grew up “lower-middle-class in an affluent White community”
(Bartolomé, 2004, p. 110). She learned at an early age being the best student and working hard
was not enough to get ahead. She experienced the lack of inequity, and from experience say
“meritocracy” is a complete farce. She was never accepted by her community or her peers

46

because of her low socio-economic status, she was “less-than” amongst her peers, even with her
high-intellectual aptitude (skill and talent), one of the tenets of meritocracy. Knowing
meritocracy was a myth she worked to provide opportunity to the students she served (Bartolomé
2004).
Finally, Mr. Broadbent’s experience was seeing his father gain access to a promotion by
sheer luck. His father was not given access, or opportunity for a position, even though he had the
skills for the position. He realized that middle-class culture was not inclusive and denied access
to those it did not value. He worked to provide the information to that he deemed was needed so
his students could move up the socio-economic ladder. He provided lesson that he attached to
real world, high-paying occupations (Bartolomé, 2004).
All four educators had been deeply impacted by their experiences; they were acutely
aware of the necessity to act to level-the playing field for their students. They knew they needed
to balance the power structure, remove the profoundly entrenched hegemonic misconceptions
regarding low socio-economic, working class minoritized people (Bartolomé, 2004). The
educators were staunch advocates for their students in the power-struggle to mediate the social
constructs and aide them in moving from their status to a more stable position in society. The
first-hand experiences of the negative aspects of the dominate culture provided them with insight
into the trails faced by minoritized people.
The final finding of the study was the professional responsibility to mentor and show
their students the way to a better life (Bartolomé, 2004, p. 112). Acting as what Bartolomé
(2004) termed “Cultural-Brokers,” the educators communicated their strong commitment to
helping their low-socio-economic, minoritized, second language learners, navigate the culture of
school as a means of succeeding both academically and socially in mainstream society. The

47

educators, as mentors, provided knowledge not just in the classroom, knowledge that could be
used outside of the classroom.
Mr. Broadbent, emphasized mentoring, parent involvement, care, communication,
honesty, and strong content-based instruction based on real-world applications. Mr. Tijerina,
provide the information for the students to attend college. Working with the counselors, students,
and parents to ensure the students were provided the tools to navigate the entire “college-
process.” Their roles as mentors to the students enabled them to provide the knowledge of
school, as well as life beyond school. The students were provided with cultural capital,
something privileged middle-class parents regularly provided to their children. Lastly, they
articulated the need for the students to see themselves in a better situation, leading to their
advancement (Bartolomé, 2004).
The study of the ideology of the four educators at RHS explained four aspects of
education that led to the success of their students. The educators denounced meritocracy, rejected
deficit views, were true “border-crossers,” “cultural-brokers,” and “change-agents.” Their
political clarity and ideological orientations made them conscious to the needs of the student
population they served. This insight provided them with the lens needed to know the unmerited
socio-economic conditions that impoverished working-class families experience and how it
disenfranchised their students (Bartolomé, 2004). In contrast to teachers being aware and using
their positionality to aide in students attaining academic success. The next author discusses a
teacher that thinks she is helping her students by focusing on culture and race via her
positionality as a traveler.
Taylor (2017) studied how a teacher dealt with race using her privileged position in
society as a guide. The goal of the study was to learn how teachers understand race and how they

48

construct and disagree with race in context of both an educational setting and in their everyday
lives (Taylor, 2017). The goal of the study was for the researcher to gain insight as to why her
teaching practices were not working (Taylor, 2017).
The author used portraiture methodology to understand one teacher’s efforts to
understand how and if race played a role in her pedagogy. The portraiture is an ethnographic
method used to capture the richness, complexity, and dimensionality of the human experience in
a socio-cultural context, from the lens of the people negotiating those phenomena. This method
of study is a most like a case-study, however it is focused on the individual stories of the focus of
study (Taylor, 2017).
The author realized her understanding was positioned in her Caucasian perspective where
her historically marginalized and minoritized students lacked and needed assistance, they did not
possess assets (Taylor, 2017). Furthermore, she wanted to know how race was perceived by her
and her colleagues. The perceptions served to identify how the inequity of racism was either
perpetuated or dismantled by her and her colleagues’ beliefs regarding their students of color
(Taylor, 2017). Therefore, when she was provided access by the superintendent of the district
where she conducted her study, she saw the opportunity to delve into the contentious and
uncomfortable issue of race (Taylor, 2017).
The Manchester County school district had commenced systemic professional
development to have reflective and explicit conversations about race and how it impacted both
teaching practices and students’ opportunities to learn (Taylor, 2017). The teacher used for this
study was one of the individuals nominated by the principals due to her efforts to meaningfully
engage in the race and equity initiative (Taylor, 2017). The data from the study produced a series
of vignettes that shed light on how teachers are continually negotiating how they understand race

49

(Taylor, 2017). The central informant for this aspect of the study was Ms. Janie Ward. Her
portrait is one that provides a lens into how she traversed the difficulties of the racial terrain. Her
journey to learn and understand how race impacted her teaching and the students’ learning was
one she navigated by using her own personal experience as a White woman traveling abroad
(Taylor, 2017). By centering her students’ racial experiences in her White experiences, she at
times separated race from culture and at other times combined the two constructs (Taylor, 2017).
This mean of racial sensemaking led to her putting race to the side, overlooking the role it played
in her students’ lives and their learning (Taylor, 2017). This choice whether know or unknown,
limited her opportunities to address the racism her students face when delivering instruction
(Taylor, 2017).
In additional, she was the faculty co-sponsor of the International Club. She assisted and
coordinated the cultural festivals that happened on the campus. The international club festivals
were a means of displaying diversity from a cultural perspective, while not addressing race
(Taylor, 2017). This focus was reflective of the Ms. Wards’ understanding of cultural and not the
racial differences her students experience. This study took place in a high school located in an
affluent suburban community. The focus of the study was a Caucasian teacher named Janie
Ward. She taught English as a Second Language (ESL) classes. She was unsure how to think
about, nor did she understand the complexities of race. The teacher used what the author termed
a “racial touchstone” (Taylor, 2017). This allowed the teacher to use culture instead of race,
therefore allowing herself to avoid the discomfort of racial analyses. Using this method allowed
her to rationalization her shallow attempts of engaging the diversity of her students, by focusing
on culture instead of race (Taylor, 2017). The school was in an affluent suburb, with a
predominantly English-speaking community. There were several wealthy international students

50

who did not stay long in the ESL classes. Ms. Ward labeled those students her “revolving” door
students, as they did not stay in her classroom for a long time. She did not understand that their
wealth afforded them private tutors and a shorter stay in her ESL classes (Taylor, 2017).
Whereas her immigrant students from poorer countries and low socio-economic families, who
were making the United States their home, became long term English Language learners and
eventually aged out of the school system. Ms. Ward believed the students’ participation in the
festival provided them with a sense of inclusion, as she served a population that was not
statically significant to the school, there were only 67 ESL students in the entire school (Taylor,
2017).
The researcher noted the classroom was not up to date like the other classes. The
classroom resembled a large storage closet, and the students were seated far away from each
other (Taylor, 2017). The lesson observed was Ms. Ward sharing with the students her love of
the salsa dance and her learning it from her travels in the Dominican Republic. After a quick
demonstration, she encouraged her students to share what they enjoyed doing outside of school,
as the day before they had shared their favorite food. She then told the students they could use
their “home language” to continue with the lesson. The author noted, Ms. Ward did attempt to
build community and relationships in the classroom. She was nominated for being a leader in the
school’s work to address racial inequality. However, the types of lessons provided lack cultural
relevance, rigor, depth, and dimension (Taylor, 2017).
Upon further investigation, the researcher learned Ms. Ward used this type of
pedagogical practice as a means of assimilating her student to the US cultural traditions, as well
as a basic to access the academic curriculum (Taylor, 2017). However, the researcher asserted
Ms. Ward needed to create lessons that were culturally relevant and authentic, that would access

51

the funds of knowledge of the students. Using this method would create truly meaningful
learning for the students. Mrs. Ward had no awareness of the ways in which race and racism
impacted every aspect of her students’ lives (Taylor, 2017).
Mrs. Ward had learned the curriculum with fidelity, she was aware the length of time it
took to acquire a second language, she was also aware of the difficulties her students faced if
they did not acquire a command of the English language, she worried they were not receiving the
additional services they needed to be successful (Taylor, 2017). Therefore, she attempted to
make her classroom a “safe space” for her students. She wanted them to feel comfortable enough
to practice, struggle, and learn the English language. This came from her experiences learning a
second language in a foreign country (Taylor, 2017). However, her low-rigor, lack of depth of
inquiry, and non-use of the students’ funds of knowledge were a disservice to the students she
served.
Ms. Ward positioned her students’ learning based on her experiences. This allowed her to
maintain her comfort. However, she did not consider her privilege as navigating the world as a
White woman (Taylor, 2017). Her lack of awareness of her privilege as a White woman learning
abroad, denoted her complete lack of understanding of the role race played in the lives of her
students. According to the author, Ms. Ward saw Whiteness as one aspect, an ethnic identifier,
with cultural practices and rituals, like food, dance, and music. She did not understand her
Whiteness, was a racial construct of privilege and power (Taylor, 2017). She did not realize that
her students needed more than a course in cultural assimilation. There needed to be racial
analyses and she needed to implement culturally relevant pedagogical practices. However, the
researcher learned, Ms. Ward used “culture,” dance, food, dress, travel, as a safe and superficial
means of traversing ethnic differences and avoid the complexities of race (Taylor, 2017).

52

The researcher asserted; Ms. Ward believed her life experiences provided her with insight
needed for her to successfully teach ESL students (Taylor, 2017). Mrs. Ward’s self-immersion in
the Dominican Republic had a powerful and long-term effect on her life. She believed her
diverse surroundings and having been the only “White” person in her community provided her
with an insight of what her ESL students needed to be successful. Moreover, her relationship
with her boyfriend (he was El Salvadorian) she considered him as bi-racial because of his
different skin colors, not bi-cultural because he was adopted and raised by a Caucasian family
(Taylor, 2017). During the interview process, the researchers learned Ms. Ward thought of race
and culture as intertwined yet place in different categories. She thought of race as a genetic
marker, one’s skin color. Whereas culture was a textbook definition of a pattern of behavior and
comingled values (Taylor, 2017).
It was not clear if Ms. Ward was aware of the role race played as an ideological and
systemic facet that determined the opportunities provided for life based on a person’s skin color,
including herself. Moreover, it was unclear if she understood how the system benefited White
people (Taylor, 2017). Furthermore, it revealed much of what Ms. Ward understood about what
was garnered from her relationship with her boyfriend. However, it was not a concept they
discussed. She experienced the oppression of race vicariously thru her boyfriend’s experiences.
She was deeply wounded when her boyfriend was mistakenly asked to retrieve a coat from the
coat room of a restaurant. Furthermore, she believed she understood being of low socioeconomic
status because she grew up in a single parent home and attended school on a scholarship.
Therefore, she had an idea of what it was liked to be judged (Taylor, 2017).
However, Ms. Ward admitted she would never understand what it was like to be treated
harshly by White society. Moreover, she did feel like an outsider having traveled abroad and

53

living in a community where she was one of a few White people (Taylor, 2017). The researchers
questioned whether Ms. Ward understood she would never grasp what it was like to be a person
of color. Ms. Ward had experienced what it was like to be of low socioeconomic status, that
could have an impact, but it could change. However, one’s race was permanent. The researcher
was uncomfortable with the way Ms. Ward attempted to disconnect from her privilege. She
positioned herself as a “different kind of white person,” one who understood what it was like to
feel different (Taylor, 2017). The researcher found this problematic as Ms. Ward was not aware
of her continued privilege, neither was she aware of the opportunities her privilege afforded her.
Furthermore, it was asserted Ms. Wards positioned as an ESL teacher, lack of job security (due
to low enrollment), and being overlooked by the school’s administrative team, reminded her of
the way which her students were overlooked. The lack of support was indicative of the broader
marginalization historically marginalized and minoritized students’ experience (Taylor, 2017).
Ms. Ward was unable to stay in her culturally centered safe space, with her docile and
compliant ESL students, because they were such a small group. Therefore, she was assigned to
teach additional courses. In one such instance she was tasked to teach a US History class. This
was what would be called a missed assignment, as Ms. Ward was not credentialed in the area.
Ms. Ward shared one experience where her culturally centered preparation did not prepare her
for navigating the difficulties of race (Taylor, 2017). The lesson Ms. Ward attempted to teach
was focused on the civil war and slavery. Ms. Ward knew it would be a difficult topic, so she
approached the subject by attempting to explain what it was like to be a slave (Taylor, 2017).
Ms. Ward was surprised when an African American student questioned interrupted her lesson
and stated, “You’re White. How would you know how we feel?” (p. 64). When Ms. Ward
attempted to explain, the student left the classroom.

54

The experience led Ms. Ward to reflect on her preparation for teaching her ESL classes.
In those classes she focused on culture, and differences in countries of origin, this was not
enough to assist her with the uncomfortable issue of race (Taylor, 2017). Ms. Ward did not work
with students of American decent, therefore she spoke with her colleagues regarding the
students’ behavior. Ms. Ward was told the student was a challenge and associated her reaction to
her being difficult, not the method of lesson delivery, not the racial inequality that students of
color experience (Taylor, 2017). In another instance where race was ever present, was during a
professional development conference on diversity. Ms. Ward was not comfortable being the
facilitator of the group, however she took on the task. Before the session began, an African
American colleague questioned Ms. Ward’s qualifications. She felt attacked and was confused as
to why her colleague would address her in such a fashion (Taylor, 2017). She associated her
colleague’s behavior to her upbringing. Ms. Ward stated, she was brought up differently and did
not behave in such a manner (Taylor, 2017).
Having to leave the safety of her ESL classroom and traverse the difficulties of race left
Ms. Ward feeling vulnerable (Taylor, 2017). In her ESL classroom she controlled the narrative,
she maintained the security of food, dance, and language differences. Her students were quiet,
giggled, and did not challenge her pedagogical practices. However, this was not the case when
she interacted with the “American” student and colleague of African descent. She was
challenged, made to feel uncomfortable, and put the onus on them, not her lack of willingness to
deal with the complexities of race (Taylor, 2017).
The two interactions noted in the findings, when race became an issue, were the first time
indicated in the study where she saw her whiteness as a racial characteristic. Prior to that, race
and color were centered in people of color (Taylor, 2017). Ms. Ward situated her understanding

55

of race and color in her travels abroad. She acknowledged there was judgement associated with
race in America. However, she indicated that “we” (associating herself with the people of the
Dominican Republic) did not look at race, nor discuss it (Taylor, 2017). Her understanding of
race led her to believe that her ESL students did not experience the oppression of race the way
American students of color experienced it. She believed it was their socio-economic status.
Furthermore, she reiterated, she did not feel comfortable discussing race and in her ESL class
and when she did, she stuck to surface level discussions. Moreover, having a discussion with
ESL students versus American students of color was a very different experience for her (Taylor,
2017). Moreover, she felt she was not the person that should bring up the issue of race.
Therefore, she did not delve into the uncomfortable position of discussing race.
Taylor (2017) noticed a pattern emerge through the discussions with Ms. Ward. Her goal
was to experience life from a space of safety and comfort. Therefore, her pedagogical choices,
immense preparation, her choice to experience diversity in a controlled environment allowed her
to “safely” avoid the discomfort of discussing race. Since being Caucasian was normalized, Ms.
Ward did not see race as something that belonged to her. Race was an experience of people of
color (Taylor, 2017). Hence, when she was faced with the unfamiliarity of race and the
discomfort associated with it, she felt ill-equipped. She had no understanding of the importance
of race, it did not fit into her view of the world. Therefore, she used what the author coined as a
“racial touchstone” (Taylor, 2017).
Ms. Ward used a collage of her life’s experiences to create meaning of what race was and
how one might experience racism. The touchstone shed light on some aspects of race and shaded
others. For example, she assumed her ESL students would benefit from a similar type of learning
experience she had in the Dominican Republic (Taylor, 2017). She attempted to provide a

56

sheltered, safe, comfortable environment, where her students could stumble without fear of being
ridiculed. This artificial environment was created based on her experiences as a student abroad.
However, she did not consider her positionality as a White woman in the global world. Nor did
she consider her minoritized students’ marginalization based on color and socioeconomic status
(Taylor, 2017). Ms. Ward assumed her ESL students did not experience racism in the same way
American students of color experienced racism, because they came from countries where race
was not an issue. Therefore, using her racial touchstone, she had created a cocoon of safety
within her classroom. This allowed her to focus on dance, food, holidays, and cultural
differences and avoided the discomforting complexities of race, racism, and how those
phenomena shaped her students’ lives. Ms. Wards ideology was shaped by her experiences as a
White woman traveling abroad. She centered her students’ experiences based on her experiences.
Therefore, her pedagogy was structured based on her “safe” immersion in another culture. Her
racial sense making, created by her “touchstone,” allowed her to maintain her comfort by
sidelining the marginalization of her students of color, by ignoring how they were forced to
traverse the discomfort of race and racism (Taylor, 2017).
The research completed on teachers’ ideologies, specifically those about working with
low-SES, historically disenfranchised, minoritized students in urban areas, drew attention to the
importance of the teachers’ realization of identities and inequalities their students possessed and
experienced. The research and theories delineated earlier contend the relevance of education
must be clearly situated into the students’ realities. The literature regarding teacher ideologies,
stressed relevance was constructed because the teachers’ appraisal of their beliefs in students’
potential, was demonstrated in the teachers’ instructional practices. As apparent in the studies, an

57

educators’ ideology, their race or ethnicity, was the deciding facet in adeptly educating low-SES,
historically minoritized, racially and ethnically diverse students.
Culturally Relevant Pedagogy
It was asserted by educational researchers that for students of color, meaningful learning
takes place in classrooms where knowledge is culturally relevant, critically examined and
constructed by students (Bartolomé, 2008, 2004; Gay, 1993; Ladson-Billings, 1994). There is a
depth and breadth of literature on culturally relevant pedagogy (CRP) that is varied and
extensive. There have been multiple versions of the theory, all centered around effective teaching
practices educators may draw on as a means of providing instruction to historically
disenfranchised and minoritized students. In this section of the literature review, to maintain the
congruence of the literature and focus of my question, I included literature that described both
the pedagogical and ideological foundations of CRP.
Ladson-Billings proposed the concept of CRP as follows:
A theoretical model that not only addresses student achievement, as well as helps
students to accept and affirm their cultural identity, while developing critical perspective
that challenge inequities that schools (and other institutions) perpetuate. [She] term[s] this
pedagogy, culturally relevant pedagogy. (Emphasis in the original, p .469)
The following section will cover what Ladson-Billings (1995) asserted is the foundation of
culturally relevant pedagogy, a teacher’s beliefs, and ideologies. She put forth three principles of
philosophies successful teachers of historically disenfranchised students possess, these include:
conceptions of selves, conception of relations with others, and conceptions of knowledge
(Ladson-Billings, 1995, 2009).

58

Drawing upon a grounded theory approach, Ladson-Billings (1994,1995, 2009)
developed a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy by studying successful teachers of African
American students. Ladson-Billings (1995, 2009) contended there are three typical ideological
attributes among teachers who take use of culturally relevant pedagogy, those attributes are: 1)
conception knowledge of self and others, 2) a teacher’s conception of social relations, and 3)
teacher’s conception of knowledge.
Additionally, practitioners of CRP believe all students have the potential for academic
success and the role of the educator is to aid the students in making the connections between
their multi-faceted identities which are inclusive their local, national, racial, cultural, and their
global selves (Ladson-Billings, 2009). Teachers who use culturally relevant pedagogy have
positive outlooks regarding themselves as teachers and their students as learners (Ladson-
Billings, 1995). Despite the stigma associated with teaching low-SES students, teachers who
draw upon culturally relevant pedagogy recognize teaching as a means of giving back to the
community, they identify themselves as members of the community in which they work,
teaching is a service they provide to the community (Ladson-Billings,1995, 2009).
In Ladson-Billing’s (2009) discussion of the practice of teaching, she explained, teachers
who use CRP as a teaching practice believe teaching is unpredictable and perpetually evolving,
like art (Ladson-Billings, 2009). Furthermore, teachers who use CRP believe in the Freirean
novelty of “teaching as mining” or unearthing knowledge from the students (Ladson-Billings,
2009, p. 56). Moreover, Ladson-Billings (2009) contended that teachers using CRP are aware of
the knowledge that students come to school with, and that the students’ knowledge must be
probed and utilized for students to become achievers.

59

The second belief of teachers who practice CRP is the method in which teachers produce
social relations in the classroom. Educators who put CRP in place in the classroom maintain
fluid teacher-student relationships that extend beyond the classroom (Ladson-Billings, 1995,
2009). Culturally relevant teachers view teaching as a reciprocal process between teachers and
students (Ladson-Billings, 2009). Also, teachers exhibit a connectedness with all students and
envision all their students developing the same connected relationship amongst each other
(Ladson-Billings, 2009).
Furthermore, culturally relevant teachers develop a community of learners. This aids in
students creating a resistance to the belief of individualized competition, by forging collaborative
learning possibilities (Ladson-Billings, 2009). Educators working from a culturally relevant point
of view, assist students in caring not just for their own individual academic attainment, they also
learn to show concern for their peers’ academic attainment (Ladson-Billings, 2009).
The final ideological attribute the researcher asserted was prevalent amongst teachers
using CRP is that the teachers grasp what knowledge is, how knowledge is created, and finally
how knowledge is assessed (Ladson-Billings, 1995). Teachers who draw upon CRP see the
knowledge students bring with them to school, as a legitimate source of knowledge, and do not
accept the perspective of teachers as “all-knowing” (Ladson-Billings, 2009). Furthermore,
Ladson-Billings asserted that culturally relevant teachers believe knowledge is free-flowing,
shared amongst students and teachers, and in a constant state of being constructed by both
students and teachers (Ladson-Billings 1995, 2009). Culturally relevant teachers believe students
and teachers must challenge the concept of knowledge and scrutinize curriculum via an
analytical perspective (Ladson-Billings, 2009). Moreover, just as knowledge is diverse, teachers
who are culturally relevant educators believe assessments should be just as diverse and

60

incorporate multiple formats as a means of providing students an opportunity of show-casing
their brilliance (Ladson-Billings, 2009).
Culturally Relevant Pedagogy can be characterized as pedagogy of opposition and at the
core is collective empowerment (Ladson-Billings, 1995). The foundational compositions of
effective culturally relevant teachers are categorized under three tenets: cultural competence,
sociopolitical consciousness, and student achievement. Cultural competence is how students are
taught to value and honor their cultures, simultaneously acquiring knowledge of other cultures
(Ladson-Billings 1995). Sociopolitical consciousness allows for the solving of real-world
problems, using knowledge and skills acquired in school, to both identify and analyze the
problems within their communities (Ladson-Billings 1995). By blending both cultural
competence and sociopolitical consciousness, student attain academic success, which fosters the
intellectual growth, because of critically examining society and culture, thus gaining the ability
to challenge the status quo (Ladson-Billings, 1995, 2009).
It is important for culturally relevant teachers to have a sense of cultural competence.
Historically marginalized and minoritized students come to the classroom with the weight of
sociocultural expectations. These children feel the pressure of having to conform to peer
expectations, which may be contrary to what is needed for them to be academically successful.
In choosing not to conform, those students that attain academic success, find themselves
ostracized by their peers, thus becoming socially set-apart (Ladson-Billings, 1995). The issue
becomes how do the students learn to traverse the labyrinth that exists between personal and
academic discourse that are often in constant conflict (Ladson-Billings, 2009). The cultural
competence of a teacher exists in the way he/she equips the students to navigate among the
discourses, where the students can utilize their extra-curricular strengths, as well as apply them

61

to academics (Ladson-Billings, 2009). In addition to cultural competence, teacher must possess
sociopolitical consciousness.
Culturally relevant teachers must exhibit sociopolitical consciousness. Working with
disenfranchised students, teachers must possess the ability to take learning outside of the
classroom (Ladson-Billings, 1995, 2014). Investigating social inequalities to recognize,
understand, and analyze them, allows students to put their learning in context within their own
realities, being able to view the injustices within their own community (Ladson-Billings, 1995,
2014). Sociopolitical consciousness inspires activism, requiring participation from both the
students and teachers (Ladson, Billings, 1995).
Successful culturally relevant teachers construct students’ awareness of the world around
them, therefore students are open and willing to attain academic success. Thus, developing an
understanding of their community, society, and the world gives them context for clarification
(Ladson-Billings, 2009). The by-product of developing students’ knowledge base is not only
higher standardized test scores, also it opens doors to higher levels of inquiry, reading, speaking,
mathematics, and problem solving (Ladson-Billings, 2009). Furthermore, it is a teacher’s
steadfast belief in their students’ potential and capabilities that serves as the bedrock for the
students’ academic achievement (Ladson-Billings 1995, 2009).
Additionally, Ladson-Billings explained while research that stated African American
students’ position and culture does not correspond with school culture, students must still be
given the tool to achieve (Ladson-Billings, 1995). Teachers who teach from a culturally relevant
viewpoint, must ensure their students’ academic needs are met, in addition to focusing on a
students’ affective needs (Ladson-Billings, 1995). The researcher rendered this theoretical belief
from her research findings that successful teachers of African American students believe their

62

fundamental task is to ensure the successful academic achievement of their students (Ladson-
Billings, 1995). Furthermore, culturally relevant pedagogy claims students will develop a
cultural competence whereby they keep their cultural integrity and will achieve academically
(Ladson-Billings, 1995). She went on to explain, culturally relevant teachers employ students’
culture as a vehicle for making learning meaningful (Ladson-Billings, 1995).
Gay (1993) gave the name “cultural brokers” (pp. 100, 114) to teachers who practice
culturally responsive pedagogy. Cultural brokers hold the belief that teaching, and learning take
place within the cultural framework of various ethnic, racial, and social groups. Cultural brokers
establish a philosophy for the cultural context of teaching via the procurement of knowledge
regarding multiple ethnic and cultural characteristics. Furthermore, cultural brokers construct
knowledge and then convert that cultural knowledge into pedagogical practices, as well as serve
as change agents in the classroom (Gay, 1993).
According to Gay (1993, 2000), change agents include a critical perspective of teaching
and learning that allows teachers, as cultural brokers, to publicly challenge issues of power, as
well as overtly confront racial and social injustices in the teaching and learning process.
Moreover, there are important concepts cultural brokers (teachers) can execute as change agents.
A “teacher who is committed to institutional transformation and developing the skills required to
incorporate cultural diversity into the normative operations of schools and classroom” is a
change agent (Gay, 1993, p. 101). Furthermore, the researcher explained that the teachers who
serve as change agents could:
• Deconstruct hegemonic assumptions, values, and beliefs, embedded in the normative
structures and procedures of the classroom and school
• See how cultural values shape classroom policies, procedures, and practices

63

• Identify the instructional processes that are most susceptible to cultural conflict
• Distinguish the structural components that are most significant to incorporating
cultural pluralism into routine classroom procedures
• Relate well and communicate with student of diverse cultural, linguistic, and racial
backgrounds. (Gay, 1993, pp.102-116)
While Gay (1993) asserted teachers as cultural brokers and change agents utilize
knowledge of diverse cultures to mediate teaching and learning, she also stated students of color
must learn “to conform to the correct procedures and social protocols” (p. 97), school norms and
expectations. The researcher further explained that students of color who are unable to master the
rules of the education institutions, would most definitely experience “academic failure” (p. 97).
Gay (1993) asserted it is paramount to student success that teachers overtly teach students of
color the skills and behaviors, as well as the cultural norms, which are acceptable in societal
intuitions, in this case, schools.
Gay (2002) advanced from the philosophical foundations of teachers who support and
practice culturally responsive pedagogy to discuss the specific types of knowledge, attitudes, and
skills that are necessary for educators to apply the tenets of culturally responsive teaching in the
classroom. She asserted that teachers who practice culturally responsive teaching possess the
following: a cultural diversity knowledge base, the ability to design culturally relevant curricula,
demonstrate cultural caring and building a learning community, ability to establish cross-cultural
communication, and imbed cultural congruity within classroom instruction (Gay, 2002).
Therefore, culturally responsive teachers know students’ culture appears in many instances,
including how students want to learn. On the other hand, a culturally responsive teachers’

64

employ differentiated instruction to construct learning customized to all aspects of students’
culture.
According to Gay (2002), culturally responsive teachers must have a mastery of content
knowledge and pedagogical skills. The researcher argued that teachers are often anemic in their
knowledge of the ethnic backgrounds of the students they are charged to serve. Teachers may
possess some knowledge of frequently mentioned high-profiled minority contributions.
However, teachers lack substantive and in-depth information about specific ethnic minoritized
groups of people. Culturally responsive teaching necessitates teachers have an explicit
knowledge of cultural diversity to meet the educational needs of their minoritized students.
Additionally, culturally responsive teachers understand the specific cultural contributions and
characteristics of ethnic groups may include traditions, values, styles of learning and
communication (Gay, 2002).
Furthermore, Gay (2002) explained there are three important aspects to the foundational
knowledge of cultural diversity that teachers must have in order to practice cultural responsive
teaching: knowledge of the cultural characteristic and contributions of different ethnic groups,
acquisition of factual information about the cultural traits of specific ethnic groups, knowledge of
the contributions of different ethnic groups to various disciplines, and a deep understanding of
multicultural education, theory, research and scholarship (p. 107). These aspects lend themselves
to the design of the curricula needed for marginalized and minoritized students’ success.
Gay (2002) suggested that in addition to an ethnic and cultural knowledge base, teachers
need to design culturally relevant curriculum. Teachers could accomplish this task by possessing
knowledge of the three kinds of curricula that are most often present in the classrooms of
teachers who practice culturally relevant pedagogy (Gay, 2002). The first of the curricula is

65

formal. The formal curricula plan for instruction that are approved by policy and governing
bodies of educational systems and are complemented by adopted textbooks and other curriculum
guidelines, such as standards. Gay (2002) acknowledged that the instructional material in formal
curriculum plans for instruction do not present controversial issues and atrocities faced by
multiple ethnic minoritized groups in history.
The formal curricula trend was to avoid issues such as racism, hegemony, and
powerlessness. They are designed to give more attention to African Americans than other ethnic
minority groups of color and ignore the complexities of race, class, and gender. They emphasize
factual knowledge, while ignoring other forms of knowledge such as values and experiences.
Moreover, Gay (2002) argued teachers must be taught and equipped with the skills to analyze
curricular documents for quantity, accuracy, complexity, placement, purpose, variety,
significance, and authenticity of the narrative test, visual illustrations, learning activities, role
models, and the authors of the instructional materials. An analysis provides the insight needed to
make modifications to the curriculum needed to be inclusive to marginalized and minoritized
students. The researcher explained, “culturally responsive teaching reverses these trends by
dealing directly with controversy; studying a wide range of ethnic individuals and groups;
contextualizing issues within race, class, ethnicity, and gender; and including multiple aspects of
knowledge and perspectives” (p. 108). Lastly, she cautioned that teachers must be thoroughly
aware of the obstacles to culturally responsive teaching, if they are to successfully remove them
(Gay, 2002).
The second type of curriculum is the symbolic curriculum (Gay, 2002). The symbolic
curriculum is inclusive of images, symbols, icons, mottoes, awards, celebrations, and other
artifacts that are used to teach students knowledge, skills, morals, and values (Gay, 2002, p. 108).

66

Classrooms and school hallways are tools to advertise, and students learn from what is displayed
in those spaces. The researcher asserted culturally responsive teachers must be “critically
conscious of the power of the symbolic curriculum, as an instrument of teaching and use it to
help convey pertinent information about values, and actions about ethnic and cultural diversity to
students” (p. 108). Moreover, Gay (2002) claimed, a culturally responsive teacher’s critical
consciousness, aides them in ensuring the images portrayed in classrooms are accurate and are
representative of a variety of ages, genders, times, places, social class, and positional diversity
within and across ethnic groups.
The third type of curriculum Gay (2002) discussed was the societal curriculum. The
societal curriculum includes the knowledge, ideas, and impressions about ethnic minorities that
are portrayed in the mass media. This information can often be presented as inaccurate and/or
prejudicial and perpetuates the myths about life outside of mainstream American (Gay, 2002).
The images give credence to the view of minoritized culture as not as important and marginal.
Gay (2002) asserted, while the images are inaccurate and full of ethnic stereotypes, mass media
outlets, such as television programs, movies, magazines, and newspapers depict “cultural, social,
ethnic, and political values, knowledge and advocacies” and construct common knowledge and
ideology (p. 109).
Teachers who practice culturally responsive teaching must be aware of the impact of the
societal curriculum on various ethnic groups to shape instruction that can counteract the impact
of mass media (Gay, 2002). The researcher explained, teachers must teach their students to be
critical consumers and resist ethnic information distributed by the societal curriculum (Gay,
2002).

67

Culturally responsive teachers could build a community among diverse learners (Gay,
2002). The researcher claims, students from ethnic minoritized backgrounds come from
communal cultural traditions (Gay, 2002). Therefore, teachers should design more communal
learning environments. The researcher suggests that teachers construct culturally responsive
learning environments that emphasize, holistic or integrated learning (Gay, 2002). Holistic or
integrated learning, blends cognitive, physical, and emotional learning and in which personal,
moral, social, political, cultural, and academic knowledge and skills are explicitly taught
concurrently. In culturally responsive learning communities, teachers instruct students about a
variety of different cultures, in addition to their own culture (Gay, 2002). Furthermore, the
researcher contends that teachers help students understand that knowledge includes moral and
political factors and consequences, that requires them to promote social justice, for all people.
The researcher argued communication patterns are impacted by cultural codes and forms
of discourse (Gay, 2002). Teachers who practice culturally responsive teaching, with cross-
cultural communication skills, can decipher students’ intellectual abilities, needs, and
competencies, enabling them to effectively communicate with students of color (Gay, 2002).
Culturally responsive teachers can communicate with ethnically diverse students. Thus,
they have a better understanding of the knowledge the students possess (Gay, 2002).
Furthermore, ethnic communication styles differ from mainstream communication styles (Gay,
2002). People of color engage in highly active communication, the participants are highly
engaged, it is communal communication, the role of the speaker is fluid and interchangeable
(Gay, 2002).
This is in contrast with mainstream schooling classroom communication structures,
where there are protocols of participation in discourse, where the teacher dominates the

68

communication, and the students are the passive-recipients of the information (Gay, 2002). The
researcher argued that culturally responsive instruction is dependent upon the teacher’s
understanding of the cultural foundations of the communication styles of students of color.
Teachers who practice culturally responsive pedagogy can instruct students in styles of
communication that include how to code-shift. Being able to code-shift provided students with
the ability to “communicate in different ways, with different people, in different settings, for
different purposes” (Gay, 2002, p. 112).
The last component in culturally responsive teaching knowledge and skills is the
teacher’s ability to imbed cultural congruity within classroom instruction (Gay, 2002). The
researcher asserted teachers should match the actual delivery of instruction, to the learning styles
of the students. Gay (2002) suggested using the communal way in which ethnic minority
students learn fits well with cooperative group learning arrangement and peer coaching (p. 112).
Gay (2002) cautioned educators to be mindful to not confuse learning styles with intellectual
abilities. Like all cultural phenomena, learning styles are complex, multi-dimensional, as well as
dynamic. Therefore, educators cannot categorize all ethnic minority students into one learning
style; they must know that students could learn across various learning styles (Gay, 2002).
Additionally, she suggested teachers should learn to multi-culturize their lessons. This
meant to deliver instruction using culturally specific examples, stories, and vignettes, that
include mathematics, language arts, science, and writing. Those subjects have high priority in the
educational setting. Teachers need to have a variety of multicultural examples to use when
teaching ethnically diverse students (Gay, 2002). Furthermore, educational research had
indicated an increasingly vast amount of teaching behavior is spent on providing examples,

69

scenarios, essays, and pictures, to demonstrate the way information, concepts and skills are
implemented (Gay, 2002).
Gay (2002) described this teacher behavior as the construction of pedagogical bridges.
“Pedagogical bridges connect students’ prior knowledge with new knowledge, the known with
the unknown, and abstractions with lived realities” (Gay, 2002, p. 113). Lastly, Gay (2002)
asserted educators who practice culturally responsive pedagogy, must have a comprehensive and
rich collection of multi-cultural stories and examples to draw from while teaching ethnically
diverse students.
Researcher Delpit (1998) asserted that it is vital for both diverse students and teachers to
learn the values of the dominant culture, as well as apply mainstream behaviors and norms.
Delpit (1998) suggested:
That students must be taught the codes needed to participate fully in the mainstream
American life, not by being forced to attend to hollow, inane, decontextualized sub skills,
but rather within the context of meaningful communicative endeavors…and that even
while students are assisted in learning the culture of power, they must also be helped to
learn about the arbitrariness of those codes and about the power relationships they
represent. (p. 296)
Furthermore, she suggested the proper education for impoverished and minoritized
children can only be created through discussion with the adults who share the same culture as the
students (Delpit, 1998). All who interact with the children should have a say in how they are
educated: parents, teachers, members of the community in which the children live (p. 296).
Additionally, Delpit argued the good intentions of those who choose to educate children of color
are not sufficient (1998). She discussed the unintentional perpetuation of racism through the

70

choices and curriculum in the educational institutions by non-racist educators. The researcher
found that many educators had stopped educating children of color, and that oppression could
also come from “warmth, friendliness, and concern” (Delpit, 1998, p. 296). The paternalistic
system and lack of rigor has created a misleading system of assessment in the school system,
which negatively impacts minoritized, marginalized students (Delpit, 1998).
In a study conducted by Hawley and Nieto (2010), the researchers replaced culturally
responsive teaching with race- and ethnicity-responsive methods to improve the educational
experiences of minoritized students (Hawley & Nieto, 2010). The researchers use non-
euphemistic terms, such as diversity or cultural responsiveness, to emphasize the pertinence of
dealing with issues connected to skin color and the improvement of students’ learning
opportunities. Furthermore, the researchers asserted, “when it comes to optimal learning
opportunities and outcomes for students from minoritized and ethnically diverse backgrounds,
race does matter” (Hawley & Nieto, 2010, p. 67).
Stressing the significance of race and identity, the researchers contended race and
ethnicity were extremely influential in teaching and learning of minoritized students in the
following manner: 1. Race and ethnicity are influential in the way students respond to instruction
and curriculum and 2. Race and ethnicity are influential in teachers’ beliefs regarding how
students learn, as well as students’ capacity for learning (Hawley & Nieto, 2010). Additionally,
using terms race- and ethnicity-responsive to explain what other researchers called culturally
responsive or culturally relevant instruction, designates explicit awareness to problems
connected to skin color and the various ethnicities in improving students’ learning opportunities
(Hawley & Nieto, 2010). Further, the researchers contended educators must take three-steps to
effectively implement race- and ethnicity-responsive methodologies to ameliorate educational

71

experiences for racial minoritized students (Hawley & Nieto, 2010). These three-steps are
inclusive of: 1. Understanding how race affects teaching and learning, 2. Using race- and
ethnicity-responsive teaching practices, and 3. Promoting supportive school conditions (Hawley
& Nieto, 2010).
The researcher asserted improvements in education for minoritized students begins with
understanding the impact race and ethnicity have on behavior and attitudes about racial and
ethnic differences (Hawley & Nieto, 2010). Educators must know the labels assigned to indicate
racial and ethnic differences have no scientific basis. They are socially constructed beliefs used
to disenfranchise one group of people. Additionally, most of society is unaware or not fully
conscious of the attitudes it holds regarding those of a differing racial and ethnic cultures. Thus,
there is not an awareness of one’s actions or how others view the actions. Therefore, it is
necessary to learn to question one’s ideologies. Lastly, despite progress, people of color still
experience limited opportunities and discrimination. Yet, there is still hope that education is the
best chances for improvement (Hawley & Nieto, 2010).
The next steps in effecting how students respond to instruction involves investigating
commonplace beliefs about teaching and learning that diminish minoritized students’
opportunities for learning yet are perpetuated because they appear to be logical and benign
(Hawley & Nieto, 2010). For example, “to be fair to all students, one should be color-blind and
ignore racial differences” (p. 67). There must be acknowledgement of students’ race or ethnicity,
as well as the acknowledgement that those entities have been, and still play a crucial role in what
and how students are taught and what they learn. The idea of color-blindness is good, since it
means people are discriminated against based on the color of their skin, but it is not good when it

72

blinds educators to their students’ racial, ethnic, cultural, and linguistic differences (Hawley &
Nieto, 2010).
Another deficit perspective thought to be helpful to the success of students of color is:
One can build student self-esteem by reducing academic rigor. The belief that lowered
expectations and under-educating students of color, which leads to dismal academic outcomes, is
a common practice of educators who believe it will help students’ self-esteem (Hawley & Nieto,
2010). However, the evidence is to the contrary. Teachers who hold their historically
marginalized and minoritized students to high expectations produce better outcomes for students,
their learning is enhanced, and this leads to greater academic outcomes for the students (Hawley
& Nieto, 2010).
Teachers with a basic understanding of learning styles leads to the stereotyping of
students of color from a certain background. This leads one to imply that all children from
similar backgrounds learn the same way (Hawley & Nieto, 2010). Students learn in diverse ways
however, students of color and low socio-economic status, are in some cases more dependent on
the educational setting for learning how to learn, due to the lack of exposure to diverse learning
opportunities. While it is important to differentiate instruction, the incorrect use of learning
styles, can limit the cognitive growth of historically marginalized and minoritized student groups
(Hawley & Nieto, 2010).
Students must have good basic skills before teachers can engage them in more complex
learning activities. Students can simultaneously learn both basic and rigorous materials. For
example, Mary Cowhey (2006), demonstrated while teaching students the basics (reading,
writing, adding, and subtracting) they were simultaneously participating in discourse such as

73

philosophy and the civil rights movement, activities that required higher levels of cognition,
while making the curriculum diverse and engaging. Hawley and Nieto (2010) argued:
In spite of the broad and diverse, research-based, practical theory, asserting the key to
both effective schools and teaching–especially in racially and ethnically diverse
educational settings–the focus of administrative policy is the qualification of the teacher,
not the quality of the teacher. (p. 68)
The efforts to improve teaching tend to be a one-size fits all approach with the
assumption that what will work for one student will work for all students (Hawley & Nieto,
2010). Regrettably, and to the detriment of the educational attainment of students of color and
low socio-economic status, most ideas of best practices are not explicitly geared towards
culturally relevant pedagogy, despite the research that proves using CRP has been shown to be
an effective method of educating all students. Multiple researchers have studied the type of
teaching that has a positive impact for students whose backgrounds differ from that of the
dominant society (Hawley & Nieto, 2010). The following practices clearly delineate the
connection of effective instructional practices and of caring and trustful relationships among
students and teachers:
• Respecting and being interested in students’ experiences and cultural backgrounds
• Supporting higher-order learning (for example, engaging students in complex
problem solving while developing basic skills)
• Building on students’ prior knowledge, values, and experiences
• Avoiding stereotyping of students
• Using ability grouping flexibly and sparingly
• Adapting instruction to students’ semantics, accents, dialects and language ability.

74

• Applying rules relating to behavior fairly and sensitively
• Facilitating learning of challenging material by knowing how to deal with stereotype
threat, that is, some students’ beliefs that cultural myths about racial differences in
abilities may be valid
• Engaging families directly in their children’s learning. (p. 68)
In continuing with the theory of the importance of race- and ethnicity-responsive learning
environments, researchers have taken it upon themselves to educate teachers in methods of
examining, documenting, and using students’ funds of knowledge– [the students] “experiences,
skills, and competencies-via visits to students’ homes and interviewing members of the family”
(Hawley & Nieto, 2010, p. 69). Teachers learned the families’ expertise was as diverse as the
students themselves with families possessing knowledge in medicine, arts and crafts, literary
acumen, as well as entrepreneurial know how. Nevertheless, the funds of knowledge are often
overlooked due to the social class, ethnicity, or race of the family (Hawley & Nieto, 2010).
The bodies of literature on culturally responsive pedagogy explained and in others
discussed the way the methods of teaching and learning are heavily influence by culture, race,
ethnicity, power, and ideology. The literature detailing culturally responsive pedagogy elucidated
in this literature review provided an important foundation for understanding how a teacher’s
ideology and pedagogical practices often both indirectly and overtly strengthen the tenets of
hegemony. The is done by treating the cultural foundation, knowledge, and worldviews of people
of color as superficial, irrelevant, and deficient. The aspects of this critical framework are
grounded in the literature on culturally responsive pedagogy and discussed how teachers’
ideologies, level of cultural competence, and the ability to be critically conscious, have a
profound influence in the way teachers interact with students of color. Additionally, it impacts

75

how teachers choose curriculum, construct instructional activities, reinforce, and scaffold student
learning, and create opportunities for students to connect their cultural knowledge to the
curriculum. Furthermore, it provides an opportunity for them to develop their own critical
consciousness, affirming who the students are and adding them to educational narrative in a
positive manner.
In the next section of this literature review, I offer empirical bodies of literature that are
specifically descriptive of culturally relevant pedagogy and how teachers implement CRP in their
classrooms.
Culturally Relevant Pedagogy in the Classroom
An empirical study conducted by Cooper (2003) investigated three Caucasian elementary
school teachers at the primary level and their use of CRP with African American children. The
study revealed the difficulties of a teacher’s purpose and practice in implementing CRP. The
analysis of the Caucasian teachers revealed that most of the teachers’ ideological and
pedagogical practices were consistent with the research, where the focus was both African
American and Caucasian teachers who practiced CRP (Cooper, 2003).
An important difference between the Africa American and Caucasian teachers was the
Caucasian teachers lacked the cultural knowledge and experiences of the African American
teachers. The knowledge and experiences bestowed the African American teachers with a racial
consciousness that was absent in the Caucasian teachers (Cooper, 2003). Further, Cooper
explained that the African American and Caucasian teachers, in the literature on CRP, boldly
encouraged open discussions regarding issues of race and their students’ awareness of the unfair
reality of being African American, in a biased society dominated by Caucasians (Cooper, 2003).

76

The researcher admitted the existence of a lack of racial consciousness in teachers
practicing CRP was problematic to the teachers’ true effectiveness with African American
students. However, it was found that a teacher does not have to focus on social justice to provide
the tenets of CRP (Cooper, 2003). The results of the study provided the following culturally
relevant operational and conceptual beliefs of the three teachers studied. Operational beliefs and
practices are a teacher’s beliefs and practices that can be observed or heard. The data analysis
indicated two major themes that the researcher categorized as operational beliefs and practices
were: curriculum and teaching style (Cooper, 2003).
The researcher described curriculum as “what is defined as the curricular objectives
prescribed by the district” (Cooper, 2003, p. 419). The researcher was aware of the difference
that existed amongst the teachers, still there were three common themes present regarding the
literature. The commonalities revealed by the data included: a. a preference for text-driven
instruction; b. mastery of reading and writing, with a focus on subskills and c. insistence on
standard English in writing and speaking (p. 419).
Cooper (2003) defined teaching style as “speech or actions, largely explicit, that were
used to impart specific knowledge, values, and other information or that appeared to impact
children’s opportunities to learn” (p. 419). The fact that the teachers were individuals, with their
own teaching style, did not preclude the data from revealing several commonalities amongst the
three teachers’ styles of delivering instruction (Cooper, 2003). Further, this theme had the largest
number of subthemes:
a. a use of authoritative discipline style, b. an emphasis on structure and routine, c. a use
of clear instructions and feedback around curriculum, d. a use of verbal guideposts to
help children anticipate what was coming next, e. a maintenance of a neat and

77

manageable environment, f. a use of alternative teaching methods, including public
speaking, g. a use of animated teaching style to engage students, h. a monitoring of
children’s physical and verbal responses to instructions and events, i. academic mediation
as necessary, and j. a focus on teaching over other non-academic activities. (p. 419)
Conceptual beliefs and practices are beliefs and practices that are more abstract and
therefore inferred from practice (Cooper, 2003). The data collected revealed three major themes
the researcher categorized as: conceptual, including teaching style, personal norms, and teacher
characteristics (Cooper, 2003). The analysis of the data suggested the teachers’ conceptual
beliefs and practices, were the unexpressed reasoning for their operational speech and actions
(Cooper, 2003). This theme is present in both groups: operational and conceptual (Cooper,
2003). The researcher found beliefs and practices connected to teaching style that could be
inferred were a. focus on fairness, b. orientation toward the children’s futures and c. the teacher’s
professional dress (Cooper, 2003).
Personal norms were a category defined as “traits that guided the teacher’s behavior
above or beyond their teaching responsibilities” (p. 419). The researcher asserted there was an
assumption that all teachers brought personal norms into their profession. The study revealed the
teachers held a commitment to a set of beliefs that extended beyond the classroom, beyond
education, there was a specific focus on race (Cooper, 2003). The similar themes were a. respect
for and commitment to the African American community, including an expressed desire to
continue work in the community, b. empathy for African American children, and c. a developing
racial consciousness, and d. willingness to learn from the African American community (p. 419).
This final theme was defined as “personal attributes that influenced the quality of the
teachers’ work, including their ability to help children achieve” (p. 420). The common features

78

of teacher characteristics revealed by the study were: a. high expectations of self, b. high
expectations of children, including a commitment to helping the children develop critical
thinking skills across the curriculum, c. knowledge of subject matter; d. a hard-working,
reflective, positive sense of teaching self; and e. a view of teaching self as a second mother (p.
420).
Ladson-Billings (1995), the theorist behind culturally relevant pedagogy, examined the
pedagogies of teachers who were effective in teaching African American students who were
undereducated in the public-school system. She conducted a qualitative study that included eight
highly regarded teachers of low socio-economic students in an African American elementary
school in Northern California. The researchers addressed her bias in her choice of sample,
explaining she had a personal stake in the African American community (Ladson-Billings,
1995). However, in choosing this sample her quest for theoretical grounding that acknowledged
her position, was also problematic (Ladson-Billings, 1995).
The study conducted by Ladson-Billings (1995) examined the pedagogies used by the
participating teachers and the by-product, their students’ achievements. There were four-phases
to the study: one-on-one ethnographic interviews, personal observations, videotaping and a
collaborative effort within the group of teachers, chosen for the study to observe and discuss the
practices, via the viewing of their videotaped lessons. Phase one of the study, an ethnographic
interview, involved a discussion of the teachers’ backgrounds, philosophies of teaching,
classroom management approaches, ideas about curriculum, and parent/community involvement
(Ladson-Billings, 1995).
Phase two required the teachers to give the researcher permission to visit their
classrooms, randomly and unannounced. She would make these surprise visits over the course of

79

2-years, about three-times a week (Ladson-Billings, 1995). During these visits, she would take
field notes, audiotaped, lessons, and afterwards debrief with the informants. Phase three
intermingled with phase two, where she would videotape her visit to the classrooms (Ladson-
Billings, 1995).
Phase four was the last aspect of the information gathering process. During this phase the
researcher participated in the teachers’ collaboration, situating herself in the narrative, becoming
a member of the community (Ladson-Billings, 1995). The collaboration sessions lasted 2 to 3
hours, with the conducting a lesson study, whereby the teachers would analyze and interpret each
other’s videotaped lessons (Ladson-Billings, 1995). This phase of the study provided
formulations about CRP that emerged during the beginning interviews and that were confirmed
via the teaching practices (Ladson-Billings, 1995). From these sessions, the researcher revealed
three tenets of CRP: 1. CRP teaching required an ability to develop students academically, 2. A
willingness to support and nurture competence and, 3. The development of a sociopolitical or
critical consciousness (Ladson-Billings, 1995).
In her study of CRP, the researcher revealed that effective teachers possessed strong
beliefs in their students’ academic abilities despite the socio-economic status of the school and
community (Ladson-Billings, 1995). The teachers cultivated an ambiance of mutual respect and
collaboration, within their classrooms, where students worked communally to ensure they all
succeeded (Ladson-Billings, 1995). The curriculum was created to connect to the students’
realities–the value of their culture and the systems of oppression that impeded social justice
(Ladson-Billings, 1995). Educators who adopted CRP collectively grounded their practice in the
belief that all students could be educated (Ladson-Billings, 1995).

80

Milner and Tenore (2010) studied two educators from a diverse and urban middle school
to understand the attributes of teachers’ culturally relevant classroom management methods. The
authors focused on the educators’ conceptions, philosophies, and ideologies regarding culturally
responsive classroom practices. They delved into what the educators thought of their students
and their reasons for executing relational learning opportunities in the classroom. They also
looked at the teachers’ ability to comprehend the multiplicity of their students and establish
classroom management ideologies and method, that met the needs of their students (p. 576).
The study was conducted at Bridge Middle School (BMS), an urban school in a large city
in the southeastern region of the United States. Bridge Middle School was considered a Title I
school. Title I classification meant the schools received federal funds to provide students with
instructional, intervention, and other pertinent resources (Milner & Tenore, 2010)). The school
population was approximately 354 students. The student demographics were: 59.8% African
American, 5.6% Hispanic (Latino/a), 31.6% White, 0.3% American Indian, and 2.8% Asian
American. Approximately 79 % of the students received, or were eligible for, free and reduced
lunch. Bridge Middle School was selected for the study because it was known to be one of the
favored schools in the district (Milner & Tenore, 2010).
The informants for the study were Mr. Hall and Mr. Jackson. Both teachers were
nominated by the principal in the school. Mr. Hall, a Caucasian science teacher, had been
employed at BMS for 3 years. Mr. Jackson, an African American mathematics teacher, had been
employed as a certified teacher for 7 years. He had worked in the district for 10 years as an
assistant or substitute teacher (Milner & Tenore, 2010). Mr. Hall and Mr. Jackson represented an
important range of diversity. They possessed a range in teaching experience, in range of years in

81

the profession, new teacher, and middle career, as well as different ethnic and racial
backgrounds.
The authors of the study revealed four recurring themes that captured Mr. Hall’s
culturally relevant classroom management: 1. equity in practice: never give up, 2. Building and
sustaining relationships, 3. Dealing with the (for)ever presence of race, and 4. a family affair (p.
576). In Mr. Hall’s classroom, the authors found Mr. Hall clearly delineated between equity and
equality. Equality in the educational realm meant the same for all and equity in the same realm
meant providing to students, regardless of their individual characteristics (e.g., SES, race,
ethnicity), what was needed for them to be successful (Milner & Tenore, 2010).
He was also adept at using equitable approaches to build solid and sustainable
relationships with each of his students. Moreover, he was known for providing multiple
opportunities for his students to be successful, this in turn created the understanding between him
and his students his expectation for them to always do their best work. The curricular,
instructional, and management decisions demonstrated the high regard and value he held for his
students. Furthermore, the authors came to realize the principle of equity was ingrained in the
teacher’s culturally responsive management practices (Milner & Tenore, 2010).
The data from the interviews exposed to the authors that the teacher attributed students’
participation, success, and engagement in the teacher’s class to him building and maintaining
strong relationships with his students (Milner & Tenore, 2010). Mr. Hall went beyond the
limitations of the classroom to establish meaningful relationships as a means of connecting to
who they were in the classroom. Mr. Hall explained to the researchers, students were less likely
to learn from the teacher or become engaged in learning opportunities in the classroom if they

82

feel they did not know the teacher, or the teacher did not know them and their multiple and
varied identities. (Milner & Tenore, 2010, p. 580)
A commendable quality the researchers admired in Mr. Hall was his eagerness and
capacity to deal with the issue of race. Mr. Hall possessed a clear understanding of race and the
role it played in his teaching and classroom management (Milner & Tenore, 2010). Being a
White teacher in a largely African American school, Milner and Tenore recognized using color-
blindness could have had the outcome of students being disconnected and the creation of
obstacles to success for the students in the classroom.
The teacher shared an instance when he was called a racist by a student. To quell this
action and enlighten his students, it became a learning experience. Mr. Hall dealt with the issue
by sharing a story about his childhood, in rural West Tennessee. He explained to the students that
he had grown up poor and had lived off food stamps. He further elucidated his childhood by
saying he did not know what real money looked like until he was 15 and had his own job. His
sharing a story of his childhood poverty allowed the students to see him as a real person.
Furthermore, the researchers learned, “situations of struggle (similarities and
commonalities)” aided the students in connecting with Mr. Hall further making him human to his
students (Milner & Tenore, 2010, p. 83). Mr. Hall’s acknowledgement of the issue of race with
his students created a bridge for building meaningful relationships with his students, which they
argued was critical to culturally relevant classroom management.
The final theme that emerged from Milner and Tenore’s (2010) study of Mr. Hall’s
culturally relevant classroom management methods was a strong emphasis and inclusion of
family and community. He was critically aware of the multi-faceted roles he held, one for each
of his students. He was a parent, grand-parent, sibling, extended member of the students’ family

83

(uncle, aunt, etc.). He explained to the authors “that teachers must model “appropriate” behavior
at all times” (p. 584) because students were watching and saw teachers a role-models. Moreover,
members of a family cared for each other and were not willing to let members of the family fail.
This approach provided the lens for Mr. Hall to view the potential in his students. As with his
classroom, Mr. Hall went beyond the walls of his teaching assignment to build relationships with
future students, the community, and other teachers in the school where he worked (Milner &
Tenore, 2010).
In conclusion, Milner and Tenore (2010) learned Mr. Hall embodied his belief of
culturally relevant interactions. He visited other classes, took problem students to work in his
classroom, and assisted new teachers with discipline issues. His belief in family extended beyond
the classroom to the school and community at large. He firmly believed he was fighting for the
lives of his students, and he possessed a heightened awareness of the risk his students faced if
they were not successful in the realm of education. The other informant in the study, Mr.
Jackson, took different approach to his implementation of culturally relevant classroom
management
Milner and Tenore (2010) pinpointed three themes while studying Mr. Jackson. The
themes were: 1. targeting power among students, 2. immersion in students’ world(s) and, 3. the
role of teachers’ racial and ethnic background in classroom management and teaching. Mr.
Jackson identified the power structures amid the students of BMS; he used these structures to
create learning and engagement in his classroom. His focus was to develop an accord with the
popular students, get their buy-in for his vision of learning in the class. Once those children were
engaged, he would use the status and engagement of the popular students (students with the
power), to get the other students to follow (Milner & Tenore, 2010). However, none of the

84

students had a say in his vision, leading the researchers to believe that Mr. Jackson might not
believe the students were able to contribute to building vision for the class.
Additionally, Mr. Jackson emphasized the importance of the consistency of working with
the most to the least popular students. He was extremely aware of the need for consistency, as
well as students watching how consequences were handed out for behavior. His belief was being
“fair, firm, and consistent” with all the students. This was to ensure the punishments handed out
were not harsher for some and easier for others. Mr. Jackson handed out the same consequences
no matter the status of the students in the student power structure (Milner & Tenore, 2010).
Unlike Mr. Hall, Mr. Jackson adopted a sameness approach to his culturally relevant
classroom practices. Ensuring consistency in the manner that he implemented his consequences
was a way to make sure his students did not feel he was being unfair or inequitable (Milner &
Tenore, 2017). Mr. Jackson was intimately aware of students’ views and impressions of him.
Therefore, the systems he had in place were structured with that in mind. The awareness of how
the students viewed him played a role in his daily attire. His life experiences and other
colleagues led him to believe his appearance was a major aspect of his “image.” He believed one
should dress for the place they were going, not their current position. This idea was infused in his
classroom climate, he instructed the students to behave like the careers they aspired to. His focus
was the future of his students, as well as their present, and it was on display in his success as an
educator and culturally relevant classroom manager (Milner & Tenore, 2010).
The one aspect of Mr. Jackson’s culturally responsive classroom Milner and Tenore
(2010) were most enamored with was the teacher’s attentiveness, depth of knowledge, and
connectivity to his students and their everyday lives. Like Mr. Hall, Mr. Jackson was intimately
aware of his students’ lives both inside and outside of the classroom. Mr. Jackson worked

85

diligently to ensure he was abreast of the more recent occurrences in his students’ lives. His
position in his students’ worlds was tantamount to the culturally relevant nature of his classroom
management. He was able converse with the students in a relaxed manner, building cohesion
between him and his students, based on similar interests in music, videogames, etc. (Milner &
Tenore, 2010).
Mr. Jackson had children in the same age range as his students. He used his own children
as a guide for his interactions with his students. His culturally relevant classroom management
was evident in how he created connections with his students and being current allowed him to
build relationships. Furthermore, he was adamant about educators being conscious of their
students’ worlds. He asserted, immersion in the students’ world provided him the opportunity to
use the students’ experiences to enhance the learning within the classroom (Milner & Tenore,
2010). Moreover, he explained without the connectivity and being current in the students’ worlds
and life experiences, the students’ learning would be obstructed.
Lastly, the researchers were enlightened by the importance and unimportance of same
race and ethnicity within Mr. Jackson’s culturally relevant classroom management (Milner &
Tenore, 2010). The researchers ascertained Mr. Jackson believed his race was an aspect in
constructing relationships with his students. However, he believed it was more than just his race.
He acknowledged his initially him being an African American male did provide him with an
edge in his diverse urban classroom. However, it did not provide sustainable success in the
classroom for the long-term. He believed one must still build deeper connections, a consistency
and style of approach to learning, must be firm and fair, and engage with the students in an
effective manner. Sans those factors, he did not believe the teacher would be successful with the
entire group of students, may a small group but not the entire class (Milner & Tenore, 2010). Mr.

86

Jackson was adamant in his belief that a teacher from any ethnic background could successfully
teach in a diverse and urban classroom. He asserted if the educator was consistent and fair and
articulated the importance of education, they would be successful (Milner & Tenore, 2010).
The fundamental aim of this study was to enhance the theory of culturally relevant
classroom management. Its focus was the ethnic background of the teachers and students, as well
as the conditions of the study (Milner & Tenore, 2010). The concepts brought forth in this study
encompassed the following, teachers’ (1). understanding equity and equality, (2). understanding
power structures among students, (3). immersion into students’ life worlds, (4.) understanding of
Self in relation to Others, (5). granting students entry into their worlds, and (6). Conceiving
school as a community with family members (Milner & Tenore, 2010, p. 591).
In another iteration of the use of CRP in the classroom, Santamaría (2009) combined the
theory of CRP with the pedagogical practice of differentiated instruction (DI), and the theory of
funds of knowledge, in a complementary manner as a tool to provide instruction to culturally
language diverse and English language learners (ELLs). The author’s focus was to put theory
into practice by creating a framework for teacher’s serving in diverse classrooms. Santamaría
(2009) asserted the best teaching practices should be used for and be inclusive of all students in
the classroom. The instruction should be student centered and the teacher focused on the
individual students’ needs. The challenges faced by teachers in multidimensional classrooms are
academic, cultural, linguistic, socio-economic, etc. (Santamaría, 2009). These challenges are the
focus of the mainstream discussion and has led to several initiatives to address the challenges
that hinder student achievement (Santamaría, 2009). Each challenge is addressed in a different
way with a different tool. However, the tools used together in a complementary fashion, in a

87

classroom serving historically marginalized and minoritized students would provide the needed
supports academic success.
Santamaría (2009) asserted that using differentiated instruction is taboo because of its
usage in special education classes. However, the literature regarding differentiated instruction
acknowledges cultural and linguistic diversity. Therefore, the goal is to integrate the pedagogical
differences while simultaneously identifying teaching practices inclusive of all student’s needs.
Merging culturally relevant teaching, funds of knowledge, and differentiated instruction provide
a framework to reconcile theory-to-practice. The goal is a complementary framework to aide
educators in all phases of their teaching career work with students with various needs
(Santamaría, 2009).
Lack of attention to multicultural education has caused educators to discuss what was
needed to address the learning gap of historically marginalized and minoritized students
(Santamaría, 2009). The impetus for the merger of culturally relevant learning and language was
the passage of English-Only laws. The passage of these laws made it more difficult to serve
historically marginalized and minoritized students where English was not their first language
(Santamaría, 2009). In response, educators looked to differentiated instruction (DI), integrated
with culturally responsive teaching (CRT) to increase the academic success of historically
marginalized and minoritized students. The design of these educational approaches was to
provide the support needed for historically marginalized and minoritized students who are not
successful in the general education classroom setting (Santamaría, 2009).
Differentiated instruction has historically been associated with special education. Many
historically marginalized and minoritized students have been misdiagnosed and are
overrepresented in these programs (Santamaría, 2009). On the other hand, students whose first

88

language was one other than English were severely underrepresented in gift programs
(Santamaría, 2009). Additionally, teachers who serve historically marginalized and minoritized
students with various language needs do not want those students mistaken for students with
learning disabilities (Santamaría, 2009).
Although differentiated instruction (DI) was historically used for students with special
needs (gifted students as well), DI evolved from just serving one group of students to being
adapted and used for all leaners in the mainstream classroom (Santamaría, 2009). The goal of
this literature was to find a framework for the merging of DI and CRT to provide enhancement in
teaching practices used for historically marginalized and minoritized students. DI is defined as
mixed ability grouping. Students at various instructional levels are placed in cooperative/flexible
grouping formations. The students are provided with rigorous and relevant instruction to meet
their instructional levels. This is used to increase academic growth and provide individual
success (Santamaría, 2009).
This method of providing instruction is a socially constructed phenomena with a duality
of being a philosophical orientation and best teaching practice or theory (Santamaría, 2009). DI
is the recognition of the differentiation of instructional needs for students in diverse classroom
settings (Santamaría, 2009). It is comprised of the modification to three aspects: content,
process, and product. Content is what and how information is being taught to the students. It
may require differentiation in the rigor of the lesson. The goal is to ensure that all students have
access to the core. However, the level of rigor is dependent on the academic ability of the
students (Santamaría, 2009). Process is how the lessons are delivered and how the students are
arranged within the classroom to ensure student learning is engaging and stimulating. There is
fluidity to process. How the students are grouped is based on the type of content and the students

89

are moved around according to need (Santamaría, 2009). Additionally, students are allowed to
work with and assist each other in the learning process, no matter the learning levels
(Santamaría, 2009).
The final aspect of DI instructional guidelines is product (Santamaría, 2009). Product is
the formative assessment aspect of DI. There is an expectation of what the students would
produce, and their level of engagement is monitored and assessed as they were working on the
same assignments at varying levels of difficulty. Baseline assessments before, during, and after
the lessons provide the teacher with the data needed to deliver the enrichment, intervention, or
remediation needed within the mixed ability classroom. The diversity of the tasks is just as
diverse as the students producing the work. Hence allowing for diversity of expression of each
students’ ability based on the students’ academic ability (Santamaría, 2009).
The theory behind DI is based on brain research and multiple intelligence theory
(Santamaría, 2009). The brain research is used as a tool for identifying the diversity of students’
academic skills and abilities. In conjunction with multiple intelligences theory, DI identifies and
acknowledges the diversity in “smartness.” There are five guidelines within the DI framework
used to make differentiation doable within the general education classroom setting (Santamaría,
2009). The guidelines used for the conversion of DI to the classroom setting are clarifying key
concepts and generalizations, emphasizing critical and creative thinking, engaging all learners,
maintaining a balance between teacher assigned and student-selected tasks, finally using
assessment as a teaching tool. These guidelines are used with the elements of content, process,
and product to create the framework for using DI in the general education classroom
(Santamaría, 2009).

90

Content is scaffolding, centralized access, tasks aligned to standards and objectives, and
levels of rigor based on the students’ level of academic ability, adjusted as needed. Also,
embedded in this is the clarifying of keep concepts and the ability to make the content accessible
to all students, providing a depth of foundational comprehension of academics. Process, how it is
done, via fluidity in grouping, diversity in instructional strategies, and students engaging with
and learning from each other (Santamaría, 2009). This aspect of the DI guidelines includes the
emphasis of critical and creative thinking, inclusive of engaging all learners, and ensuring there
is a balance between student-centered and selected tasks and teacher facilitated, focused tasks
(Santamaría, 2009). This is inclusive of the zone of proximal development (ZPD) that allows for
students to engage with and learn from each other, while the teacher guides and assists when
needed. In the final element, product is the formative assessment of students’ abilities. There are
expectations and requirements for the students, they are to produce work at varying levels based
on the diversity of the class and the students’ ability. The data gleaned from the assessments is
used to drive instruction, create the learning groups, and used as a tool to modify the tasks as
needed (Santamaría, 2009).
Literature on DI acknowledges the need to modify instruction for Culturally and
Linguistically Diverse (CLD) learners (Santamaría, 2009). This is associated with equity for
historically minoritized and marginalized students and academic success for their non-CLD
peers. However, research asserted that schools must belong to all students, both equity and
excellence belong to CLD and non-CLD students (Santamaría, 2009). Furthermore, educators
can only care for and ensure equity and excellence for historically marginalized and minoritized
students when they come to understand who the children are from their (the children’s)
perspective. If educators do not know the students they serve on a personal level, they are not

91

going to be able to reach them academically. Given that DI was traditionally used with gifted
students, no guidance exists for how to use DI for CLD nor ELL students (Santamaría, 2009).
Therefore, the missing piece in the literature is how to connect the pedagogical practices of DI
with CRT to improve the teaching practices for CLD learners in diverse classrooms (Santamaría,
2009).
Furthermore, the researcher asserted although the theory of CRT is based on students’
academic achievement, the development of students’ cultural competence, and sociopolitical
consciousness, it falls short of including English language development (Santamaría, 2009). The
focus of CRT is culture, there is little to no attention paid to the diversity of language, which is
the main source of miscommunication in schools. The inability to communicate, unfortunately
leads to students being misplaced into special education classrooms. It is also noted that the
testing used to determine language status is culturally biased as it is administered in English, and
this leads to over identification and placement of ELD students in special education classes.
Moreover, the students’ language is their most important tool (Santamaría, 2009). Therefore,
when teachers are culturally proficient in the students’ home life and community, then the
teachers can access the Funds of Knowledge of ELL students. The lack of focus on the ability of
ELL students to communicate and fully engage in diverse classroom settings is a deficit in the
theoretical framework of CRT. With the awareness of the gaps in practice of DI and the theory of
CRT pedagogical practices and theory, the goal is to illuminate the areas that need to be
developed if teachers are going to equitable server historically marginalized and minoritized ELL
Students (Santamaría, 2009).
Given the historical context in which DI has been used, there is a need for it to be
changed to be responsive and inclusive of the needs of historically marginalized and minoritized

92

CLD students (Santamaría, 2009). Most often, DI is used for diversity in students’ approaches to
learning. There is focus on the funds of knowledge the students bring with them to the
classroom, but it is not used to drive the teachers’ approach to instruction. Additionally, CRT
provides the pedagogical link that is inclusive of the students’ homelife, community, and
students different approaches to learning that drives students’ academic success. Therefore, the
researcher contended that if the principles of DI were merged with the theory of CRT and Funds
of Knowledge, a framework can be used to bring theory into practice. A merger of the three
would possibly create the conditions for improving the academic success of historically
marginalized and minoritized CLD and ELL students (Santamaría, 2009).
The study took place in two Elementary schools in the North San Diego County of
California. The schools included in the study were known by the author to use what she termed
complementary best teaching practices of DI and CRT (Santamaría, 2009). The schools were
Bienvenidos and Xavier Elementary schools. The school were similar in demographic
compositions serving historically marginalized and minoritized students, with a significant
percentage of culturally language diverse (CLD), ELL students. The data collected was arranged
into a matrix elucidating the use of DI and CRT in concert to serve diverse students populations.
First, the researcher used DI guidelines to provide context (Santamaría, 2009). They were
content (clarifying key concepts), process (emphasizing critical and creative thinking, engaging
all learners, and maintaining balance between teacher assigned and student selected activities),
and product (using assessment to drive instruction). Next, those strategies were cross-referenced
with CRT strategies academic achievement, cultural competence, and sociopolitical
consciousness, as a pedagogical practice for teaching diversity. Finally, they were connected to
the guidelines for Funds of Knowledge that include identifying knowledge, skills, and practices,

93

learning process improved, and educational excellence for culturally diverse students
(Santamaría, 2009).
The matrix provided the visual connectors for the use of DI, CRT, and Funds of
Knowledge (Santamaría, 2009). The lesson observed at Bienvenidos elementary school
demonstrated the fifth-grade team used aspects of DI, CRT and Funds of Knowledge, while
ensuring the content and key concepts were explained in multiple ways during the instruction for
writing a persuasive essay. The lesson structure provided the content and instruction that
clarified the concept being taught. The lesson included the students being taught from the core
curriculum, with clear goals and objectives posted for the students. To ensure students’ success
during the writing assessment, an authentic example was provided as a guide. The lesson was
centered on the low rate of Latina/o students graduating then continuing to higher education
(Santamaría, 2009). The students were encouraged to think critically and learn through their own
cultural filter. This structure of the lesson allowed the students the ability to gain their own
knowledge versus having to gain an understanding from their teachers’ experiencing a
transference of knowledge.
There was DI provided based on the students’ language levels, disabilities, and various
other learning diversity. The lesson was provided in various formats and multiple iterations to
ensure access for all students (Santamaría, 2009). An exemplary aspect of the lesson was the
opportunity for the interaction between the students. They were allowed to work together at
various levels and use their primary language as a scaffold, accessing their fund of knowledge.
The topic of the essay was focused on Latina/o students continuing their education beyond grade
school. The topic was culturally relevant and responsive as it focused on their lives and
experiences within their community. It allowed the students to explore a sociopolitical concept

94

that impacted their lives and their community. Finally, the continuous assessment of the
students’ writing allowed for data driven lessons and adjustments as needed for students to
continue to be successful.
` The management of the classroom for students to think critically and creatively was
observed at Xavier Elementary School (Santamaría, 2009). The teachers used positive and
encouraging affirmations throughout the day to encourage their students. The teachers
emphasized the ability to speak two languages as making a person twice as smart. They spoke of
the strengths and assets the students possessed (Santamaría, 2009). Teachers allowed for students
to share their cultural experiences within their families and how they engaged in celebrations or
not.
There was a high level of rigor present in the classroom instruction (Santamaría, 2009).
In one classroom a teacher kept a poster of Blooms Taxonomy in her eyesight as a reminder to
differentiate how she provided instruction. This method was to ensure that she increased her
rigor and did not stay at lower-level instruction and questioning. Additionally, the teachers
provided a fluidity in students’ learning groups. There was whole group instruction and then the
students were allowed to move small groups and independent work (Santamaría, 2009). All
students, regardless of ability, were included in all classroom activities. There was no
competition in the classroom, the goal was for all the students to do well, student success was
celebrated daily.
One example of the use of CRT and DI being used in a classroom to be inclusive of all
learners was observed at Bienvenidos Elementary School (Santamaría, 2009). The diversity in
the classroom was celebrated, not diminished. The teacher ensured that all the students and their
families participated in the classroom community. The diversity of the community brought into

95

the classroom provided the students with positive role models that represented their ethnicity and
culture. The community members assisted the teacher with daily instruction and positive
reinforcement of the students’ academic abilities (Santamaría, 2009).
The teacher fostered an environment of inclusion of the students she served. The student
different abilities and ethnicities were also celebrated. In addition, she designed materials that
were core based and based on the students’ academic abilities as a means of maintaining a
positive view of themselves.
At Xavier Elementary School, in a first-grade class, the students were allowed to have a
discussion regarding the newspaper articles they brought from home (Santamaría, 2009). The
teacher provided time for a comprehension lesson with open-ended questioning regarding the
current events in the newspapers. The students discussed various articles, including the pictures
in the newspapers. This provided the cultural diversity within the lesson as the articles covered a
wide range of cultures and languages. The students continued to ask questions and the teacher
provided guidance for answering the questions, including looking at the globe and locating the
country in discussed in the article. The lesson continued and a smooth transition was made to the
next aspect of the lesson, these processes were centered around the state standards for student
learning.
At both elementary schools the teachers give the students baseline and benchmark
assessments (Santamaría, 2009). The baseline data was what the teachers used to guide their DI
instruction and to gather information as to who their students were and how they approached
learning. Using CRT assessment was not as aspect of students learning; however, the teachers
knew the students needed to be aware that they were being assessed. Therefore, the students
were equipped with daily test taking skills. Providing the students with these skills added to their

96

funds of knowledge and increased their ability to do well when assessed. At both locations
teachers and students were involved in monitoring academic progress. Additionally, the teachers
communicated to the students’ families regarding their achievement (Santamaría, 2009).
DI uses assessment as a teaching tool; however, it is not included in the tenets of CRT.
Santamaría (2009) asserted if CRT was inclusive of evaluative measures, the pedagogical
practices would be used more often and still suitable for diverse learners. On the other hand, DI
does not clearly outline practices for teaching CLD and ELL students. However, when both DI
and CRT are used together the practices complement each other and provide a framework for
best teaching practices for historically marginalized and minoritized students. The researcher
went on to assert that DI and CRT are lacking and the use of sound research in the key to best
teaching practices. The use of one or the other in isolation could lead to a lack of ongoing
assessment and colorblindness. Finally, the researcher contended best-teaching practices are
those that are attentive to the diversity historically marginalized and minoritized students bring to
the classroom. Using two different educational models and incorporating historically
marginalized and minoritized students’ funds of knowledge, may provide teachers with the tools
needed to ensure historically marginalized and minoritized students attain and maintain academic
success. Santamaría (2009) created a matrix for the merger of DI, CRT, and Funds of
Knowledge. However, the author did not fully develop how the theory of Funds of Knowledge
could be integrated with DI and CRT.
Among the principles of CPR is a fundamental emphasis on the integration and
affirmation of the various cultures of students in the context of academic learning. Furthermore,
the review of literature has revealed, students’ backgrounds are very much interrelated with the
multiple knowledges’ students acquire from their homes and communities. The knowledge

97

students of diverse ethnicities and cultures bring to the classroom, may be contrary to the middle-
class values that are entrenched within the educational institutions. Nevertheless, the knowledge
students of color possess is real, and is negated by educators who do not practice CRP.
The term given to the knowledge students bring with them to the educational setting is
characterized as funds of knowledge, by Moll et al. (1992). The concept of funds of knowledge is
rooted in anthropology. It is a theory that seeks to erode deficit-mindsets and pedagogical
practices that would further inhibit disenfranchised and minoritized students from low socio-
economic backgrounds. The theory of funds of knowledge seeks to bridge the gap between the
home and academic culture of students.
The study of funds of knowledge done by Moll et al. (1992) clarified how the knowledge
and skills students learn by community and familial relationships, some grounded in and shared
thru cultural traditions and practices, can enhance academic learning experiences for students of
diverse ethnicities. In the subsequent paragraphs, I describe the theory of funds of knowledge,
and it’s linked to infusing culturally diverse students’ cultural knowledge into academic learning
experiences.
Moll et al. (1992) defined funds of knowledge as the “historically accumulated and
culturally developed bodies of knowledge and skills essential for household or individual
functioning and well-being” (p. 133). Additionally, the researchers contended funds of
knowledge are inclusive of a foundational knowledge that students bring with them to the
classroom, which educators may tactically infuse into the learning environment.
The educators who participated in the research of funds of knowledge went into the
community, visited homes, and interviewed students, family, and community members (Moll et
al., 1992). This method of data collection allowed the teachers and researchers to gain access to

98

the types of knowledges their students brought to the classroom. Once the data collection was
completed, the teachers communicated the knowledge they had acquired about their students.
The information included their students’ experiences, skills, and interests. Furthermore,
researchers and teachers gathered information regarding their students’ funds of knowledge. This
changed their perceptions of the roles of the students and teachers within the classroom. This
change of role became an inquiry-based model of instruction. The students worked in a
communal fashion, created similar definitions, identified, and used a plethora of resources that
were inclusive of the resources from their personal experiences, home, and communities. This
knowledge was used to engage in research, reflect on their own learning, and identify other
questions for future research (Moll et al., 1992).
The bodies of literature provided an explanation of the theories, progressions, and
implementations of culturally relevant pedagogies. Since the introduction of CRP, by Ladson-
Billings (1995), there has been an overuse of the term based on the use of it by other theorists
(cf., Ladson-Billings, 2014). In some cases, it has led to the incorrect implementation of the
theory. More literature could provide better alignment to the concepts to produce a better
definition of culturally relevant pedagogy.
The bodies of literature regarding culturally relevant pedagogy presented in this review of
literature explained the ways in which teaching and learning processes are influenced by culture,
race, ethnicity, power, and ideology. The literature provided an analytical framework to grasp
how the ideologies and pedagogical practices of teachers both subtly and overtly reinforce
perceptions of hegemony by looking upon the cultural knowledges and world views of
minoritized people of color as deficient and illegitimate.

99

The exploration of CRP exposed the importance of educators’ ideologies, level of
cultural competence, and capacity to be critically conscious. This has an important influence on
how teachers interact with students of color. It also influences how curriculum is chosen, design
of instructional activities, supporting and scaffolding student learning, and creating opportunities
for students to share their cultural knowledge. Additionally, it is an aide in developing students’
critical consciousness. The aspects of culturally relevant pedagogy, practice, and ideology of
teachers that influence teachers creating meaningful learning experiences, influenced by cultural
and sociopolitical contexts, will be reviewed in the next section.
Meaningful Learning Experiences
Upon reviewing the literature, I came to determine that there is no clearly delineated
definition of “meaningful learning experiences.” However, “meaningful learning experiences”
are discussed as kinds of learning conditions, as teaching is conducted through constructivist and
sociocultural principles. In the next section, I review the literature on two learning theories:
constructivist and sociocultural learning that can create meaningful learning experiences for
historically marginalized and minoritized students.
Constructivism
Anthony (1996) contended that meaningful learning is an active not passive learning
process. It is centered on purposeful learning activities and active mental experiences.
Constructivism is the opposite of passive learning. Passive learning is a process by which
learning is relegated to rote memorization and assimilation of new information (Anthony, 1996).
Conversely, constructivism is the belief that learning is built upon existing knowledge (Anthony,
1996). Below, the researcher elucidated the assumptions of the views on constructivist learning:

100

• Learning is a process of knowledge constructions, not of knowledge recording or
absorption
• Learning is knowledge-dependent; people use prior knowledge to construct new
knowledge
• The learner is aware of the processes of cognition and can control and regulate them;
this self-awareness, or metacognition (Flavell, 1976), significantly influences the
course of learning. (p. 349)
A constructivist belief is that active learners are self-directed and self-regulated in their
cognitive processes (Anthony, 1996). Furthermore, the principles of constructivism state
“meaningful learning” happens in an environment where learners combine cognitive,
metacognitive, affective, and resource management competence to build new understanding or
awareness (Anthony, 1996).
Active learning has a duality for its definition. It is defined as active learning activities
and active mental experiences (Anthony, 1996). Activities depicted in active learning include
problem-solving, small group work, inquiry based-questioning, and experiential learning. The
learning is completely the reverse of passive learning. Passive learning involves listening to
teacher’s lecture, answering close-ended questions, and constantly solving problems students
have already demonstrated proficiency, even mastery (Anthony, 1996). Engaged (active) mental
experiences involve cognitive endeavors and establishing a position of intellectual inquiry. This
is dissimilar from passive cognitive experiences in which students incorporate new
understanding through rote memorization and practice of lower-level skills (Anthony, 1996).
While cognitive experiences and learning tasks are dissimilar, the researcher cautions
educators to be resistant to surmising that passive learning tasks will not make possible active

101

cognitive experiences (Anthony, 1996). Further she asserted when both active learning and
cognitive experiences are combined, students have a better opportunity for “strong
constructions” to develop within their learning experiences (Anthony, 1996).
The researcher used the case study method. She used two students in a mathematics class.
She detailed the attributes of the passive learner and the active learner in the same learning
environment, as a method of delineating meaningful learning from the lens of constructivism.
Anthony (1996) indicated the following criteria as characteristics of meaningful leaning:
elaboration strategies, selective attention, as well as monitoring and evaluation. In the following
section, I detail the distinct contrasts between the active and passive learner as revealed in the
researcher’s study (Anthony, 1996). The construction of the active learner details meaningful
learning through the perspective of constructivism.
Educators who use elaboration strategies aide students in making sense of new
knowledge and information through the addition of details, explanations, examples, as well as
cognitive images, that connects new knowledge and information to prior schema (Anthony,
1996). The student who utilized passive learning was dependent on the teacher for guided
instruction. They relied on the teacher to deliver the information, literary comparisons, and
teacher guided comments, guided the learning. Whereas the student who used active learning had
his own child-centered opinions, details, and commentary. The student with active cognition
readily responded to the teacher’s questions. Additionally, the student used the elaboration
strategy, not for teacher approval, but as a tool for an engaged learner to respond to the teacher’s
inquiry (Anthony, 1996).
Selective attention described the time and the caliber of attention the student expended on
learning activities (Anthony, 1996). The researcher explained for the passive learner, the

102

objective of the task was completion. The student’s goal was not making schematic connections
with the new information and the information contained in the student’s prior schema (Anthony,
1996). Additionally, the mental ability used by the passive learner was at a superficial depth of
knowledge. It was focused on recalling memorized facts and procedural knowledge. The
researcher asserted the more mentally-engaged learner used the following strategies to interact
with pertinent information: (a) selectively taking notes that the student believed were important
to the learning process rather than at the direction of the teacher, (b) attending to conceptual
material during review process, and (c) monitoring production and understanding so that the
student selected those parts of the lesson that provided relevance to the student’s learning needs
(Anthony, 1996, p. 358).
The use of monitoring and evaluation involved how the learner examined and appraised
their advancement in constructing new knowledge (Anthony, 1996). The passive learner adhered
to the procedural knowledge and strategies, instead of searching out accurate responses or
mentally demanding tasks. The actively engaged learner was adept at using strategies for
ensuring their work is correct, such as: giving themselves self-assessments, repurposing their
attention, reconsidering their sources of information, and requesting assistance (Anthony, 1996).
The author clearly delineated other circumstances that may have shaped the way the students
engaged the material during math class (Anthony, 1996). Pertinent aspects included knowing
how active or passive the student was while in the mathematics classroom, whether the student
was intrinsically motivated in math, understood the objective of the subject, and the student’s
degree of proficiency in the subject (Anthony, 1996). The student displaying passive attributes
did not like math. He held the belief he was not a good math student, until he realized he needed
to take math for his future career aspirations. Further, the passive student did not possess the

103

foundational knowledge and skills, neither did he possess academic knowledge for mathematics.
The engaged student possessed the foundational skills and knowledge in the subject of
mathematics and viewed the mathematic subject as needed for perpetual mental growth.
Moreover, the researcher claimed, there could be various explanations why a student was either
an active or passive learner.
According to Lee (2003), the constructivist learning theory illuminates the significance of
how prevailing depictions are “reshaped, expanded, and depended on the basis of interactions
with new learning” (Lee, 2003, p. 451). Constructed upon a student-centered philosophy, it is a
belief among constructivists that when students are engaged in meaning-making activities, the
students’ comprehension, as well as their skills set are formed (Lee, 2003). Further, the
researcher claimed, students are “reflective workers” engaged in cognitively difficult, ever
evolving, genuine, meaningful, and conscious thoughtful activities, which enables students to be
self-directed learners. Additionally, Lee (2003) explained, “self-directed (guided) learners make
important judgements and decisions regarding their work with the support and input of their
teachers and peers (p. 451).
Further, the researcher asserted the educational achievement standards are grounded in
constructivist thought (Lee, 2003). Educational performance standards explained the objectives
students ought to be able to do to demonstrate their proficiency of a specific task (Lee, 2003).
Indicators such as comprehension, inquiry, juxtapositions, formulating, and problem solving are
in performance standards and concentrated on mental processes (Lee, 2003). Constructivist
based performance standards are contained in student experiences and the multidisciplinary
conventions of mind that are needed for achievement in learning. Performance standards aide in
forming a culture of student academic achievement in urban schools and give-way to meaningful

104

learning opportunities for urban historically minoritized and marginalized students. Further, Lee
argued for an emphasis on effort-based ability and the use of genuine projects in urban
classrooms. Additionally, this affords the opportunity to create a classroom culture of high
expectations in which demanding and meaningful learning opportunities for minoritized students
are formed upon constructivist thought (Lee, 2003).
Lee (2003) claimed an effort-based focus has a positive correlation between student
ability levels and the effort put forth in their work. Focusing on effort-based learning supposes
that students’ learning is developed by ability and incremental growth (Lee, 2003). Effort-based
learning is supported by one of the major principles of constructivism: knowledge construction,
the continuous intellectual development of both teachers and students (Lee, 2003). Constructivist
classrooms that use effort-based learning are helmed by teachers who employ the following: (a)
push students to question and challenge, (b) encourage students to find solutions that are not
explicitly clear, (c) require students to explain concepts, (d) allow students to justify reasoning,
(e) urge students to seek information, (f) allow time for multiple drafts, rehearsals, or trails (g)
permit student to critique their or their peers unfinished work, (h) and teach skills in the context
of projects (Lee, 2003, p. 453).
Genuine student-centered projects allow for students to make choices, judgements, and
decisions in the completion of the projects or activities (Lee, 2003). Activities that allow students
to complete authentic projects, provide students with the freedom to include personal interests
and strengths, as well as include personal assessment and style (Lee, 2003). There are times
when teachers provide students with genuine projects with an assignment starter, enabling the
students to decide on how to complete the activity (Lee, 2003). The choices may include what

105

content to research and/or what content to include in the project. Providing students with the
ability to use and demonstrate both their intellectual and creative talents (Lee, 2003).
In further research of the constructivist principles, Patchen and Cox-Peterson (2008)
carried out a study of two science teachers as a means of examining how leveraging
constructivist principles can be a conduit for developing culturally relevant pedagogy within
science instruction. In their exploration, the researchers discussed the student (learner) as the
center of knowledge, and the teacher as the facilitator of knowledge. Additionally, Patchen and
Cox-Peterson (2008) claimed learners actively constructed individual knowledge, while the
teacher encouraged “cognitive conflicts” that were built upon the learner’s prior knowledge,
upon which new knowledge was constructed (Patchen & Cox-Peterson, 2008, p. 996). Moreover,
the researchers contended constructivist principles aligned with the following instructional
strategies: language-oriented practices, mental strategies from various disciplines, inquiry,
collaborative learning, discussion and debate, hands-on experience, and private reflections
(Patchen & Cox-Peterson, 2008, p. 996).
The researchers also analyzed the two types of constructivism, and they identified them
as: cognitive constructivism and social constructivism. Cognitive constructivism implied people
build knowledge and make meaning of the work through individual previous experiences
(Patchen & Cox-Peterson, 2008). Social constructivism contended knowledge construction was
contingent upon constituents of the community, inclusive of patterns of dialogue with others in
specified contexts. The researchers went on to further explain that social constructivism was
based on academic content, the establishment of relevance and meaning, support of dynamic
interaction, and the recognition and valuing of student language, culture, and experiences. The
intricacies of how constructivist pedagogy was transformed into teachers’ practice were

106

identified through four areas described as “unresolved issues.” They were student learning,
effective constructivist teaching, teachers’ subject matter knowledge, and cultural differences
(Richardson, 2003, p. 1627).
A constructivist classroom is designed as such that students, “develop deep understanding
of the material, internalize it, understand the nature of knowledge development, and develop
complex cognitive maps that connect together bodies of knowledge and understanding”
(Richardson, 2003, p. 1628). According to the results of students’ learning in a constructivist
classroom it appears constructivist pedagogy is best centered on a specific content area or subject
matter. But the researcher asserted, there is limited empirical research that connected
constructivist teaching to student learning outcomes (Richardson, 2003). Simultaneously, the
researcher appeared to discard empirical studies to compare constructivist and traditional means
of delivering instruction because the two instructional methods possessed a different set of goals
(Richardson, 2003). Additionally, the researcher determined one set of learning outcomes for
constructivist instruction would be a difficult task to achieve (Richardson, 2003).
Richardson contended that effective constructivist teaching is not known because
constructivism is a theory of learning, not a theory of teaching. Furthermore, the literature that
details effective constructivist teaching is typically compared to traditional dissemination
teaching and does not possess any examples of ineffective constructivist teaching. Moreover, the
researcher asserted the theory of constructivist teaching is grounded in constructivist learning
theory. This acts as a set of instructions as to what the teacher should not use from the traditional
dissemination method of instructional delivery. Finally, Richardson asserted that without a
clearly delineated set of guidelines for constructivist teaching, it is difficult to pinpoint effective
constructivist teaching (Richardson, 2003).

107

Current research on constructivist teaching agrees that teachers must possess expert-level
subject matter knowledge within their specific content area (Richardson, 2003). The opinion is
that a teacher’s depth of subject matter knowledge assists teachers in: (a) interpreting how
student understand the material, (b) developing activities to support students in exploring various
concepts, hypothesis, and beliefs, (c) guiding discussions toward shared understanding, (d)
providing guidance on sources of additional formal knowledge, and (e) correcting
misconceptions (Richardson, 2003, p. 1631). Richardson questioned the depth of knowledge
teachers must have to successfully practice constructivist teaching, specifically for elementary
school teachers. Much of the research on teacher subject matter knowledge for successfully using
constructivist teaching is restricted to the core academic subjects. Only focusing on the core
subjects excludes other subjects being taught, leading to a limited educational experience for
students (Richardson, 2003).
The problem was with cultural differences. Richardson (2003) explained constructivism
in the context of social constructivism. He placed constructivism as a belief that is “constructed
and practiced within our current cultural, political, and economic constraints and ideologies”
(Richardson, 2003, p. 1632). In this frame, the author created a dilemma to the universal nature
of constructivism. Therefore Richardson (2003) explained that:
Psychological constructivism’s roots are western, liberal, and individualistic (European
Centered), and much of the current approach to constructivist pedagogy, at least in the
United States, was developed with the privileged classes. He went on to suggest that it
was not clear whether less privileged and minority cultures are interested in the strong
individualistic approach suggested in current constructivist pedagogical approaches to

108

teaching give the perceived importance of community maintenance and development (p.
1633).
The author concluded by stressing the student-centered focus of constructivism infers
those students ultimately learn from various types of teaching, as well as students in the same
classroom may garner different meaning from the same content (Richardson, 2003).
Sociocultural Theoretical Perspective
According to Tharp and Gallimore (1988) the theory of sociocultural learning works
toward delineating teaching and learning processes. This is through the contention that learning
is a developmental process that takes place through social interactions that are guided by the
culture and context where the learning takes place. Additionally, the sociocultural view of
teaching and learning makes various claims regarding what students bring with them into the
classroom. It also questions the responsibility of the teacher in developing learning opportunities
for students (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). A few of the claims are the belief that first learning
happens through social interactions. It is believed students enter school with the ability and
experience to use higher-order cognitive and linguistic skills, and leaning is developmental
(Tharp & Gallimore, 1988).
According to Tharp and Gallimore (1988), the sociocultural perspective on learning
asserts learning first takes place through social interactions prior to the learner transferring newly
acquired or improved skills and knowledge to their existing schema. Considering the everyday
interactions with a more mature or older person, sociocultural learning theory presumes children
commence experiencing higher-order cognitive and linguistic skills (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988).
Additionally, the researchers expound that through everyday dealings, such as household chores,
children are first exposed and develop “functional cognitive systems” in which children learn to

109

generalize their newly acquires skills to new problems and known circumstances (Tharp &
Gallimore, 1988, p. 27).
Furthermore, the researchers explained the process of the transference of cognitive skills
and knowledge from the daily interactions to cognitive as internalization (Tharp & Gallimore,
1988). Moreover, it is during this process that the children’s range of awareness is formed in the
recesses of their minds and is translated to the individuals by the speech of others through social
interaction, and cooperative activity (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). Therefore, the consciousness of
the children comes from the actions and speech of others (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). The
researchers’ contended children are not passive learners in which knowledge and skills are
simply imparted (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). Instead, the sociocultural perspective of learning
places children and all learners as active participants in creating and modifying knowledge in a
mutual context, where learners both learn from and influence their environment (Tharp &
Gallimore, 1988).
In the opinion of the sociocultural view, learning can only take place in the “distance
between the child’s individual capacity and the capacity to perform with assistance (Tharp &
Gallimore, 1988, p. 30). The expanse is what is Vygotsky termed, the Zone of Proximal
Development (ZPD) (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). Researchers asserted through the controlled
actions and speech of other child(ren) begin to engage in autonomous action and speech (Tharp
& Gallimore, 1988). For skills and actions to become internal and autonomous, the sociocultural
perspective on learning asserted that all that is needed is action through guidance and
engagement (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988).
Therefore, the researchers defined teaching as assisted performance via ZPD. This
phenomenon is contained within ZPD stages one and two, where the teachers provide guidance

110

in different aspects of the learners’ ZPD (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988, p. 31). It is the assumption
of the sociocultural perspective that teaching has happened when individual performance has
been achieved (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). Further, the researchers contended that guidance must
be provided with a purpose. Once the learner can autonomously use a newly acquired skill,
assistance can become a hinderance (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). Finally, the researchers advised
even given the current limits of school practices in place that may block teachers from instilling
sociocultural principles, there are instructional practices that provide avenues for assisted
performance that include: the use of small groups and maintenance of positive classroom
environments (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988, p. 44).
The researchers explained that the social interactions through which children develop
cognitive systems are rooted in the child’s culture (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). Through
engagement with a more mature or elder child, younger children learn the collective worldview
of their community and the cognitive and communicative tools of the community’s culture
(Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). A fundamental principle of the sociocultural learning perspective
maintains that higher order cognitive functions, from a child’s social and cultural heritage will
move from the social location to the mental location (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). Further, the
researcher explained, this cultural knowledge is contained within the mental locations both social
and psychological (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). Once the development is demonstrated in the
psychological plane, much more internal guiding cognitive actions such a voluntary attention,
logical memory, the formation of concepts, and the development of individual volition develop
in the child (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988, p. 29).
Nasir and Hand (2006) propose that sociocultural learning theory can be used to
comprehend the implications of race, culture, and learning. The authors contended that race and

111

culture are commonly presented in the literature as a dual perspective (Nasir & Hand, 2006). The
first perspective brought forth by Nasir and Hand (2006) asserted that race and culture are often
presented as though they are one entity, positioning people of one racial group as homogenous.
The second perspective is that research on sociocultural theory tends to focus solely on culture,
not recognizing race and the influences of power and disenfranchisement of racial communities
of cultural practices and discourses (Nasir & Hand, 2006). Further, the researchers explained that
“culture is not race, however it is informed via racial and ethnic categories” (Nasir & Hand,
2006, p. 458).
In addition to their study on the gray areas between cultural and domain knowledge in
mathematics, the researchers discussed how learners differ in the same learning environment
and/or classroom, may move toward opportunities for development differently (Nasir et al.,
2008). Further, the researchers explained that knowledge is in socially organized systems of
activity that manifest as individuals plan and manage themselves and their goal through these
systems and dispersed by synchronized informational material and interpersonal facets of these
systems over time (p. 192). The kind of knowledge a learner acquires is not fixed, it is socially
positioned, relying upon the learner’s position, and methods of activity available for the learner
to practice in various communities (Nasir et al., 2008).
Wineburg and Wilson (1991) conducted a study of “good history teachers” via a
succession of observations and interviews to detail two educators whose colleague nominated
“expert practitioners know, think and do” in their social science (history) classrooms (Wineburg
& Wilson, 1991, p. 396). The two American History teachers used as informants in this study
were charged with educating students in classrooms with similar attributes: diversity of the
students in the classrooms, many from minoritized ethnic groups. However, they possessed

112

different instructional styles and techniques. Furthermore, the researchers claim both teachers
were possessed a talent for creating engaging and meaningful learning experiences for their
students. The researchers indicated both classrooms were alive with ideas, creating a place where
lessons continued beyond the end of the class, where the students continued to discuss history, in
other classes, beyond the school day (Wineburg & Wilson, 1991).
The teachers observed in this study used different methods of instruction and organizing,
thereby providing engaging classroom experiences for their students (Wineburg & Wilson,
1991). The first teacher engaged the students with using whole group instruction, with the
teachers leading by employing the questioning method, calling on student to participate in the
discussion, and indicating key ideas from the discussion on the board. While in this classroom
the researchers observed an engaged and active teacher, who was present in the lesson, and
expressive in the class discourse. The second teacher in the study employed small cooperative
groups, student debate, and presentation to guide the lessons in her classroom (Wineburg &
Wilson, 1991). The researchers describe her as “mute” in a student-centered classroom
environment, were the teacher only stepped-in during the small cooperative group sessions, to
give her students assistance (Wineburg & Wilson, 1991).
Even though the teachers used different instructional methods, the researchers explained
that each instructor possessed a depth of knowledge of history as a subject, this knowledge
enabled the teachers the ability design different, however engaging, and meaningful classroom
environments (Wineburg & Wilson, 1991). This was possible because of the instructor’s deep
awareness of the broader conceptual and theoretical issues of the dispensation they were
analyzing with their students, in addition to the larger conceptual themes in history that
connected to the specific dispensation. Via the broader historical frameworks, the researchers

113

explained, and clearly delineated history with a depth of meaning, where the stories intrigued the
students, with discernable patterns and trends over time, instead of a boring chronology of
names, dates, and events (Wineburg & Wilson, 1991).
Secondly, each instructor possessed a similar perspective of history, framing history as a
human construction (Wineburg & Wilson, 1991). Additionally, both teachers encouraged their
students to be appraised of specific aspects about people and places, neither of the teachers
deviated from having their students to analyze the importance of a historical event, or to evaluate
history.
Each teacher used the history textbook as a resource to enrich the students’
comprehension of historical events (Wineburg & Wilson, 1991). The textbook was not used as a
source of historical evidence for students, however it provided contrasting and supporting
explanations of history or assistance to guide students in their study of history. Both teachers
used the history textbook to provide a version of past events to supplement students’ initial
understanding of the historical context (Wineburg & Wilson, 1991). Lastly, both teachers
employed “instructional representation” as a method to “build a bridge” between the instructors’
experienced and mastered understanding of history as a means of developing the students’
understanding of the subject (Wineburg & Wilson, 1991, p. 408).
The goal for the instructors, who have mastered the subject matter, is to translate the
knowledge from the teacher to knowledge for the student (Wineburg & Wilson, 1991). Both
teachers in this study use a variety of methods to bring history to life for their students, such as:
analogies, demonstrations, simulations, stories, dramatic reenactments, and debates to create the
bridge between teacher knowledge and student knowledge (Wineburg & Wilson, 1991). Further,
the researchers asserted that the instructional representation is developed from the teacher’s

114

mastery of the content, in addition to the teacher’s ability to ascertain the needs, motivations, and
abilities of their learners (Wineburg & Wilson, 1991).
In another study, Ancess (2004) delineated the methods used by teachers in urban areas
to create meaningful learning environments in their classrooms that provided students the ability
to make both personal and collective meaning of the academic material. To create meaning,
students needed to explore diverse ideas from a variety of different perspectives and sources via
texts, images, other people, and experiences (Ancess, 2004). Further, the author explained these
classrooms were environments where students engaged in oral discussions about difficult and
contentious ideas including subjects such as: politics, religion, race, class, and gender. Via these
interactions, the researcher asserted, this enabled students to not only hear diverse perspectives,
additionally created similar footing among opposing perspectives.
Ancess argued that, to create meaning, there needed to be a belief that teaching, and
learning were thinking, problem solving, and responsive activities. Therefore, the researcher
stated, instructors had to create and organize subject matter and instruction that provided access
to all students, providing the knowledge the students would need if they were to completely
access the lessons in a meaning making classroom (Ancess, 2004). In addition, the researcher
delineated the broader conditions needed for the support of a meaning making classrooms.
Furthermore, the researcher explained if all students were to engage in meaning making learning
experiences, educators needed to collaborate, supported by the school policies and procedures,
and a culture that was supportive of meaning making instructional methods and practices
(Ancess, 2004).
The first characteristic of a meaning making classroom involved students analyzing
difficult issues such as race, power, class, immigration, the privileges of inherited wealth and

115

membership in the dominant culture, as well as the vulnerabilities of “the other” (Ancess, 2004,
p. 37).
The next characteristic was the students’ opportunity to develop and defend ideas
(Ancess, 2004). Further, the researcher recommended this be developed via an inquiry approach
to learning, which was best positioned to demonstrate how both abilities were formed in meaning
making classrooms (Ancess, 2004). In one high school located in an urban area, the researcher
identified an inquiry model where students developed and justified, to both their peers and
instructor, their own notions in the forms of dialogue and debate (Ancess,2004). Moreover, the
researcher asserted, the use of questions, multiple perspectives, and sources, as well as teacher
dissent and provocations were methods the teacher employed to provoke student responses
(Ancess, 2004).
The third attribute of a meaning making classroom was the chance for students to master
new subject matter, had success in the classroom and acquired confidence (Ancess, 2004). The
researcher described how two mathematics teachers connected meaning making with academic
content, via student collaboration and genuine tasks, which provided students with the
opportunity to practice newly acquired academic skills, while gaining new mathematical content
knowledge. Teacher number one employed collaborative student groupings of four to five
students, in which students working together shared individual academic problem-solving
strategies, this helped the students in the groups learn and practice math skills and knowledge.
Teacher number two taught math with genuine math applications for real-world applications. For
example, the instructor used proportions to plot pictures in a visual arts assignment, and
carpentry for a trigonometry task. The use of real-world application of mathematics provided the

116

opportunity for students to be engaged in specific academic skills and knowledge because math
was provided with real meaning in the lesson for the students (Ancess, 2004).
Packer and Goicoechea (2000) compared the constructivist and sociocultural perspectives
on human learning. They argued that the two theories deal with broader epistemological and
ontological factors of human learning. According to Packer and Goicoechea (2000),
constructivism dealt with epistemological formations, or the “systematic consideration of
knowing,” which is inclusive of what knowledge is considered legitimate and counts as “truth”
(p. 227). Whereas socioculturalism positions learning in broader historical and cultural contexts
and speaks to ontological issues. In this case, the researchers explained it as the state of “being”
or “what is” “what exists,” or “what it means for something or somebody to be” (Packer &
Goichechea, 2000, p. 227). Further, the researchers presented six themes that explained
nondualist ontology of sociocultural learning in which a person and the social world are
interconnected and shaping each other (Packer & Goichechea, 2000).
The themes the researchers argued can inform our understanding of human learning and
the relation between constructivist and sociocultural perspectives of the learning process. The six
themes included:
1. A person is made…
2. In a social context…
3. Formed through practical activity…
4. And formed in relationships of desire and recognition…
5. That can split the person…
6. Motivating the search for identity. (Packer & Goichechea, 2000, p. 234)

117

Combining the themes, the researchers asserted: “Human being are formed and transformed in
relationship with others, in the desire for recognition, in the practices within a particular
community, an in a manner that will split and initiate a struggle for identity (Packer &
Goichechea, 2000, p. 234).
Lastly, the researchers contended that even-though the themes are founded on the
sociocultural perspective, the themes revealed a pertinent connection between learning, identity-
formation and enculturation (Packer & Goichechea, 2000). The researchers argued that
classrooms are communities or social contexts where specific activities, or assumed behaviors
language, rules for behavior, and norms are continually established and reinforced through
interactions with teachers and among students. These phenomena influence students’
opportunities to access and practice their cognitive skills (Packer & Goichechea, 2000).
Furthermore, the researchers explained that learning is a dual process of “personal and social
transformation” in which the learning community (sociocultural) and the learner’s activity and
attitude (constructivist) are equivocally pertinent to comprehending human learning (Packer &
Goichechea, 2000).
Conclusion
The final section of the literature review provided a general summary of the bodies of
literature on constructivist and sociocultural learning theories. The bodies of literature depicted
on constructivist and sociocultural learning theories, explained the conditions that must be
present for meaningful learning to take place as specified by each theoretical perspective.
The summary of the literature on the constructivist learning theory elucidated the
pertinence of learning activities and classroom environments. These in tandem provided students
the opportunity to use their prior knowledge as a foundation to construct new knowledge.

118

Furthermore, this final section offered literature based on sociocultural learning theory
that explained how learners are social beings who acquired knowledge in fluid social conditions.
As reviewed in the literature, the social conditions of learning are powerful as students’
participation influenced the conditions of learning and influenced what and how students learn
within the conditions of knowledge acquisition (learning).
In this literature review, each body of literature was described separately. The literature
on teacher ideology positioned the practice of teaching in an asset or deficit perspective. The
teachers’ ideological perspective of their students was a major factor in the educational
opportunities provided to the students. The literature on culturally relevant pedagogy positioned
the teaching and learning processes in a broader perspective. These pieces of literature are where
issues of race, culture, ethnicity, power, and ideology played a major role in the students’ access
to educational opportunities. Finally, the literature on constructivist and social cultural learning
theories explained the conditions for meaningful learning to take place for students as both
individual and social learners within specific learning conditions.
In the following section, I offer the Conceptual Framework that guided my study and in
which I brought together teacher ideology, culturally relevant pedagogy, and meaningful
learning experiences from constructivist and sociocultural theories of learning.
Conceptual Framework
In this section, I drew from the concepts that were consistent with the literature presented
on teacher ideology, culturally relevant/responsive pedagogy, and sociocultural and
constructivists learning theories for providing the conditions for meaningful learning
experiences. A conceptual framework is defined a “system of concepts, assumptions,
expectations, beliefs, and theories that supports and informs” one’s research (Maxwell, 2013, p.

119

39) and was at the center of my design. Utilizing Maxwell (2013), I designed my conceptual
framework as a set of “actual idea and beliefs that you hold about the phenomena studied,
whether these ideas are written down or not” (p. 41).
My conceptual framework is comprised of literature that is limited in the inclusion of
African American and Latina/o teachers’ ideology, pedagogy, and their creation of meaningful
learning experiences for historically marginalized and minoritized students. My conceptual
framework served as the lens that guided my research, including how I collected, analyzed, and
interpreted data. Thus, my conceptual framework was the lens through which I viewed the world
and helped guide my research process, it was the underlying structure of this study (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016).
My conceptual framework emerged from my experience in the public education system
as a student and as an educator. My conceptual framework was constructed upon a triangulation
of three linked concepts: teacher ideology, the tenets of culturally relevant (responsive)
pedagogy, and meaningful learning experiences (student outcomes). These concepts and their
relation to African American and Latina/o teachers’ beliefs and expectations, how their beliefs
are reflected in their instructional practices (pedagogy), that in-turn influenced students’ learning
opportunities and ultimately their performance. (See Figure 2)

120

Figure 2
Conceptual Framework

Figure 2 illustrates the relational components I believed came together to triangulate and
explained how ideology, influences pedagogy, and learning experiences of historically
marginalized and minoritized students. Furthermore, I drew on research from Bartolomé (2004),
Milner (2010), Valencia (1997), Gorski (2011), Rist (2000), and Hatt (2011) who asserted
teachers who possessed a deep rooted systemic oppressive ideology, it negatively influenced
their perspective of their students’ ability to learn. This ideology is rooted in either their
conscious or unconscious beliefs about the home-life of the students they are charged with
instructing. Their beliefs are based on race/ethnicity, classism, meritocracy, blame, socio-
economic status, and the implied belief that the systematically marginalized and minoritized
students, viewed as the “other,” lack the educational ability and in some cases, do not deserve to
learn.
I drew on literature that specifically detailed African American teachers who possessed
the deficit characteristics, yet there was no literature on Latina/o teachers’ deficit views.
Therefore, the foundation for this dissertation was built upon literature used to describe teachers

121

of various ethnicities/races and their interactions with their students. However, the information
derived from the literature was used as a means to study African American and Latina/o teachers.
The literature I drew on to define ideology provided a guide to understand how beliefs
held by educators of the same race/ethnicity of their students, either negative or positively affect
their pedagogical practices, which negatively or positively influenced students’ learning
opportunities. The literature I drew on for pedagogy was the theory of Culturally Relevant
Pedagogy (CRRP). It provided a lens to comprehend the ways in which teachers may
specifically use CRRP or the tenets of CRRP in a strategic way to create learning opportunities
inclusive of students’ worldviews, that in-turn would create a strong foundation that is inclusive
of the guidance and support needed for historically marginalized and minoritized students to
learn the skills needed to navigate the dominant society. Finally, I drew on the limited literature
provided on meaningful learning experiences by the constructivist and sociocultural perspectives
of teaching. These provided the framework to understand how educators go about creating a
student-centered learning environment and explained how children (people) learn.
The three aspects created a triangulation that described those educators of the same
race/ethnicity of the students they served who may function from a deficit ideological
perspective, with no tenets of CRRP, to those who may attempt, yet fall short, to those that
function from an asset ideological perspective, where the tenets of CRRP are prevalent and the
meaningful learning experiences produced positive student learning experiences.
Ideology
I drew on research from Bartolomé (2008) as a guide how ideology is society’s
conscious and unconscious means of understanding the world that is demonstrated through what
one says and does. Since ideology is demonstrated by what one says and does, it is entangled

122

with educators’ pedagogy, and therefore influenced the way lessons are taught that influenced
students’ learning experiences.
I assumed that teachers of the same ethnic/racial background possessed a connection with
students of the same racial/ethnic background. However, the literature demonstrated that in some
cases this assertion was not accurate. I also asserted when a teacher’s ideology was deficit their
pedagogy was reflective of those beliefs. This lends itself to students having an experience of
rote learning and a memorization of facts. Therefore, if a teacher held a deficit ideology there is
an absence of meaningful learning experiences for historically marginalized and minoritized
students. This phenomenon is prevalent in educational institutions with a high population of
marginalized and minoritized students. I asserted in classrooms with these characteristics there
was a lack of engagement by the students, and the teachers tend to blame the students for their
poor behavior and performance.
Furthermore, I asserted in a classroom where teachers possess mixed ideology the teacher
may not use rote learning. Therefore, the students’ learning experiences are inconsistent. There is
some student engagement however it ebbs, and flows based on the lessons. In such classroom
environments there is limited inclusion of the students’ funds of knowledge, as well as limited
student engagement. However, in classrooms with asset ideology there is asset pedagogy.
Therefore, student engagement is high because the teachers view the students’ funds of
knowledge as an asset and the learning experiences are meaningful. All these instances occur in
classrooms even with teachers of the same or different ethnic/racial background.
Also, I asserted the teachers’ ideology should be evident through observations. In
addition to how the teachers interacted and speak to, with, and about the students. It should also
be evident in the interviews with the teachers, observations of classroom rules and expectations,

123

and the ways in which discipline is handled in the classroom. Moreover, if the teachers’ ideology
was deficit the discipline would be more punitive, in the mid-spectrum it would be punitive, yet
progressive. Finally, in an asset classroom there would be distinct evidence of a positive
relationship between the students and teachers.
Additionally, I asserted evidence of this would be viewed by stated beliefs during
interviews and observations of teachers interacting with students in the classroom. Further
evidence of teachers’ beliefs should be demonstrated in the type of work provided. The work
would be rigorous, scaffolded, inclusive of the students’ funds of knowledge. In a mixed
ideological classroom is it a mixture of rote and inquiry or busy work with no depth of learning.
Finally, I asserted in a classroom where the teacher possessed a deficit ideology there is
likely to be a belief that the students are not able to learn (Gorski, 2011; Hatt, 2011).
Additionally, with an unconscious ideology the teacher may unintentionally impose a deficit
worldview on their students thinking they are providing what the student needs when it is truly
surface level academics (Taylor, 2017). However, teachers with an asset mindset believe all
students can learn and they create an environment free of the tenets of Milner’s (2010),
opportunity gaps framework. I argued students’ learning environment would be one of
collaboration that is structured for all students to succeed. Additionally, I asserted teachers would
use pedagogical strategies designed to ensure students have meaningful learning experiences.
Culturally Relevant Pedagogy (CRP)
I drew from various researcher’s viewpoints and presented the pedagogical practices
teachers used when they possessed a deficit ideology (Rist,1970; Hatt, 2011; Gorski, 2011;
Milner, 2011), and those who use the tenets of asset ideology and CRRP (Duncan-Andrade,
2007; Gay, 2002; Ladson-Billings, 1995, 2014; Paris & Alim, 2014). I argued educators who

124

possessed a deficit ideology held low expectations for historically marginalized and minoritized
students from low socio-economic environments. In the literature, the teachers who possessed
these tenets were of various ethnicities, however the focus of this dissertation are the African
American and Latina/o teachers of students of African American and Latina/o heritage. Those
who held the dominant view of the narrative for the students of the same ethnicity as themselves.
I asserted the teachers of historically disenfranchised and minoritized students provided
students with the basic curriculum, rote-learning, absent of depth of inquiry, and no meaningful
learning experiences. These teachers while they are of the same ethnicity did not believe the
students, they served were capable of more rigorous instruction. Moreover, I argued deficit
pedagogy would be observed in the way the classroom was organized. The way the students
were grouped, how the teacher provided instruction, teaching some students and ignoring the
other students they deem uneducable. The relationship between the students and teachers would
be adversarial, the interactions would be tenuous at best. There would be minimal if any student
engagement and none of the students’ funds of knowledge and culture would be present in the
classroom environment.
Furthermore, I asserted students who are treated in this fashion are normally the children
who received the harshest reprimands and are sent out of the classroom for various classroom
infractions. I asserted the opposite of deficit pedagogy is asset pedagogy. This type of “asset”
pedagogy in a classroom environment is student-centered. There is a positive relationship
between the students and the teachers. There is positive and engaged communication between
teacher and students. The students are actively engaged in their learning, the disciplinary
procedurals are minimal, and every opportunity is used for learning (Milner & Tenore, 2011).
I argued the teachers viewed the students as highly educable, they provided them with

125

scaffolding, rigorous lessons, and a curriculum that is inclusive of themselves. Teachers who use
asset pedagogy are of the mind-set that all students are capable of learning, regardless of their
race/ethnicity, class, color, or the dominant stereotypical view held of historically marginalized
and minoritized students (Paris & Alim, 2012,2014). The teachers held high expectations of all
the students regardless of the dominant narrative. The teachers did not internalize the narrative
and do not diminish the learning opportunities for the students.
I asserted they provided the students with the knowledge to navigate the dominant society
and become successful (Bartolome, 2004). The teachers made sure the content is culturally
relevant and inclusive of the students’ funds of knowledge. Teachers who used asset pedagogy
ensured the marginalized and minoritized students they served were included in the educational
curriculum narrative. This provided a connection to the educational institution that is historically
absent.
Furthermore, I argued educators who use asset pedagogy have a relationship with their
students that extends beyond the classroom (Milner & Tenore, 2011). The teachers and students
know each other on a personal level. These positive interactions created an environment of trust
between the students and teachers. In addition, I asserted teachers are conscious of the negative
“hidden curriculum” and pedagogical practices. This awareness of the negative practices either
conscious or unconscious, may be what causes students to disconnect from the learning
environment, producing negative learning experiences (Duncan-Andrade, 2007). Moreover, I
contended teachers being aware of such outcomes and dealing with them in an honest manner,
assisted the students in developing an awareness of the negative practices and the means to
overcome them and succeed (Bartolome, 2004). I argued the instruction and classroom setting

126

would be student centered. It would be reflective of the communal nature of the highly
marginalized and minoritized students.
I asserted educators who used CRRP included the students’ home language, culture, and
sought out learning materials that are inclusive of the students’ culture. The teachers designed
multicultural lessons, if not in every lesson, most of the lessons. The goal was not to look for the
perfect teacher, nor was it to assume that if there is an absence of the fidelity of CRRP, then the
teacher is deficit. The goal was to learn if African American and Latina/o teachers of students of
African American and Latina/o ethnicity were inclusive of their culture. If this was the case, did
they include it in their pedagogical practices.
Meaningful Learning Experiences
In my conceptual framework I asserted the ideologies of African American and Latina/o
teachers affected their pedagogical practices and in-turn influenced the meaningful learning
experiences of historically marginalized and minoritized students. The negative perspectives
were based on the students’ race, class, ethnicity, and the presence or absence of the teacher’s
conscious or unconscious biases towards their students.
I argued in the final element of my conceptual framework, the theory of meaningful
learning experiences. In this section I contended, students’ learning either negative or positive, is
based on the pedagogical practices used by teachers. I asserted if the teacher was not culturally
competent, viewed the students as not educable the learning would lack rigor. Therefore, the
meaningful learning experiences for historically minoritized and marginalized students would be
non-existent. This was argued in several pieces of literature where the teachers did not use a
positive approach when teaching students, they deemed unworthy of learning (Rist, 2000; Hatt,

127

2011). It was evident in the literature the teachers created no means of connection with their
historically marginalized and minoritized students.
Additionally, I used Gay’s (2002) concept of “cultural scaffolding” and contended
teachers with cultural competency, possessed an understanding of the cultural diversity of their
students and themselves. This provided them with the capacity for a depth of respect and
acceptance of the students’ identities. They would validate and affirm the knowledge their
historically marginalized and minoritized students brought with them to the educational setting.
Further, culturally competent educators advocated for their students. They challenged the ever-
present hegemony in the standard curriculum. Also, they created a classroom environment that
facilitated the learning of their students by connecting students’ home knowledge (funds of
knowledge) to the academic knowledge.
I illustrated this connector on the asset section of the triangle. I asserted this educator
would use the students’ home education, cultural knowledge, funds of knowledge, as the
foundation for providing instruction in academic content and skills.
Furthermore, in the absence of specific literature that clearly delineated meaningful
learning experiences, I asserted that the constructivist and sociocultural perspectives on teaching
and learning provided a foundation for understanding how students learn and how “cultural
scaffolding” is the connector for the academic and social needs of historically marginalized and
minoritized students.
Since the information provided on meaningful learning experiences was scarce, I used
literature centered on constructivism and sociocultural perspectives for the construction of
meaningful learning experiences. This literature proved itself valuable for my dissertation. It
provided the theoretical and empirical studies that supported how humans learn. The literature

128

supported the assertion of the need for the connection of learning by the schematic connection’s
students possessed from their culture and home that they brought with them to school.
I used the constructivist framework, and I contended that African American and Latina/o
teachers who constructed truly meaningful learning experiences and opportunities for their
African American and Latina/o students, would build upon the knowledge the students
possessed. The schematic bridges and scaffolding created opportunities for learning in which the
students must draw from their cultural knowledge and perspectives to build new knowledge. This
method of instruction made the students the architects of their knowledge. It allowed for the
addition to the knowledge the students already possessed.
The triangle of the conceptual framework demonstrated there was a connection between
the ideology of the teachers and whether they used the tenets of CRRP. Additionally, if they had
a depth of cultural competence and an awareness of their positive or negative belief about
students of their same race/ethnicity, but of a lower SES. This was a determining factor in the
types of learning opportunities provided to the students. If it was a lesson with depth and rigor
that required students’ cultural knowledge and clearly discussed skills and strategies that helped
historically marginalized and minoritized students making meaning of new knowledge.
I asserted cultural competence and schematic connections are tantamount for students to
make meaning and be critical of what they are tasked to learn. I used the constructivist
perspective and conceptualized a triangle of student learning based on teachers’ ideology and
pedagogical choices. I argued if the teacher possessed a deficit perspective constructivism was
absent from the learning environment. If the teacher was mid-range on the triangle some
constructivism maybe present. Finally, if the teacher possessed an asset ideological perspective
constructivism would be present.

129

Furthermore, the student engagement would be dependent upon where the teacher is on
the triangle it would range from limited to highly engaged. Teachers on the asset end would have
lessons infused with students’ cultures. The dialogue in the classroom would be rich with the
students’ home language and academic language. The teacher would act as a facilitator of
knowledge, not a warden charged with providing limited educational growth and meaning
learning experiences. In a classroom with an asset-minded teacher there would be constant
inquiry, rigorous lessons, challenges to the hegemonic perspective, and the students’ cultures are
prominently included in the academic environment. This is a highly student-centered
environment.
I asserted a creation of meaningful learning experiences of African American and
Latina/o students are a merger of two distinct theories: constructivist perspective which was
explained in the preceding paragraphs, and sociocultural perspective that will be explained in the
following paragraphs. The sociocultural perspective on teaching and learning asserted the
process of teaching and learning is the product of the social interactions between teachers and
students and students and student in specific social contexts. These social interactions are
grounded in the relationships with a teacher who uses tenets of CRP, accepting of students’
perspectives of the world, and uses their prior knowledge and existing schema to design a
learning environment where their affect is low, and the focus is the success of historically
marginalized and minoritized students.
Furthermore, the classroom is a communal environment. This environment promotes the
success of the group. There are no tenets of meritocracy present in the classroom. The teacher
has a cooperative learning environment and uses the tenets of “zone of proximal development”

130

(ZPD) as an instructional strategy. The classroom structure designed by the teacher is to use
other students as “teachers” and the teacher maintains the status of facilitator of knowledge.
The merger of constructivist and sociocultural viewpoints on learning provided the
foundation for understanding the process of how humans learn. The complicated nature of
meaningful learning experiences is positioned in the triangulation of the viewpoints of
constructivist and sociocultural learning. This merger is contained in the fluidity of learning,
through students’ perception of learning and the social and cultural setting where learning
occurs. These theories are not opposites, they explained learning as a duality of personal and
social transformation (Packer & Goicoechea, 2000).
Further, it is tantamount for African American and Latina/o teachers of historically
marginalized and minoritized students, to possess a depth of cultural competence, are unbiased,
are aware of the systemic deficit perspective of students of this group, and design learning
opportunities (daily), to ensure their students are situated in the narrative in a positive light. The
saliency of this is the connection between the African American and Latina/o teacher’s
ideological perspective of African American and Latina/o students. Additionally, the pedagogical
practices/choices based on their ideology, which influences the learning opportunities provided
to the students, as well as the student learning outcomes.
Conclusion
This chapter provided a theory of the phenomena that I researched which informed my
approach to answer my research question. I argued that an African American and Latina/o
teacher’s ideology regarding their historically marginalized and minoritized (African American
and Latina/o) students significantly influenced teachers’ expectations of the students they served.
Furthermore, the teachers’ beliefs, whether conscious or unconscious, influenced their

131

pedagogical practices used in the classroom when teaching historically marginalized and
minoritized students. The combination of the teachers’ ideology and pedagogy influenced the
meaningful learning opportunities provided to historically marginalized and minoritized students.

132

Chapter Three: Methods
This chapter describes the qualitative approach, instrumentation, and data collection
methods I used to conduct this study. The purpose of this study was to investigate how one
African American and Latina teachers’ ideologies of historically marginalized and minoritized,
low socio-economic student of the same ancestry was demonstrated through their pedagogical
practices and the meaningful learning opportunities provided to the students.
In the first section of this chapter, I discuss my rationale for selecting a qualitative
research design. Then I describe my sampling procedures and population used for the two case
studies, including the reasons for choosing the research location. Next, I describe the data
collections procedures I used in my study. Finally, detail the data analysis procedures I used.
Research Design
This study called for a qualitative research design as I was interested in investigating how
African American and Latino/a teachers’ ideology and pedagogical practices shaped African
American and Latino/a students’ learning experiences. Qualitative research is about
understanding how people decipher the events in their lives with the data to be collected and
analyzed taking the form of words and pictures instead of numbers and statistics (the process
used in quantitative research data collection) (Merriam, 2009). Furthermore, Merriam and Tisdell
(2016) say qualitative methods are appropriate when, “Rather than determining cause and effect,
predicting, or describing the distribution of some attribute among a population, we might be
interested in uncovering the meaning of a phenomenon for those involved” (pp. 5-6).
For this research design, I used a qualitative case study approach (Meriam & Tisdell,
2016) where I was the primary instrument and collected rich, descriptive data for analysis. The
informants for analysis for this study were two teachers from two different elementary schools.

133

Each served as a bounded system as I studied them as individuals inside of their classrooms.
They were delimited case examples of the phenomenon I studied. Consistent with Creswell
(2013), anything left outside of that bounded context was left out of the study. Using a
qualitative case study approach allowed me to collect data from my subjects of interest partly
through direct observations and partly through a semi-structured interview process.
Sample and Population
I set out to acquire an understanding of how the ideologies of teachers from historically
marginalized communities shaped their pedagogical practices and the types of learning
experiences they created for their students from historically marginalized communities. For this
study purposeful sampling was used to identify participants. Purposeful sampling is used so that
the researcher can choose a sample from which the most can be learned because they have the
specific experiences that are the key to the purpose of the inquiry (Chein, 1981, Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016; Patton, 2015). Merriam and Tisdell (2016) suggest deciding on a set of criteria that
are fundamental in choosing the respondents and the sites to be studied to obtain thorough
information that directly reflects the purpose of the study. Next, I discuss the process I used to
select my school sites and participants.
Site Selection
This is an urban district in the South Bay of Southern California. I started my teaching
career in this district. I worked in the elementary schools, and I did not like the way students
were being taught. I did not understand the limited educational opportunities being provided and
how retention and classification in special education was the means of providing intervention. I
left the elementary setting and went to the secondary level to find out why students were being
retained multiple times and there was not real support in place for students to succeed if they

134

were struggling. I wanted to know why and help the students that were not moving forward in
their educational journey. I saw there was a disconnect between the elementary grades and the
secondary grades. Furthermore, the elementary teachers and secondary teachers lack
collaboration, this created difficulties for the students matriculating to the secondary level.
Once I settled on completing the study in this district, I requested a meeting with the
Chief Academic Offices (CAO) of this district to formally request approval (Appendix D). When
I was granted the meeting, I explained my study. The CAO sent me a notice through email
stating my proposal would have to be approved by the district’s cabinet. I received another email
indicating it was approved and I began the process of locating the informants who fit the criteria
for my study. This urban district had a significant percentage of African American and Latina/o
teachers in the district, this was one of the criteria of my study. The other criteria were the
teachers had to be born and educated in the United States, working with African American and
Latina/o students. I needed an African American born in America and a Latino/a teacher born in
America. This was necessary to ensure the teachers had some, if not all the same experiences as
the students they taught. Based on the demographics of the school districts, according to the
districts school accountability report cards (SARCs) there was a high percentage of African
American and Latina/o students enrolled in the district.
Based on the SARCs I called and visited the elementary schools in the school district. I
learned that visiting the sites was better than calling the sites. I left my documents with the office
managers at various sites. The office managers received my summary of my study and my
informed consent page. After a few days, none of the principals responded. I visited the sites
again, and I spoke with office managers to gain access to the principals and check the
demographic composition of the teachers. I realized the specific informants needed for my study

135

were not present at all the school sites. I did not receive a response from any of the sites I
contacted. I was told by an office manager at one site there were no teachers of the specific
demographics teaching at the site. Finally, I re-visited two sites, one located on the southwest
side of the district, and another located on the northwest side of the district. I revisited the two
sites because I reviewed the staff rosters and located two teachers in the preferred grade levels
that I hoped would agree to participate in my study. I spoke with the principals regarding my
study. I told them about my study, I gave them the documents I shared with the CAO and office
manager, and they granted me access. The principal at the northwest side of the district allowed
me to ask the teacher myself. The principal at the school on the southwest side of the district
recommended a teacher and I went with that choice. At each of the sites, I found one informant
who fit the criteria for my study. At the school on the southwest side of the district there was an
African American teacher with combination class of kindergarten and first grade students. At the
northwest location there was one second grade class with a Latina teacher.
Participant Selection
The participants in my study were elementary school teachers (one African American and
one Latino/a), who taught predominately African American and Latino/a students. I used
purposeful sampling. Purposeful sampling is used when the researcher chooses a sample from
whom the most can be learned from respondents because they have the specific experience that
is key to the purpose of the study (Merriam, 2009; Patton, 2015). I met with each of the teachers,
provided them with the informed consent form (appendix f) and created a schedule to begin my
data collection. I checked the class rosters after I met with the teachers to make sure the students
met the demographic requirements of the study, which were predominantly African American
and Latina/o students born in the United States.

136

Teacher Criteria. The teachers selected to participate in the study were chosen based on the
principal recommendations, inquiry into teacher ethnicity, educational information, grade level
and finally the classroom rosters. I learned that many of the teachers were from the continent of
Africa, the Caribbean Islands, and other countries. There were also many teachers of Asian and
Caucasian decent. After the teachers were recommended, I met with the teachers asked provided
them with the informed consents and overview of my study. Both teachers met the criteria of the
study. Then I asked about their classroom compositions and to see the classroom rosters. Once I
reviewed the rosters and the teachers met the criteria, I set up a schedule with the teachers to
begin data collection.
Instrumentation and Data Collection Procedures
I employed the use of interviews and observations, as methods of data collection to
understand and examine how one African American and one Latina teachers’ academic and
behavioral expectations were revealed in their instructional practices and shaped their African
American and Latino/a students’ learning opportunities.
Interviews
Patton (2002) explained that interviewing provides the researcher with an entrance into
another person’s perspective. Interviews allow the researcher to gain an understanding of
feelings, behaviors, thoughts, and intentions that cannot be observed (Patton, 2002). I conducted
two formal interviews with the Latina teacher and two with the African American teacher.
Interviewing the African American teacher was more difficult as she was hesitant to continue
with the study. Therefore, her interview process was spread out over several days. Each formal
interview was approximately 1 to 1 ½ -hours in length. The interviews for each of the teachers
ranged between 8 to 12 hours. I conducted one interview prior to observing the teacher and one

137

at the end of data collection. In addition to the formal interviews, I conducted approximately 4 to
5 informal interviews per teacher, each interview as approximately 30 to 45 minutes. I moved
through the observation period and used those interviews to ask questions about interactions
between the teachers and their students or activities that took place while I was observing that
were not clear in the moment.
Consistent with Merriam (2009), I used semi-structured interviews and a mix of both
structured and less structured questions about issues related to the topics being explored by the
researcher. A semi-structured format allowed the teachers to describe their perceptions, beliefs,
and experiences in detail. I was particularly interested in understanding whether the teachers
were rooted in the tenets of asset, deficit, or mixed ideology. Some of the questions were more
structured to understand constructs from my conceptual framework (i.e., low expectations, high
expectations, use of students’ home language, culture, cultural scaffolding, the use of prior
knowledge, zone of proximal development, teachers as facilitators, cultural competence).
I used the semi-structured interview protocols (Appendix C and D) to ask each teacher
the same set of questions in the same order, allowing for open-ended responses and using
probing questions to clarify or gain additional information from the participants (Merriam,
2009). My interview protocols drew upon various types of questions such as opinion/value,
knowledge, and hypothetical (Merriam, 2009). For the informal interviews, I asked questions
that emerged because of the observations I was conducting. The types of questions that came
about were: why are students punished for going to the restroom? Did you realize most of the
students in the low reading group are African American? Why are there three different behavior
guides in the classroom? This also provided the participants an opportunity to describe their
thought processes or intentions behind the observed practices.

138

Observations
I observed each teacher in her classroom to understand how their ideological and
pedagogical practices were revealed in their interactions with their students and how they shaped
students’ learning opportunities. Observations took place from October to December, for 12 to
15 days, for a total of 24 to 36 hours. During the observations I used an observation protocol
(Appendix E) to collect field notes. The protocol directed me to capture the physical setting,
participants, activities and interactions, conversations, subtle factors, and observer’s own
behavior (Merriam, 2009). The observations allowed me to record the teachers’ and the students’
interactions and behaviors as they occurred (Merriam, 2009).
My observations focused on the pedagogical practices from my conceptual framework
including the teachers’ expectations, student groupings, types of activities used by the teacher
and students, curriculum materials used by the teacher and students, use of students’ cultural
backgrounds, and the explicit discussion of the unwritten curriculum and societal oppressions
faced by the students. I also captured the way teachers constructed students’ learning
opportunities (e.g., if they allowed their students to construct, contest and disseminate knowledge
to the teacher and the students’ peers). I wanted to see if students were allowed a voice in the
classroom or whether to learning environment is dominated by the actions of the teacher.
Additionally, I observed the reactions that students had to their teachers.
Data Analysis
Data from this qualitative study included interview transcripts, classroom observation
field notes, hand drawn maps, and reflective notes and analytic memos I wrote throughout the
study. Analysis is the process of giving meaning to the data by identifying and looking closely at
its various components to realize their relationships with each other (Corbin & Strauss, 2008).

139

Additionally, as Merriam (2009) suggests, the preferred way to analyze qualitative data is to do
so concurrent with collection. As I collected data, I sorted it in accordance with the major
components of my conceptual framework inclusive of ideology, pedagogical practices, CRRP,
and students’ meaningful learning experiences. Then I used them as analytical codes, to begin
my cycle of coding and analysis.
Once I concluded data collection, I transcribed the interviews and sorted the
observational field notes. I then began open coding phase, working on one teacher’s data at a
time. Coding involves making notations next to parts of the data that assists one in answering
their research question (Merriam, 2009). I looked for words or ideas that emerged from my data
that were empirical or in vivo codes. I also used analytic tools (Corbin & Strauss, 2008) to
ensure that I interrogated the data and did not limit myself to my first impression of what the data
might have meant.
My analytic tools included: making comparisons, drawing upon personal experiences,
questioning, and for the observation data, looking at body language and facial expressions.
During this phase I also used the a priori codes I had developed prior to data collection and that
were presented in my conceptual framework. The a priori codes included: deficit, asset, race,
language (English, Spanish and/or home language), student backgrounds, expectations (high,
low), and cultural inclusion. After my open coding, I used axial coding to create categories
(Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Furthermore, I used analytic memos, these were helpful in making
sense of the data and themes that began to emerge from the data. I used analytic tools, coding, a
code book, and analytic memos to further make sense of the data, to determine the findings for
each case. Moreover, I spoke with my chair during this process, to discuss what I was seeing in
the data. She provided the peer-to-peer interaction I needed to check my biases and redirect me

140

to my conceptual framework to ensure I focused on my research question. This process was used
for both teachers as a means of locating the similarities and differences between the two
informants.
In addition to analyzing each teacher as her own case, I also conducted a cross-case
analysis that compared themes from each teacher. This allowed me to gain deeper insight into
each teacher’s ideology and pedagogical practices. I used a Venn-diagram method to compare
the themes present located in the coding from the two teachers. I looked for the similarities and
differences in the teachers’ ideologies, practices, and the students’ learning experiences. After an
in-depth and iterative analysis of the categories the themes that emerged from the data set were
hegemony, assimilation, deficit perspective, non-rigorous, rote learning, and a complete lack of
meaningful learning experiences.
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations
My study focused on two teachers, one African American, one Latina, in an urban school
setting. However, specifically focusing on these teachers and populations provided a detailed, in-
depth exploration of each case and cannot be generalized to all African American and Latina
teachers or all schools or districts. The overall goal of qualitative research is not to generalize;
instead, it is to understand a phenomenon with findings grounded in a context (Creswell, 2012).
he findings from a qualitative study may be transferred to another similar context (Maxwell,
2013).
Another limitation was the self-reporting of the participants in their interviews. I could
not be certain that participants were honest, since they controlled what they decided to share. As

141

a novice researcher what I collected was constrained by the fact that I had not done this type of
research before. I will address this limitation in my section on credibility and trustworthiness.
Delimitations
There were several delimitations created by my approach to this study. First, when I
sampled the district, I chose a district I was familiar with, based on my own experiences in the
district. I assumed the districts had the composition that would allow me to look at African
American and Latina/o teachers and students. I realized I had a limited perspective of the
composition of the teachers and students in the district. This bound what I was able to learn.
When I sampled the schools, I realized I needed to look at the SARCs to make sure the student
demographics matched the criteria for my study. Additionally, as a novice researcher, I did not
always know the right question to ask or notice a marker during the interviews. I also did not
always know where to focus my attention during an observation and may have missed
interactions between the teachers and their students. I may not have delved deeply enough at the
correct moment, and I might have missed important occurrences during my observations.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Merriam (2009) highlighted that people are the primary instrument for data collection and
analysis in qualitative research. They bring their own perspectives and biases to the research
endeavor. Thus, I applied strategies to ensure that my findings were credible and that I was
trustworthy as the communicator of what I found. The strategies I used were triangulation,
saturation, and an audit trail, to ensure confirmability of my research findings. I established that
the findings are based on participants’ responses instead of the researcher’s own preconceptions
and biases, which was extremely difficult. I used member checks, the collection of rich,
descriptive data and the use of excerpts of that data to present my findings. To ensure that I was a

142

trustworthy narrator, I used reflexivity. As a novice qualitative researcher, I had to acknowledge
I was part of the research process, and I acknowledged my prior experiences, assumptions and
beliefs would influence the research process. Confirmability involves establishing that the
findings are based on participants’ responses instead the researcher’s own preconceptions and
biases. The audit trail was an attempt at an in-depth approach to illustrating the findings are
based on the participants’ narratives and involved describing how I collected and analyzed the
data in a transparent manner. My audit trail included an attempt at the coding process, in a excel
spreadsheet, and how I worked from individual codes to themes, and rationale for what codes
were clustered together to form the basis of a theme.
Merriam (2009) explained that one method of increasing the credibility of the findings is
triangulation. Triangulation is the use of multiple sources of data that can be cross-checked with
each other (Merriam, 2009). Moreover, triangulation can add to credibility as it ensures that
findings are based upon several data sources (Creswell, 2009). I used interviews and
observations to understand teachers and their ideological perspectives, pedagogical practices, and
how these were in evidence in their interaction with their students, as well as how they shaped
the students’ learning experiences. Triangulating the data during data collection allowed me to
identify consistencies and inconsistencies in my data that I wanted to explore further, through
additional interviews or observations. Triangulation during analysis also afforded me the
opportunity to compare and contrast what the teachers told me in their interviews with what was
in evidence in their actions in their classrooms.
Additionally, I was in the field until I reached saturation. I stayed in the field until I
started seeing the same things repeat during the observations. I visited the classrooms from

143

October to December. I visited the classrooms in the mornings, mid-day, and end of the day. I
spent between 24-36 hours in the classrooms.
Another credibility check that I used was member checks (Maxwell, 2013). As I
interviewed the teachers, it was difficult to ensure that I was truly capturing their perceptions
without injecting my own personal biases into their meaning-making. I asked clarifying
questions to ensure that I gathered the most accurate data and limited my own interpretation of
participant responses. As an observer, I attempted record exactly what I saw in front of me
without making judgements or allowing my own beliefs about teaching influence what I
recorded. In my study, I had to continuously evaluate whether my biases were hindering my data
collection by writing reflective memos after interviews and observations.
I collected data using rich, thick descriptions. Merriam (2009) highlighted those rich
descriptions should describe the context, participants and activities involved. In addition, I
provide excerpts from these data in my findings. Using clearly delineated descriptions adds to
the credibility of a study by providing the reader with results that are more realistic (Creswell,
2009). Rich thick descriptions can also assist in the transferability of the data to individuals
whose context fit that of the study (Merriam, 2009).
As a teacher and African American who works in the urban environment with historically
marginalized and minoritized African American and Latina/o students, and the primary
instrument of data collection, I brought biases and perspectives with e that influenced the way I
saw the data. I used reflexivity throughout my data collection. Merriam (2009) describes
reflexivity as the process of a researcher critically reflecting as the human instruments. I grew up
in a lower-middle class neighborhood. I started off attending private schools and then attended
schools in my low socio-economic neighborhoods. As an African American, I am also a member

144

of a historically marginalized and minoritized group, and I have extremely strong feelings and
opinions about what qualifies as good teaching. I am also an educator. I have taught
Kindergarten, 2
nd
, 4
th
, 5
th
, 6
th
, 7
th
-8
th
, 10
th
and 11
th
grade African American and Latino/a children
over 19 years. I am currently serving as a Director of Early Childhood Education Programs. I am
responsible for ensuring that students ages 2-5 are provided with foundational learning focusing
on the whole child ensuring they have meaning learning opportunities for all the students I serve.
I ensure the teachers have the proper professional learning and supports, proper materials and
supplies, and students are provided with engaging students centered learning. In these roles, I
believe I have provided and continue to provide students with the ideal learning environment that
met/meet their academic and behavioral needs. Thus, I have strong opinions about what African
American and Latino/a students need from their teachers to be successful.
I learned early in my life, as a student, that teachers of the same ethnicity and race, or
even those of a similar marginalized and minoritized race or ethnicity possess the dominant
societies ideology. I had several African American and Latino/a teachers who treated me and my
fellow classmates very poorly. They provided limited educational opportunities and in some
cases were both verbally and physically abusive.
Thus, I did the following things to bracket my biases during data collection: I wrote
observer’s comments documenting when I was having a reaction or a thought in relation to what
I was seeing. For example, when I realized one of the teachers intentionally antagonized a
student, I wrote reflective notes to check my biases, asked myself questions to see if I was
projecting my own values and expectations on to the person I interviewed and observed. For
example, when one of the teachers stated the children bring problems from home, not positive
things, I wrote analytic memos to help me look for discrepant cases and used Corbin and

145

Strauss’s analytic tools to ensure that I did not impose my biases onto the data (or keep my
biases in check). For example, when I started to lean towards colorblindness, I wrote an analytic
memo and discussed my analysis with my chair. My chair and I met, discussed what I was
experiencing in the data, what I assumed versus what was being presented. I saw the teachers a
doing “good” work because se “cared” for her students. I had to examine what a” good” teacher
that “cared” about their students looked like. Hence the extended stay in the field. When I
reexamined the data, I saw that it was not “care” it was “pity” deficit perspective. I saw it was
not “good” teaching but low-level recall instruction, not focused on depth and rigor. I learned
there was no student-centered learning and no meaningful learning experiences.
Ethics
I applied strategies that ensured my study was conducted in an ethical manner. I referred
to the policies of university Institutional Review Board (IRB) to protect potentially vulnerable
populations (Creswell, 2012). I submitted my study to the IRB to be approved prior to initiating
any study activities. Once my study was approved, When I recruited potential participants, I
made sure that I did not unduly influence them into participating. In other words, I did not use
my experiences as a teacher or educator to convince them that they should want to participate. I
provided both teachers with an information sheet to make sure that the purpose of the study and
the study activities were clear. I communicated that they did not have to participate. I told them
they were able to stop whenever they wanted. I let them know that they did not have to answer
any of the formal or informal interview questions they did not want to answer. I told them I
would not do anything to put them at risk because of their participation in the study or create risk
through the study. I constructed my instruments to ensure that my interview questions enabled
them to provide me with their understanding of their own experiences. I collected observation

146

data in ways that ensured that I did not collect only what I wanted to be “true” but in ways that
ensured I captured a rich picture of their actions and words as teachers with their children.
During data analysis, I worked to ensure an accurate interpretation of the information collected
and to not falsify, suppress, or invent findings (Creswell, 2012). To protect my participants
confidentiality, I used pseudonyms when presenting my study’s findings (Creswell, 2012). I will
keep the data I collected according to USC’s institutional policy.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to understand how one African American and one Latina
elementary teachers’ ideology was revealed in their academic and behavioral expectations,
pedagogical practices, and the learning experiences they fostered for their African American and
Latino/a students. I used the case study approach. I conducted semi-structured interviews and
observations of the two teachers. I engaged in systematic inquiry, gathered data, and looked for
pattern and themes in the data that help me understand this phenomenon.

147

Chapter Four: Findings
The purpose of this dissertation was to understand how one African American and one
Latina teachers’ ideologies were visible in their pedagogical practices, and thereby by shaped
students learning experiences. The first three chapters of this dissertation discussed the context of
the problem being studied, the literature related to teacher ideology, pedagogical practices,
culturally relevant pedagogy, and students’ meaningful learning experiences. Furthermore, it
outlined the methodological approach used for this study. This included the rationale for
choosing a qualitative research design, the sample and population, and a description of data
collection, instrumentation, and data analysis.
The data from this study answered the following research question: How are 1 African
American and 1 Latina teachers’ academic and behavioral expectations revealed or reflected in
their instructional practices and in their students’ learning opportunities? In this chapter, I
present the findings of the study. I will address each case separately, first describing each of the
communities in which the schools are located and then providing the findings. Finally, this
chapter will conclude with a cross-case analysis of the two case studies and my revised
conceptual framework.
Case Study 1: Ms. Gonzalez
Ginsburg Elementary School was a small school with a total enrollment of 338 students
during the 2018-2019 school year. It was located on the southside of the Chisholm School
District, in Hyattsville, California. Many of the students were from socioeconomically
disadvantaged households based on their free reduced lunch status (94.1%). Two-thirds of the
students (66.6%) attending were of Latino/a decent, and approximately one-third (34.3%) were
English language learners ranging in levels from emergent to advanced (English language

148

development). One-third (29.0%) of the students were African American, with the remaining
students being Native American or Pacific Islander (1.8%), Alaskan Native (1.8%), or Asian
(0.9%). The 2017/2018 standardized test data showed 36% of the student met or exceeded the
state average in English language arts and 35% in mathematics. In 2018/2019 there was a slight
increase, where 43% of students met or exceeded state standards and 36% in mathematics.
Ms. Gonzalez was Latina. She was born in the city of Hyattsville, California. At the time
of the study, she had been a teacher in the district for 19-years. She has only taught at Ginsburg
Elementary and had only taught the second grade. She lived in the community and her family
members (both nuclear and extended) had attended the school where she worked. She became a
teacher “to give back to the community, [she] wanted to help children.” She “wanted to go into
the medical field, due to her sister having had surgery at a young age.” However, she “could not
imagine dissecting a human body.” Therefore, she “became a teacher as another way to touch
students.”
Ms. Gonzales was a dedicated teacher. She had structure to her class and used a color-
coded chart to enforce discipline and to ensure her students got through lessons. She modified
her classroom contracts for those students with what she deemed as disruptive behaviors. She
followed the pacing guide and did not deviate from the prescribed curriculum. Since she had not
taught another grade, she had a set routine for delivering instruction. She focused primarily on
reading (language arts) and mathematics. The instruction was limited. However, she did
incorporate art projects as a means of ensuring students would attend classes on Friday, to
participate in the end of the week assessments.
Ms. Gonzalez was not a student of culturally relevant responsive pedagogy. It was
evident in the way she delivered instruction; she was indoctrinated to use the district adopted

149

curriculum. This meant the culture of the students she teaches, and her own culture were not
present in the instruction she delivered. She focused on implementing the district adopted
curriculum with fidelity, therefore she did not supplement the lessons with culturally relevant
responsive lessons for the students. Ms. Gonzalez carried the cognitive load of the lessons; this
limited the students’ learning. There was limited academic vocabulary used throughout the
lessons. Ms. Gonzalez did not teach things she was not comfortable with exploring (such as
inferencing), and she did not provide accurate facts to her students when explaining difficult
topics. She planned her lessons based on past practices. She did review assessment data however,
the results of the data led her to believe the students were the reason the scores were low, not the
instruction provided, the repetitive nature of the lessons, nor her limited content knowledge in
comprehension inquiry and mathematic instruction.
During the 3-month observation, the other core subjects (science and social studies) were
never observed being taught. During the 2018-2019 school year, there were 31 students in her
class at the time of the study. The demographic breakdown of the classroom was as follows: 15-
boys, 14-girls, 2 students had left before the study began. Of these students, 6 were African
American (2 male and 4 female), 19-students were of Latino/a heritage (12 males and 7 females),
1 was a Tongan male, 3 were bi-racial African American and Latina (2 females, 1 male).
Moreover, there were 11-English language learners (9 males, and 2 females). Both female
students were advanced and proficient in the English language, 3 boys were advanced and
proficient, and the remaining 6 students (all boys) were all characterized by the teacher as low
English language learners. She did not use the emergent thru advanced classifications.
The cooperative group organizations were configured based on her ability to quickly
access the students when they needed assistance. Therefore, the students were not seated together

150

to assist each other. Additionally, there was no low, medium, and high, according to her they
were either low or high. During my interviews and observations, I noticed she did not treat the
students any different from each other. She was colorblind. She did not realize there were only
five African American students in her classroom, or that two were male. She did not realize that
except for two of the African American students, the other four African American students in the
class were in the low reading group. She only realized it during the exit interview.
In my conceptual framework, I argued beliefs held by educators of the same
race/ethnicity as their students, either negatively or positively affected their pedagogical
practices, which negatively or positively influenced students’ learning opportunities. The three
elements created a triangle of three linked concepts: teacher ideology, the tenets of culturally
relevant pedagogy (CRP), and meaningful learning experiences (student learning opportunities).
I also argued that the pedagogy of a teacher with a deficit ideology would be reflective of
those beliefs and would be demonstrated through basic, rote-learning, and an absence of inquiry,
and therefore, few, if any, meaningful learning experiences for students. In the alternative, if the
teacher held a combination of deficit and asset ideology, the teacher would demonstrate a
combination of pedagogical practices that included rote learning, as well as some inquiry-based
learning, and there would be some student engagement, as well as some meaningful learning.
Finally, if the teacher possessed an asset ideology, the pedagogical practices would be
student-centered, hence producing meaning learning experiences and opportunities for the
students to learn. Based on the three significant findings emerged from the data. Ms. Gonzalez
held deficit beliefs with respect to her students’ academic ability. The second finding
demonstrated a hegemonic non-student-centered pedagogical perspective. And the final finding
was a lack of student-centered meaningful learning experiences.

151

Ideology: Deficit Mindset with Respect to her Students’ Academic Ability and Behavior

Drawing on research from Bartolomé (2008), ideology is the conscious and unconscious
understandings held and perpetuated by members of society and demonstrated by what one says
and does. Since, determined by words and actions, it was therefore entangled with an educator’s
pedagogy, and influenced the students’ learning opportunities. The first theme is that Ms.
Gonzalez had low expectations and deficit beliefs. The second theme is that she espoused a
hegemonic and assimilationist behavioral perspective of her students.
Low Expectations and Deficit Beliefs About Academic Ability
Ms. Gonzalez held low expectations of and deficit mindset about her students in relation
to their academic ability. Milner (2010) explained that teachers with low expectations and deficit
mindsets see their students as only having deficits and what they do not bring to the classroom.
Ms. Gonzalez consistently expressed her low academic expectations and deficit mindset in the
context of English language arts. For example, when discussing her students’ writing ability, she
said,
Writing is always a weakness, and that is every year, writing is a very, very challenge.
Writing complete sentences or they’ll go on and on and it’s a run-on sentence, or they
have a hard time. We wrote about their costumes and they [had] to describe what it was, I
want to imagine what your costume looks like with your descriptions, and most of them
just write/wrote, what they liked about their costumes, oh it’s from the movies and he is
very scary, he has magical powers, but I’m like, I can’t see your costume, I want to see it
in my head, are there any accessories, or weapons, is there body, is there a shirt or a skirt,
so they had a hard time describing [their costumes].

152

In this passage, Ms. Gonzalez communicated her low expectations and deficit mindset when she
suggested that “writing is always a weakness, and that is every year, writing is a very, very
challenge” (emphasis added). By asserting that it was always a weakness she indicated she
assumed that her students would struggle with writing (low expectations), and they would come
to her class lacking that skill or ability (deficit mindset). Her statement that it “is very, very
challenging” demonstrated her belief that it would always be difficult for her to teach them to
acquire the skills necessary to be good writers.
She further expressed her low expectations when she said, “Writing complete sentences
or they’ll go on and on and it’s a run-on sentence, or they have a hard time,” as she explained
that they were unable to write complete sentences (deficit mindset) or were only able to produce
run-on sentences (low expectations). Her characterization of her students as having “a hard time
describing [their costumes]” was another expression of her deficit mindset as she pointed to their
inability to accomplish the task by only writing what they liked about their costumes despite
what she perceived as her clear direction “to describe what it was,” and her desire to “imagine
what your costume looks like with your descriptions.”
Another example of her low expectations and deficit mindset in the context of English
language arts academics was expressed when she discussed the students’ reading ability. In the
following example, the discussion starts with her saying the students’ strength was reading,
however her unconscious deficit ideology was reflected in the description of her students’
reading ability. She stated:
And some of them are really good readers, like this they’re all really good readers, so I
have to change the way I do phonics, cause they didn’t need sound by sound, and for like
2 or 3, but the majority started reading at like 40 wpm, so I didn’t need to review all that

153

phonics, so a lot of them their strength is reading, they might get lazy in the weekend and
not read…I’ve noticed they don’t read on the weekend, they will do the one sheet
homework I give them, but they won’t read their library books. So, I wrote that on their
weekly reports on Friday and most of them, did better this Monday. They do really good
on their test on Wednesday, so this class in particular their strength is reading.
Ms. Gonzalez stated, “the students’ strength is in reading.” However, she expressed her low
expectations and deficit mindset with the next statement, “they might get lazy on the weekend
and not read.” This statement indicated she assumed her students chose not to do the reading due
to laziness (deficit mind set). Furthermore, she stated they would do the one-sheet homework,
but they would not read their library books (low expectations). Her assertion, “they won’t read
their library books, they might get lazy” implied that they lack the intrinsic motivation to
complete the assignment for themselves, in addition to the fact that there was a test, did not
prompt extrinsic motivation to be prepared for that test.
She projected onto them a lack of desire or effort to do the things she wanted them to do
and that she believed were in their best interest. Her deficit mind-set was reflected in her belief
that her students lacked the intrinsic motivation to do what might be characterized as the more
rigorous task of reading while they were willing to do the simpler task of completing the one-
sheet of homework. Therefore, even though the students had demonstrated they were able to
read, as indicated by the teacher’s statement, “their strength is reading,” her statement of
laziness, only doing the worksheet, is another example of how she saw her students as only
having deficits and focusing on what she believed they did not bring to the classroom. Her
expression indicated her low expectations and deficit mind-set by interpreting the students not
reading as a statement about their ability or their desire to learn.

154

Ms. Gonzalez also expressed her low academic expectations and deficit mindset in the
context of her students’ math ability. This was also consistent with Milner’s (2010) definition of
low expectations and deficit mind-set, where he asserted, teachers see their students as only
having deficits and what they do not bring to the classroom. For example, while she
acknowledged some of the students doing well in math and gaining an understanding of the
concepts, her follow-up statements expressed her low expectations and deficit mind-set by
indicating her belief that the students were unable to complete a lesson per day and that she
needed to slow down when teaching the concepts. She said,
They are all different, some are really good in math, and in math they’re getting there.
They just learned regrouping with addition and after all the review I think all of them got
the technique. So now we are working on regrouping with subtraction. I know in our
math program they expect us to do a math lesson each day, it’s a new strategy each day,
so I kinda slow down, for the…Like for regrouping with addition, we taught them
regrouping one, they didn’t, didn’t [do well with] the next lesson. Then the third lesson
they get to do regrouping with 4 digits, 3 digits or 4 double digits. Like there is no way
my kids [will get that], they just started, they need more practice, so I stop and review
and review, so using the white boards. Sometimes yeah, it’s too fast for them, for them to
learn, so you have to slow down and see, what it is you need to review.
Although she articulated some of the students were getting there with the math concepts,
indicating that she saw the students’ academic potential, her deficit mindset and low expectations
were expressed when she stated that she was not able to teach a lesson/concept per day, as
required by the math program, that she had to “slowdown.” By asserting she had to slow down,
she communicated that she did not believe the students could grasp the math concept if it was not

155

taught slowly and reviewed several times (low expectations). When Mrs. Gonzalez made the
statement, “regrouping with 4-digits, 3-digits, like there is no way my kids [will get that],” she
assumed the students would struggle with the concept as the difficulty increased (deficit
mindset). Her statement, “like there is no way my kids (will get that),” articulated her belief that
the students lacked the ability to grasp the mathematical concept (low expectations), and her
statement “they need more practice, so I stop and review and review” (deficit mindset), without
extensive intervention. Her statement “Yeah, it’s too fast for them, for them to learn, so you have
to slow down and see what you need to review” was another expression of her low expectations,
as she pointed to their inability to learn the concept in one lesson, and the necessity to review and
slow down (deficit mind-set).
Ms. Gonzalez continued to express her low expectations and deficit-mind set in the
context of her students’ academic ability because she insisted on providing students with
academic intervention, not enrichment, even though, per her own statement, “most of the
students’ strength is in reading.” This is consistent with Milner’s (2010) assertion, teachers must
deal with their ideological perceptions, on the grounds that their ideology shapes how they
provide instruction to the students they serve. Furthermore, deficit ideological orientations
influence the pedagogical decisions teachers make regarding students of color (Milner, 2010).
Employing deficit thinking, teachers carrying with them the belief that students of color do not
possess the skills and knowledge required for success in learning (Milner, 2010). For example,
she mentioned how she provided academic support for reading:
I do group when we are in the computer lab…I do 4 reading groups for my phonics
books, sorry it is based on their fluency levels, my lower ones and the higher ones, the
discussions will change based on their levels. Like this they’re all really good readers, so

156

I have to change the way I do phonics, ‘cause they didn’t need sound by sound, for like 2
or 3, but the majority started reading at like 40 wpm, so I didn’t need to review all that
phonics, so a lot of them their strength is reading.
Although she articulated that most of her students were strong readers, she continued to provide
intervention in phonics (low expectations), not enrichment activities. Ms. Gonzalez’s decision to
deliver phonemic awareness lessons to her students despite their reading ability, is example of
how she views her students’ academic potential from a deficit perspective, when she insisted on
providing phonemic intervention when it was not needed. Even when the students displayed an
aptitude in their academic abilities, in this case reading, Ms. Gonzalez provided scaffolding in an
interventionist fashion, lower-level instructions (low expectations) and intensive review of
phonics (deficit mind-set). Ms. Gonzalez academic expectations revealed a deficit perspective
and low expectations when it involved her students’ learning potential. This was also revealed in
her routinized assimilationist and hegemonic behavioral expectation of the students’ behavior in
the educational setting (classroom).
Low Expectations and Deficit Beliefs about Students’ Behavior
Ms. Gonzalez’s deficit ideology was reflected in the routinized assimilationist structure
of her class. Ms. Gonzalez’s students were predominately Latino/a and African American. Her
classroom expectations were designed for the students to behave in a very assimilative manner
subscribing to the dominant culture. The conditions were not behavioral expectations inclusive
of who the students were culturally. According to Delpit (1998), minoritized students and
teachers must learn to traverse the values of the dominant culture, as well as apply mainstream
expectations, in a holistic manner, not arbitrarily, as a means of learning and gaining an
understanding of the culture of power, through discussions with the person(s) educating them, as

157

well as having a say in how they are educated. This is not the case in Ms. Gonzalez’s classroom.
Ms. Gonzalez’s classroom was more consistent with Gorski (2011) who asserted that in the
United States, educators are indoctrinated into a cyclical type of social brainwashing and
acceptance that normalizes a deficit ideology via the proliferation of class-based mythology,
giving prominence to the middle-class via the existence of a type of “othering” of members of a
lower-class. The attributes of Ms. Gonzalez’s ideology and classroom structure were expressed
in the language she used to describe her interactions with her students, as well as her beliefs
regarding the students’ home lives. She did not view her students’ lives outside of the
educational setting as positive. For example, Ms. Gonzalez stated: “…you have to train them
slowly, procedures and expectations and what you want them to do.” Regarding the knowledge
the students brought from home she stated:
Sometimes its negative knowledge that they bring to the classroom…that prevents them
from learning, they come to school with all their problems, I tell them this is a safe place,
and I know you are going through a lot at home, but this is a safe place, you’ll deal with
that later, or we can talk about it, but just be happy that you are here and be positive.
In this statement, Ms. Gonzalez communicated her belief that students needed to be “trained” to
behave, not that it was her responsibility to provide them with the guidelines for a new classroom
setting to traverse the values of the dominant culture (Delpit, 1998). Her words demonstrate that
she did not consider the students’ prior schooling and the skills they possessed to perform
classroom tasks. Although her students were in second grade, she did not consider what their
previous years of schooling might have contributed to their socialization for the classroom. She
did not acknowledge they had attended school from kindergarten and possibly earlier.

158

What she believed they needed was what she understood to be schooling dictates. Her
“training” involved performing tasks that did not require depth of thought, a high level of
inquiry, or skills that could be transferred beyond her “training.” She assumed the students did
not have basic foundational knowledge of how a classroom worked, or how procedures might
change based on the classroom setting. Her need to train the students is the foundation for the
assimilation into the middle-class structured way of behaving in class, versus a culturally
inclusive means of providing autonomy, with guidance and consideration of who the students
were and what they brought to the classroom. Ms. Gonzalez’s explanation of the deficits the
students brought with them rather than the role that she or her peers placed in socializing the
students reflects Ladson-Billings’ (2009) assertion that “the most popular explanations for low
academic achievement of at-risk children located the problem in the children themselves or in
their families” (p. 10).
Ms. Gonzalez’s statement, “what they bring to class from home is negative” aligns with
the deficit way in which she described her thoughts of the students’ home lives. She indicated the
students’ home lives provided them with negative knowledge and problems that prevented them
from learning. Even though the students had attended school for several years, she pointed
exclusively to their outside of school experiences for the explanation that they lacked certain
behaviors, the negative all came from outside of school. The perceived things the students were
lacking she did not hold the educational system accountable for. She absolved the educational
system for the role it played in the students’ educational experiences.
In addition to the discussion of the students’ home lives, Ms. Gonzalez continued to
express her negative assumptions in the way she talked about the students’ home life regarding
their parents and guardians, who she perceived as not possessing the capacity to provide the

159

guidance and directions the students needed to be successful in the educational system. This is
consistent with Rist (2000), who asserted that the experience of the students in the classroom
established the social order and structure of the class. Moreover, it was established in the
classroom that the students who possessed the middle-class attributes received differentiated
treatment from the teacher who deemed those qualities necessary for students to be successful.
For example, when Ms. Gonzalez stated:
specially our kids, because our kids do not have the luxury where their parents take them
to the library, and check out books, or they don’t have the luxury of having parents buy
books for them, so they need to have something, if they don’t have something, they
need…to succeed… [or when she stated] don’t reprimand them, for things, out of their
control. the students will say “it doesn’t have a collar” and I’m like, and they say, well
Dr. Samuelson (principal) may say something, and I’m like it’s their parents, and
sometimes they say, “I am not wearing my uniform because my parents didn’t wash,” and
I’m like ok, remind her, and I use myself as an example, because I’m a mom, and Robert
(respondent’s son) has to wear is uniform, and I tell them after my job I have to go home
and do my other job, do the laundry and all those things, so I tell them just remind your
mom
Ms. Gonzalez projected an “othering” and “lacking” perspective onto the parents and guardians
of the students. This is consistent with Gorski’s (2011) argument that a class-based mythology
that privileges the middle-class “others” members of a lower-class. She blamed the parents and
guardians for the students not having access to literature. She assumed they lacked the ability to
provide the educational supports needed for the students to be successful. She did not consider
the systemic inequities that impacted the parents/ guardian’s ability to go to the library or

160

purchase books/materials the students may need for what she deemed was successful educational
attainment.
Furthermore, when she used herself as an example, her ability to afford additional
materials, her knowledge of where to access the materials, the privilege she had acquired by the
security of her education, career, and middle-class position is an expression of internalized
hegemonic ideology. Her statement, “I did it, why have you not done it as well?” is classic
meritocracy as she was projecting onto her students’ parents/guardians a “pull yourself up by
your bootstraps” mentality. Moreover, she assumed it was as simple a task for the students not
having a clean uniform, or the proper shirt, to go home and use her as an example: “I go home
and go my other job, just remind your mom.” Again, she has assumed the parents/guardians were
not performing their duties, projecting her life circumstances onto the parents/guardians of the
students. She did not consider her positionality when making such statements.
Ms. Gonzalez, was born and raised in the city in which she was employed, attended
schools in the community, and lived in the community, however, her staunchly middle-class,
assimilative, and hegemonic indoctrination, blinded to her students’ assets. She viewed them and
their parents/guardians as lacking any positive contributions for the classroom. She told them
school was a good place, forget about home, your problems, be happy you are here (at school).
She did not apply any of her knowledge of her community and where she was reared to her
students’ realities. She assumed the students to not possess the skills needed for success. She
assumed the students’ “problems” were negative and prevented them from learning.
Another aspect of the students that she did not consider was how she enforced discipline in the
classroom. Consistent with Hatt (2011), she used an approach that telegraphed smartness, using
faded color change system for behavioral enforcement of the students. This chart was located to

161

the right of the classroom door, to the left of the whiteboard. During the first observations, it
became evident, that the color chart was the center piece of the behavior policy. The behavior
color spectrum descended from purple, blue, green, orange, and finally red. Students could be
directed to change their “colors” from purple (being the best) to red (being the worst). They
could also see their car removed from the color chart altogether. Ms. Gonzalez provided a
warning before she would have the students move their numbers to the various colors. The next
time they repeated the behavior they were required to move their cars from green to yellow to
red, when they broke a rule, and it resulted in the loss of privileges. Ms. Gonzalez did not leave
the colors in negative standing all day.
Mrs. Gonzalez used the chart every day over the 12-15 days I was in her classroom. The
same students went to the chart to change their color for the restroom at approximately the same
time every day. It was the 3 African American girls and 1 African American boy. The students
were allowed to move their cars up or down depending upon the desired or non-desired behavior.
None of the students displayed disruptive behavior. The students were chatty and went to the
restroom during class time. However, the students had to change their color for every behavioral
infraction, including going to the restroom. One student in particular, Gerald*, his car would end
up off the color chart for various undesirable behaviors. For example, during one observation, his
mother brought him to class and was visibly upset. She asked the teacher why Gerald had wet
himself in class. The teacher stated, “He was off the board due to his behavior.” His mother
turned to him and proceeded to chastise him for his behavior. The exchange was contentious and
what was most notable was the teacher did not appear to recognize the parent’s concern or
further explain why he might have wet himself. She did not tell the parent that every time he had
to go to the restroom, he had to move his car. She did not tell her that he needed to go to the

162

restroom often. During the exchange, Ms. Gonzalez appeared more concerned with him arriving
late and the disruption to the class his mother was causing by her inquiry.
During the time I spent in the classroom, there were numerous occasions where the
students were told to move their numbers, up or down. There was a constant hum of chatter in
the class during all the observations, and Ms. Gonzalez was constantly giving warnings, negative
and positive consequences to students for various perceived infractions. The chart was displayed
in the front of the classroom, therefore, the students when moving their numbers up or down
would be seen by everyone in the classroom. According to literature, the use of the color chart
was used to elicit the desired behavior from the students (Hatt, 2011).
The following is an excerpt from my fieldnotes:
T: Students Beth and Carla, fix numbers please.
Gerald arrives late and soon thereafter goes to the restroom.
T: Student Kathy ready to learn sitting quietly.
T: Student Cole.
S: Yes, Teacher?
T: I called your name because you are talking.
Two students were chosen to move the numbers to the neutral section on the board. Soon
after a student arrived in class, he requested to go to the restroom. This is the student whose
mother was upset about him wetting himself. He is not given a warning, nor is he told to move
his number. From then on, during the observation, the students are rewarded and/or penalized for
the entire day. A student receives praise for sitting quietly. She does not see if the student is
working or needs assistance, just verbal praise for being quiet. Another student is admonished for
talking. Ms. Gonzalez did not explain why the students Beth and Carla were required to move

163

their numbers (cars). Ms. Gonzalez Gerald as he arrived late and left without her communicating
with him. Her statement that Kathy was “ready to learn sitting quietly” telegraphed “acceptable”
behavior was quiet meant “ready to learn” and that anything else was not an indication of
readiness.” Her statement to Cole that Brian was talking, and therefore not ready to learn, was
made in while Brian was helping a classmate with a question regarding the work. Thus, her
attention was more directed at the behavior and not at the reason for the behavior. Her actions
were consistent with the literature, where even when the students attempted to learn and exercise
autonomy, the students were punished (Rist, 2000).
T: I see student Jerry reading, smart choice.
T: Student Mary talking, I called your name.
T: Student John, go move number, you had two nights to read book, go get library book.
T: Good job student Mary, show everyone. (Does not move number up)
T: I like the way Rene is at his desk working, good job, move your number up.
T: Sam, Gerald, Kathy, you may move your numbers up, good job.
T: Let’s see if there is a table where everyone is working, good job table 5, you get a
bonus star.
T: Table 4 good job. (Does not move star)
T: I like the way Kate is working.
T: warns student, going to bathroom, down not up to yellow.
T: Table 3 I hear talking again.
Ms. Gonzalez, spends a significant amount of time controlling the class, using verbal praise,
verbal admonishments, and color changing. There was no point in which she realized the
students were discussing the work she had given them. Some were talking about other things.

164

However, for the most part, the students were assisting each other. She used a timer to keep the
students on task. The timer worked, and the students were focused on the assigned math task.
However, the way she quickly moved through the lessons, the students would turn to each other
for help, hence the constant hum of chatter. Students performing desired tasks and exhibiting
desired behavior, were given verbal praise, allowed to move their number up, and tables were
given extra table points. According to literature, her actions indicate she did not believe her
students possessed the skills and knowledge required for success in learning (Milner, 2010).
The system for behavior modification was arbitrary and inconsistent. Verbal praise was
used to make the students stop talking and work. What she never realized is they were working.
Additionally, the verbal praise was a temporary fix for the chatter, as it would resume moments
after the initial warning. According to literature, people of color engage in highly active
communication and the participation is highly engaging, there is a communal communication,
the roles of the speaker are interchangeable (Gay, 2002). There was a need for students to talk, to
exchange ideas, thoughts as a means of constructing knowledge.
Here is one example,
T: I am going to move numbers down. I hear a lot of talking.
S: May I go to the restroom?
T: Move your number down.
S: Restroom request.
T: Move your number down.
T: who are you talking to? Are you done?
T: Student Harvey, I love the way you are sitting.

165

T: Student I, are you finished? If you are finished the smart thing to do is read your book,
the test is Friday.
T: Finish reading library book, if no library book, read anthology.
T: Wow finished all of these, keep going, good job, Josue.
Ms. Gonzalez gave a general warning to the entire class. Again, the chatter subsided.
Then a student requested to go to the restroom and had to move her number down. Another
student made the same request and was told to move their number as well. A student was
questioned as to who they were talking to, and a warning was given. Next, a student sitting
quietly was given verbal praise. Another student was admonished for not reading his book, even
though he had completed his assignment. She stated if he were “smart” he would be reading.
These type of statements and innuendos were made throughout the day to the students
for various infractions and non-desirable behaviors. The way she used the color chart, point
system and words to control the students and elicit the desired behavior demonstrated her deficit
perspective regarding her students and was inhibitive to student learning. According to literature,
the changing of the colors, verbal admonitions, and non-allowance of student-to-students
engagement created deficit learning conditions for her students of color (Hatt, 2011; Rist, 2009;
Gay, 2002).
When a student completed the assignment, the teacher acted surprised and then assigned
more work. Consistent with the literature, Ms. Gonzalez used language to indicate what
behaviors she desired from them. For example, she said “if you were smart, you would read your
book,” indicating what she believed to be desirable behavior and that the behavior the student
was demonstrating was undesirable. Similarly, her statement, “wow, your finished all of these,
good job” indicated smartness. The difference in her responses was that one student showed her

166

his work and the other had just completed his assignment and asked what to do next. The teacher
used praise to indicate the social order in the class, consistent with Hatt’s (2010) exploration of
smartness. In another instance, the teacher engaged in the following actions, again indicating her
behavioral expectations from students.
T: Viola, move number up, working quietly.
T: Let’s see who is doing a good job, Gerald you are doing a wonderful job, go move
number up.
T: I want to see if Carla is trying hard to move her number up; she calls students names to
move numbers up.
T: Frankie, love that you caught up, good job.
T: If you do not finish, no recess.
Here, another student was provided with the opportunity to move their number up, for
demonstrating the desired behavior. Then a general warning was given to elicit the desired
behavior from the classroom when the teacher said, “Let’s see who is doing a good job,” there
was a slight quieting in the class. She then told one student, he was doing a wonderful job and he
could move his number up. This was followed up with call another student’s name and said, “I
want to see if “Carla is trying to move her number up.” The student’s number was not moved,
and the chatter resumed. To another student, the teacher offered verbal praise for catching up
with the work. She did not check for accuracy and student was not told to move their number up.
Finally, she told another student, “If you are not done, you will miss recess.”
The use of the color chart and the language to control the students’ behaviors was
consistent with the literature in which, the teacher used smartness as a means of social control in
the classroom (Hatt, 2011). The students were indoctrinated into engaging in the desired

167

behaviors that allowed them to move their numbers up and down and gained them privileges,
such as recess. In this passage, the students’ ability was predicated upon how they behaved in the
classroom. The teacher wanted it quiet, she wanted to control the learning process. She did not
believe the students could help each other. She did not inquire as to why the students were
chattering. Her responses were punitive when the students engaged in actions, she did not deem
to be desirable (Rist, 2009; Hatt, 2010).
Instructional Practices
As I argued in my conceptual framework, a teacher with a deficit ideology will
demonstrate instruction that is rote (e.g., recall questions, closed ended questions, looking for
right answers, no depth), lacks inquiry (e.g., right answer, no effort to have students construct
knowledge, no effort to investigate). In addition, a teacher who does not demonstrate culturally
relevant instructional practices does not make connections to the students’ outside of school lives
or demonstrate an asset perspective about what the students are capable of. Also, no effort to
leverage what the students know from outside of school in support of what they are learning in
school. Ms. Gonzalez’s approach to teaching was to use the script from the district adopted
curriculum (Collection for Young Scholars) and in doing so, she enacted a curriculum that was
not culturally relevant, rote, and did not promote students’ sense making.
Lack of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy (CRP)
After 3 months of observations, it was evident Ms. Gonzalez’s instructional practices
possessed none of the tenets of CRP as I define it in my conceptual framework. Instead, she
enacted the district adopted curricula. According to literature, culturally relevant pedagogy can
be characterized as the pedagogy of opposition, and at the core is collective empowerment
(Ladson-Billings, 1995). The three tenets of culturally relevant pedagogy are: cultural

168

competence, sociopolitical consciousness, and student achievement. In my conceptual
framework, a teacher who enacts the tenets of CRP would create learning opportunities that are
inclusive of students’ worldviews, that in-turn creates a strong foundation that is inclusive of the
guidance and support needed for historically marginalized and minoritized students.
Ms. Gonzalez possessed no knowledge of the tenets of CRP. Therefore, during the
lessons, she did not clarify key concepts (achievement), emphasize critical creative thinking
(achievement), nor did she include students’ perspectives (cultural competence) (Santamaria,
2009).
For example, during English Language Arts instruction, the questions she posed to the
students were recall questions, she would repeat the questions and solicit one-word responses. If
a student had an extended response or an additional response, Ms. Gonzalez did not allow the
student to engage the thought. During the reading lessons, she had them repeat reading the
paragraphs, and she re-read the same passages. There was no pausing to assess students’
understanding of the text. The following example is an excerpt from an English language arts
lesson where Ms. Gonzalez and the students read a story from the anthology, a folktale.
(10:28 am) Timer goes off, Anthology Reading time, timer continues to sound off
T: Michael, you may sit in my seat.
T: Vocabulary, what page: 294.
T: Rueben, scoot over into square.
T: Gerald, you will lose sticker if you go to restroom during reading time.
Students and teacher discuss the story vocabulary.
Students connect to scratch and skin not growing back, also mention safety.
T: Have to wear a helmet while riding a bike or scooter.

169

T: What is a synonym for Tease? (No answer waits approximately 15 seconds) Brag.
T: How Did Chipmunk Get His Stripes?
S: He got scratched (uses fingers in scratching motion).
T: What’s the genre?
S: A folktale.
T: Lessons learned from the story?
Students’ responses: multiple students (Not to tease people)
T: It hurts your feelings; you have learned it is not right to tease…people get into fights.
T: Is it informational text?
(10:36 am)
Ss: It is informational text.
T: Is it fake or real? (No answer) Fake equals fiction.
Z: I have a connection!
T: No, you shared already. Let someone else share. (No answer from anyone else).
T: Student I, let’s start with your, magic finger on the first word.
In this exchange with her students, Ms. Gonzalez did not clarify key concepts or generalizations.
For example, she started with a quick review of the vocabulary words with the students. While
the students made a connection between the word scratch and the idea that skin did not grow
back and between the word safety and the concept of wearing a helmet when riding a bike, Ms.
Gonzalez did not engage the students in any further discussion or elaboration of the vocabulary.
Instead, she accepted one or two-word responses from them. Additionally, she did not review
other vocabulary words, nor did she make a smooth transition from the vocabulary words and
how they connected to safety and wearing a helmet. She moved immediately on to the discussion

170

of synonyms. She asked, “What is a synonym for tease?” Before the students had a chance to
respond, Ms. Gonzalez said “brag.” In addition to not providing the students with wait time so
that they might think and then respond to the question, her response was inaccurate. She also did
not provide them with any further opportunity to discuss other synonyms or other possible
synonyms for the word tease.
The teacher made herself the focus of the discussion and centered her knowledge and
understanding of the concepts. She did not provide time for expansion of the students’ thoughts.
She asked a question, “How did the chipmunk get his stripes?” Student responds, “he got
scratched.” This is the only response, and there is no further discussion. The teachers asked
closed-ended, questions, where there was no room for students to expend much cognitive energy.
Next, the teacher asked, “What is the genre?” The teacher and students offered two different
responses, folktale, and informational, never clarifying either one. The teacher asked, “is it fake
or real,” and then said, “fake equals fiction,” again carrying the cognitive load for the students.
When a student said, “I have a connection,” her response was “you have already shared. Let
someone else share.” None of the other students provided a response or shared any other
information regarding the story. Mrs. Gonzalez did not go back to the student who indicated he
had made a connection. Instead, she continued the lesson and asked the following question:
T: What’s the genre?
S: A folktale.
The teacher asked the students about the genre. The students provided a one-word response.
There was no, further discussion as to what made the story a folktale. Why was it a folk tale?
What is the purpose of reading this folk tale? There were no probative questions asked of the
students. The questioning is limited to recall questions, soliciting one-word responses, based on

171

information provided at a different point in the school year. The information regarding the type
of story being read is a key concept and she did not ensure all the students understand the
concept. She asked the question and then moves on as though all students are on the same page
with her. This is not ensuring that key concepts are clarified for all students. She continued the
lesson, using the strategies of having the students read both individually and chorally. During
this phase of the lesson, she exhibited no knowledge of the importance of socio-political
consciousness and its importance in students attaining academic success (Santamaria, 2009).
This is demonstrated in the next passage.
Students read the same passage, one student reads individually, and the group reads
chorally
T: Discusses what just read…have you ever seen a sunset?
T: I’m not a morning person.
Various students respond with colors: pink, orange, yellow, blue.
T: So, you will see those colors when sun will rise; so, you see a little red
T: I, sit up straight.
T: Do you [see] this, (hand motion going up) the sun is going to rise?
As the lesson continued, the teacher has a brief discussion about the sunset. She asked the
students if they had ever seen a sunset. She then said, “I am not a morning person.” The students
responded by indicating colors of the sunset. The students provided one-word recall responses.
The teacher then went on to say, “so you will see those colors when the sunrises?” She did not
guide the students to probe any deeper, nor did she clearly delineate between a sunrise/sunset.
Furthermore, she stated she was not a morning person. This was another example of the
teacher assuming the students understood what had been stated. Moreover, she did not clearly

172

delineate as to whether the discussion was about a sunset or a sunrise. The student making the
hand-motion indicating that the was sun rising did so without using words. The teacher stated the
sun was rising, again providing the oral explanations, in place of the students. This was another
demonstration of the teacher carrying the cognitive load, missing an opportunity to engage her
students in the learning process, by not allowing them to think critically, only engaging in
surface level instruction where she was providing the verbal responses and moving on with the
lesson.
According to Ladson-Billings (1995, 2014), a teacher must exhibit sociopolitical
consciousness, when working with marginalized students. The teacher must be able to take the
learning outside of the classroom. Furthermore, when the tenet of socio-political consciousness,
teachers construct students’ awareness of the world around them, thereby opening up students’
opportunities to attain academic success. One of the benefits of developing students’ knowledge
base is higher scores on standardized assessments, in addition to higher levels of inquiry,
reading, speaking, math, and problem-solving (Ladson-Billings, 2009). She did not provide the
venue for the development of any comprehension skills in the students, as her thoughts and
words were the center of the instruction, with the assumption the students understood.
T: Mary, scoot up. Gerald take it off. Gerald grab your book.
T: John, read.
John: Reads.
T: Line 3.
T: We do not like to lose, Bear is grumpy.
T: Let’s read. (Students read chorally)
T: Corrects Students.

173

(10:57)
Michael reads, stumbles over happiest.
T: Jerry, follow along.
T: That is your sticker, follow along.
T: Stacy, louder.
T: Do not feel right about, say word, or skip it.
T: Checks for understanding, re-reads, states important lesson. It is good to be right about
something. When someone is wrong hurting feelings to tease them; they are mad, start
calling names like foolish and silly and bad words.
During this phase of the lesson, she did not allow the students to assist each other, and the
students stumbled during their individual reading opportunities. Ms. Gonzalez corrected
students. She admonished a student for not following along and instructed a student to skip a
word if the student was not sure of the word or “does not feel right about the word.” The
corrections she provided were geared toward the students’ fluency of reading, not the content of
the story.
The admonishments were for not following along with the story. During a pause within
the lesson to check for understanding, the teacher provided the students with the “understanding”
they should glean from the story. She stated what she believed were the important aspects of the
story, and the lessons that should be learned. She did not engage in a whole-group discussion
with the students. She did not ask the students their opinion of the passage, and how they were
understanding the story. She did not check for the students’ understanding of the story.
According to literature, teachers who teacher from a culturally relevant viewpoint, must ensure
their students’ academic needs are met (Ladson-Billings, 1995). Furthermore, they act as cultural

174

brokers assisting the students in constructing knowledge, then converting the cultural knowledge
into pedagogical practices (Gay, 1993). Instead, she provided the simple transference of the
teacher’s knowledge of the importance of the reading, and her understanding, not the students’
understanding of the lesson and what they have learned.
In the last phases of the observed lesson the group of students designated to the “low”
reading group return to the main group. However, they do not sit on the rug with the other
students. They sit at a table and silently follow along with the reading.
At 11:00 back group joins the students on the rug
T: Slow down, stop class reading, it says, the Sun…
David from rear group asks what page (Teacher says p. 308).
T: Good. John you are there.
John: reads stop.
T: Explain that action occurred. Start again.
John: reads.
T: Helps correct.
John: Stumbles.
T: Has student continue to read.
While most of the students struggled and stumbled with the reading, she excluded students from
the learning process by not allowing the students from the “low” reading group to participate
with the higher group. This decision, she stated during the interview process, was due to “the
students being mean to the slower reading students.” As the lesson continued, every student,
sans the students in the “lower” group were allowed an opportunity to read parts of the story. She
had the students sit at a table and listen to the students on the rug read aloud. Occasionally, she

175

checked the student nearest where she was sitting to make sure the all the students at the table
were following along.
She did not notice once the students returned to the larger group, four of the six students
from the lower group requested to be excused to go to the restroom. She did not penalize the
students sitting at the table when they requested to go to the restroom. While a student was
reading, from the high group, she assisted the student in the “high group” with the flow of the
sentence. According to literature, she was establishing who she deemed high and low, based on
limited data, not actual student performance (Rist, 2009).
The most salient aspect of this passage was how she did not allow the students at the
table to read with the larger group. She silenced the students who were in most need of the
assistance. The use of ability grouping, with the creation of a “low” reading group and the non-
integration of the group into the main reading group is contrary to culturally relevant teaching.
According to literature, students disproportionately placed in low-ability groups…do not benefit
from (the) homogenous grouping (Santamaría, 2009).
It has been asserted by other researchers that mixed cooperative learning groups are a key
teaching method, used to improve academic achievement of minoritized students (Ladson-
Billings, 1994). Heterogenous cooperative groups, cooperative learning, allows students to work
together and provides the best conditions and stimulus for learning for all students (Santamaría,
2009). Moreover, it is evident that students placed in low-ability groups do not benefit from the
homogenous group (Santamaría, 2009). During the observations, it became evident the teacher
possessed no knowledge of the tenets of culturally relevant responsive pedagogy. In the final
section of the observation, the following interaction took place.
T: Checking for understanding.

176

Michael: It’s hard to breathe.
T: If you are talking, you can breathe.
T: Continue to explain; if he can talk, he can apologize.
It became evident from several hours of observations, the teacher did not use any tenets of
culturally relevant responsive, student-centered teaching. All the instruction was centered around
the teacher. In this aspect of the lesson, while checking for understanding, there was a disruption
of the flow of the lesson. A student indicated it was hard for him to breathe, and the teacher said,
“If you are talking, you are breathing, and you are able apologize.” When she made this
seemingly innocuous statement it emphasized her lack of socio-political consciousness, a key
tenet of culturally relevant responsive pedagogy. Given the current political climate (Eric
Garner’s death), her lack of awareness of the comment she made to the student was indicative of
her lack of knowledge of the larger sociopolitical context of the school, community, nation, and
world (Santamaría, 2009).
A culturally relevant teacher would exhibit a socio-political consciousness. Working with
disenfranchised students, teachers would possess the ability to take learning outside of the
classroom (Ladson-Billings, 1995, 2014). Investigating social inequities to recognize,
understand, and analyze them. She would allow students to put learning into their own realities,
being able to view the injustices within their own community (Ladson-Billings, 1995). Being
mindful of the way she chose to speak to the students when engaging in with them. Finally, she
would employ students’ culture as a vehicle for making learning meaningful (Ladson-Billings,
1995). These conditions were not present during the observations. The lessons lacked reference
to culturally relevant responsive pedagogy. Therefore, meaningful learning was not present
during the instruction provided to the students.

177

Lack of Meaningful Learning Opportunities
In my conceptual framework, meaningful learning experiences, and the resulting learning
opportunities for students, either negative or positive, are based on the pedagogical practices
used by used by teachers. In the literature, there was no clear delineation of “meaningful learning
experiences,” instead it is listed as a type of “learning conditions.” For meaningful learning to
occur, teaching is conducted using constructivist principles and socio-cultural learning theory.
These two learning theories when used with fidelity claim to create meaningful learning
experiences for historically marginalized and minoritized students. According to literature,
meaningful learning is an active not passive learning process, centered on purposeful learning
activities and active mental experiences (Anthony, 1996).
In addition to the duality of the definition of meaningful learning it is also inclusive of
socio-cultural learning. According to literature, the theory of socio-cultural learning asserted,
learning is a developmental process, which occurs during social interactions, guided by the
culture and context where the learning takes place (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). The two theories
in tandem, create the learning conditions for students to experience meaningful learning
opportunities. However, during the 36 hours of observation and 20 lessons there was no evidence
of meaningful learning opportunities afforded to the students in Mrs. Gonzalez’s class.
The lessons provided were recall, memorization of basic facts, low rigor, and lacked the
conditions set forth by the literature for student-centered meaningful learning. Below are two
lessons that typify the type of instruction that occurred during a math and an English Language
Development (ELD) lesson.
For example, during the interview phase of the study, the teacher mentioned she had to
slow down during math lessons, as it was her belief the students were unable to complete a

178

lesson a day. However, during the math lesson observations, the researcher observed that the
students were able to perform the task of multiple digit addition involving regrouping, and even
developed their own means of solving the expressions.
T: Teacher points to the math written horizontally 21+13 =
T: Can you regroup like this 21 + 13
Ss: In Unison, no!
T: Numbers must be on tops of each other. (Rewrites expression vertically)
T: What are we doing, re-write 2-digit addition.
This is the beginning of the math lesson. The students are taught from the rug in the same
manner they are taught reading. The lesson is projected using the ELMO, and the students are
provided verbal instructions as to how to solve the math expression. The teacher did not use
math vocabulary to explain the composition of the math expression, nor did she ask the students
if they have an alternative method of solving the math expression. It is evident at some point in
the school year the teacher has provided instruction in the method of solving the math
expressions. However, the directions provided are limited and did not allow for the students to
actively engage in the lesson sans the choral recall of the instruction she had provided.
T: One-Minute to do math in workbook.
T: You have 53 seconds.
Timer goes off, students back to carpet.
T: Can you get whiteboards please, remember 3 boards for self, pass out others.
T: Go on side that is white/no lines.
T: Teacher counting to 5 you should be sitting, use side without lines going to write 2
problems.

179

Verbal praise to student using board correctly, asked to show everyone proper side of
whiteboard to use.
T: You will rewrite it and find the answer (solve it).
T: Do we solve it like this? 64+22 / 26+65.
S: In unison, no!
T: Find your answers, cannot solve if going left to right.
T: Alan, I will help you,
T: Anthony, “Good Job” get a treat.
T: Ruben, leave board come solve problem.
T: Brian, rewrite problem.
The students are repeatedly provided the same instructions, then placed on a timer and
must move quickly back and forth from their desks to the floor when solving the math
expressions. The use the white boards to rewrite the expressions and solve them individually.
They are not allowed to assist each other. The teacher is the only person allowed to give
guidance regarding the lesson. This creates a situation where the students are dependent upon the
teacher for all their learning. They are not allowed to think independently. The lesson is used for
automaticity, not depth of learning, nor is it taught in a rigorous fashion. The lesson consists of
the teacher giving directions, and the students following the one-way of completing the tasks.
T: Class in unison 64 + 22.
T: Look at one’s place, 4+2.
T: Look at ten’s place, 6+2.
T: Let’s do roller coaster for those that got it right.
T: Let’s all read it 26 + 65.

180

T: To student, way you wrote is confusing, write on top of each other.
T: I saw everyone in orange, eyes on board.
S: Waiting for teacher’s directions.
T: 1
st
grade no re-group; 2
nd
grade re-group.
T: Sprinkler for those that got it correct.
At this point in the lesson the teacher did use some math vocabulary. She indicates the
place value position of the numbers contained in the mathematical expression. She mentions in
first grade how the students did not have to re-group. However, in second grade the student
needed to regroup. She did not explain why, and she did not open the lesson for discussion. She
makes statement to the students, did not check for understanding from the students of her
statements or the changes in the lessons they were receiving.
T: Student go back to desks to complete work.
T: I will be walking around to help you.
T: I like the way Robert is at his desk working, good job, move your number up.
T: Sam, Gerald, Kathy, you may move number up, good job.
T: Let’s see if there is a table where everyone is working, oh good job table 5, you get a
bonus star.
T: Page 192, math re-writes all problems again.
T: Table 4 good job.
T: No finish, Leland, no recess.
This section of the lesson the students returned to their desks and worked on the lesson
individually. She gave praise to the students that were working quietly. She gave bonus stars and
walked around the room to see if the students were following the directions she provided. She

181

gave individual praise to the students, and they were told to move their numbers up or down, if
they were working quietly. She also gave a verbal warning that if the students did not complete
the classwork, they would receive no recess. Again, the students were not allowed to work
together, they were not allowed to help each other, the teacher was the only person allowed to
provide the assistance the students needed.
T: Gerald, you have to rewrite the problem from left to right, to up and down.
T: pgs. 192.
T: See you re-wrote it wrong; erase let’s start again 64+22 (top and bottom), now solve it.
S: Do I have to do this.
T: Yes, you have to do it.
T: Alan, No rewrite it, now 26+65 (top and bottom).
T: Now very good, solve the problem, find the answer.
Again, she tells the students how to rewrite the math expression, with no explanation. She did
not use math vocabulary. When the student asks if this step is necessary, she responds in the
affirmative. However, she did not provide a reason, nor did she ask if the student has another
way to solve the expression. Once the student writes the math expression in the fashion, she
determines acceptable, then the student is allowed to continue with solving the math expression.
T: Be careful with number.
T: I like the way Kylei is working.
T: 3+6, now solve it, find the answer.
T: That is easy, we’ve done our double 6+6 (mental math, should know with
automaticity).
T: Table 3, I hear talking again, back to make 1+2.

182

T: I am going to move numbers down; I hear a lot of talking.
T: If finished read your book.
T: 73 + 19, what is 9+3, what do you do with 1, carry it, write it down now, add 7+1+1.
The teacher continues to move from table to table providing the instructions for the students to
complete the math assignment. At no point did she ask the students to provide any information or
check if the students understand the process for solving the math expressions. She provided the
same instructions to each student repeatedly. At this point she did mention mental math, where
she wants the students to give quick answers to single digit addition, as she did not want them to
use their finders to count. She requires quick answers, yet she did not allow the students the
opportunity to think on their own to solve the math expressions. She admonishes the students for
talking. However, she did not realize some of the chatter is due to the students helping each other
solve the mathematical expressions.
S: Gerald – Barty Crouch!
T: Gerald, oh yeah, you need help. Look how I did it, here, Up and down, do not write it
like that (horizontal), have a seat.
T: focus on another student, provides directions.
T: returns to assist Gerald, to help with math.
T: What is 3+3, not too fast, what is 3+3+1 more?
S: Gerald, uses fingers.
T: You don’t need fingers, what is number after it, move it down.
T: 6 fingers, to go 7, 8.
T: 64+22, rewrite the problem.
T: Warning to student to stop talking, Student Carla, Last Warning, SHH!!

183

T: Very good Student Alan, forgot to add carry over.
She continued her rounds until she was alerted by a student that he needed assistance. This was
the student who had asked her if it was necessary to write the math expression the way she
wanted it written. She was helping him again and when he used his fingers to count, she told him
he did not need his fingers. She then gave him another means of attaining the solution. This not
allowing him to figure out the answer, inhibited the knowledge building he needed to create
meaningful, long-term learning. This was typical of the entire lesson. Hence her need to continue
to walk around the class and help many of the students in the classroom.
T: To rug soon.
T: Good job keep going to student at table 1.
T: One-minute need to rewrite differently put everything on 1-side.
T: Going to have to erase all of these.
T: Who are you talking too? Are you done?
T: You need to carry 1 over and add it.
T: This is wrong, repeat, repeat.
T: You forgot to carry one-over, 10’s place is wrong.
There was no error analysis. She did not allow the students to look for mistakes and discuss
amongst each other. She moves around the class providing the same instructions to the students.
She did not realize that if she allowed the students the opportunity to discuss the process the
connections to the lesson and the process would become easier for the students to understand.
She did not allow them to elaborate or discuss amongst themselves the process, nor did she allow
them to think beyond what she has taught them.
Teacher moves around entire room, back to student Gerald.

184

T: Going to have to move number. everyone is done, and you are still on number 2.
T: Back to rug in 1-minute.
T: Not done, no recess, everyone is done, some on #2.
T: Here this is wrong.
The teacher returned to the student Gerald. He arrived late to class and was behind the other
students. She let the class know they would be going back to the rug to review the math. The
students were not given a reason why, this was just routine. She told Gerald, he would lose his
recess, as he was behind the other students because he was late. She also said, “this is wrong.”
This is typical of the way she spoke to the students regarding their assignments. The students
were praised or punished for their work product. She did not allow the students to work together,
compare answers, do error analysis, nor did she provide them with the reason the solution was
incorrect.
Timer goes off, everyone to rug beat the timer
T: Let’s do word problem together if you are done.
T: Helen, erase board for me, please. I love the way you are sitting.
T: Did you hear timer? You are all late. I could move your numbers.
T: Word problem number 16.
Class quiets down. The teacher adjusts ELMO.
class reads number 16 in unison. The ELMO light is hard to see.
T: In all “clue word,” what will you do, add, or subtract?
G: Add.
T: Before we add, what do we have to do? What do we have to do a number sentence?
S: Write the problem.

185

The teacher had the students return to the rug to work on the work problem. There was no
problem-solving method used to break the problem down. She asked for “clue” words to indicate
whether the problem would be an addition or subtraction problem. This was very low-level rigor
as she did not allow the students to use what they had previously learned and to apply it to
solving the math word problem. Instead, the goal was to locate the numbers, write the
expression, and find the solution. There was no discussion as to how to use this skill beyond
using the clue words and solving the math expression. The lesson continued,
T: 38+49, Add ones, then regroup and add tens.
T: Turn around. Eyes on the board. Read problem.
Ss: Read in unison.
T: They need a total. Kelly, what is a total?
K: Add.
T: What adding?
K: 65+29.
T: What page Kelly?
K: p. 194.
The same directions were provided to solve the math expression once the numbers were garnered
for the solution. The same students were called on to solve the math expression. The students
wrote the number vertically and solved the problem. There was no further discussion, nor was
there any checking for understanding of the problem-solving process. The students were asked
closed ended questions and the teacher moved the process forward.
T: This must be done before recess. Tear out homework before recess and put in your
folder. Let’s review. Do pages 191-194. This must be done before class as a whole.

186

T: Recess is in 10 minutes.
T: I, are you finished? If you are finished, the smart thing to do is read your book, test is
Friday…
The students returned to their seats and had to complete a few more word problems before
recess. When a student had completed his work, she did not check for understanding. She told
him “…the smart thing” was to read his book because he would be tested on Friday. This
directive referred to the language arts assessment, not the math assessments. The lesson ended
with students being asked to take out homework and get ready for recess. There was no further
discussion of the math lesson or ways in which the learning would be applied later. There were
no follow-up or supplements to the math lesson.
In another lesson, the teacher engaged in similar pedagogical choices.
From fieldnotes: Teacher checks work/helps students individually.
T: This is easy, 1, 2, ok rewrite them I will do a few 7+16, okay keep going, 8+9 is not
11, say 9+8, counting with fingers.
T: 73+ and 1 more?
T: Finish reading your library book. If you do not have a library book, read your
anthology.
T: (To a Ruben) Wow, finish all of these keep going, good job.
The teacher did does not check the student’s work.
T: (To Beth) Move number up, you are working quietly.
T: Let’s see who is doing a good job. Gerald, you are doing a wonderful job. Go move
number up.
T: I want to see if, Brenda is trying hard to move number up.

187

T: Calls students name to move numbers up.
T: 3 minutes, 17 seconds left for math.
T: Student Sra, ok, 6+5, I know you had to rewrite them, you do not carry one answer
will be wrong.
T: (singsong) 6+6 is, you forgot to carry 1 over.
T: 40 seconds.
T: Same thing, forgot to carry 1 fix these.
As the lesson came to an end, the teacher continued to help the students. She helped students
count to solve the re-grouping. She told them that the problems were easy. One student quietly
counted with his fingers. She stayed with the student a few more minutes before instructing the
students to read a book once they had completed the lesson. The teacher spent the end of the
lesson either praising or punishing the students for completing their assignments. She provided
the error analysis for the students making mistakes. She told the students what mistakes they
were making and how to correct the mistakes. This continued until the students stopped and lined
up for recess.
Ms. Gonzalez created the conditions for passive learning by her students. When the
students did demonstrate a level of understanding of the concept and attempted to deviate from
her instructional guidance, she verbally admonished the students and told them to perform the
task the way she taught them to do it. According to literature, passive learning is built on rote
memorization and assimilation of new information (Anthony, 1996). This is the way the teacher
taught the lessons to the students. She did not use a constructivist approach, where according to
Anthony (1996), learning is built upon existing knowledge and students are self-directed and
self-regulated in their cognitive processes. The lessons provided by Ms. Gonzalez were teacher

188

directed. At no point were the students allowed to think for themselves. She carried the cognitive
load of the lessons. The students were not afforded the opportunity to build their mathematical
capacity by connecting to prior knowledge, nor building new knowledge.
This was a trend with all the lessons she taught. The final observations were of the
English language development lessons. She believed the lessons in the core curriculum were too
difficult for her students. Therefore, she used her self-created, non-rigorous approach to teaching
the lesson. According to literature, the constructivist learning theory sheds light on the
importance of the process by which learning is reconstructed based on the acquisition of new
learning (Lee, 2003). Furthermore, in a student-centered approach, the belief is students
engaging in meaning-making lesson, forms both students’ skills and comprehension (Lee, 2003).
This enables the students to be self-directed learners, making decisions regarding their work,
while being supported by both their teachers and peers. Even though the lessons were created by
the teacher and the students could speak to and engage more with each other during ELD time,
the structure of the learning continued to be both limited and teacher focused.
From fieldnotes: ELD is set-up to have all ELD students in one class and all EO students
in another class. The students are grouped high, medium, low. ELD Agenda, students will
orally share about their weekend:
T: Class, class…
Ss: Yes, yes …
T: Get your folders and your papers for your ELD. (ELD Students go to the rug)
T: Today we are going to (teacher points to agenda on the board, teacher reads first,
students follow).
T: (points to sentence starter) This weekend…

189

Students shared orally what they did this weekend.
Bobby: I play fortnight with my brother.
T: Correct “played,” now repeat, sentence and used played because, you already did it/it
happened.
Bobby: I played fortnight with my brother.
T: Very Good.
Adan: I go to a party with my family.
T: I went to a party with my family.
T: Repeat the sentence with, went, not go
Adan: I went to a party with my family
The skill the students needed to work on was using the past tense of verbs. The students came
from homes where Spanish was the primary language. Therefore, their English translation was
based upon their understanding of how their home language was spoken. At no point during the
lesson did the teacher explain or connect their home language to the English translations. For
example, she told the students the correct verb tense to use, she stated, “because you already did
it.” She did not make the instructions clear. At no point did she use the academic language to
explain the concept being taught. Nor did she engage in a discussion or provide context for the
lesson. She assumed the students understood what was required of them. She said,
T: (To a student) Tell me what you did, but not I sentence. Let’s start it with another
word. Verbal directions, no “I” sentences.
S: Silent.
S: Another student begins to speak.
T: Quiet. Let him think.

190

Maribel: My sister and my cousin came over and we went to the park.
T: Very good. A sticker for you.
T: (To a LM) Ok, next student.
Josue: I was sick.
T: How can we say this different?
Maggie: Think…
(Another student attempts to help)
The lesson transitioned from the correct use of the verb to the type of sentences the students
should use when responding. At no point in the lesson did she provide the students with an
example of speaking in complete sentences. Nor did she explain why the students should not use
I sentences. She did not provide context for the structure of the lesson. When she made a
statement, asking how the sentence could be stated differently, a student attempted to assist. The
following occurred:
T: No, No let him think.
Josue: My stomach hurt.
T: Ok, that’s better.
T: Ok.
Another student Jose raised his hand.
T: Ok.
Jose: I play fortnight too.
T: How can we help him?
Katherine: He played Fortnight.
T: Ok, we are going to use our sentence start: This weekend…

191

Students repeat after teacher: This weekend…
T: Now we are going to the desks, your seats. And we are going to write about our
weekends.
Students return to seats and teacher passes out picture, write paper (picture at top, word at
the bottom)
Students begin to draw, and teacher point to agenda, boys and girls, what is our agenda
T: Share orally.
T: What does that mean?
Ms. Gonzalez told the student to quiet down and allow the student to think. In this exchange she
made a statement, eliciting help from the other students. When a student attempted to aid the
classmate, she did not allow the student to help. However, she did allow more think time for the
student to correct the sentence. The student responded in an incomplete sentence. However, it
did not begin with a “I.” Another student responded with a sentence beginning with an “I.”
Again, she made the statement, eliciting help. This time she allowed a student to correct their
classmate’s sentence. She then turned to the agenda and explained to the students the lesson for
the day. She told the students to use this sentence starter, and write two sentences, with details.
She said they were going to share orally and asked what it meant.
Prenda: We are going to talk.
T: Next we are going to write, then we are going to illustrate, that means we write our
sentences first, understand boys and girls?
Ss: Yes, Mrs. Gonzalez.
T: Walks around and assists students with writing their sentences.
T: How do you begin our sentences?

192

Roberto: Big letter.
T: Yes, but what is the big letter called?
Bryan: Oh, capital letter.
T: Very good, sticker, and change the beginning of your sentence.
Cathy: Talking to table mate about weekend.
Maggie: What did you do this weekend?
Cathy: Oh, that is how we start, ok.
T: What did you do this weekend?
Adam: (inaudible)
T: Ok, write that down.
Here Ms. Gonzalez explained to the students the lesson expectations. She did not allow for the
students to let her know if they understood what was expected of them. Nor did she allow for
them to build on previous knowledge as she gave disjointed directions to the students. She told
them they were going to talk, write, and draw. She did not provide time for the students to tell
her if they understood the process. She provided individual guidance on capitalizing letters at the
beginning of the sentence. She did not provide the guidance or the structure for writing proper
complex sentences or the correct structure of a complete sentence.
Ms. Gonzalez’s statements in the beginning of the study indicated she believed all
students could learn if given a chance to do so. She also did not believe in all day negative
consequence when students did not follow the rules of the classroom. Additionally, Ms.
Gonzalez used herself as the example for the students to follow. She was unaware of her
positionality to the students. Furthermore, in practice, her beliefs and pedagogical decisions were
deficit and aligned to the assimilationist perspective that did not incorporate culturally relevant

193

responsive pedagogy. There were many findings, however the main themes were: her lack of
belief in her students’ ability, the lack of rigor in the instruction, her negative view of her
students’ home life, her lack of awareness of facts she provided to the students, the constant
color changing for behavior, and her delivery was routinized, teacher centered instruction, based
on recall and repetition. Having taught the same grade for 19 years provided Ms. Gonzalez with
the ability to routinize the way she delivered instruction. Additionally, her ideology was
cemented in the way she delivered instruction. Moreover, the lesson delivery did not provide the
students she taught with access to culturally relevant responsive pedagogy, nor meaningful
learning opportunities, even when opportunities were presented intentionally or unintentionally.

194

Case Study 2: Mrs. Nelson
Marshall Elementary School was a medium sized elementary school with a total
enrollment of 560 students during the 2018-2019 school year. It was located on the northside of
the Chisholm School District, in Hyattsville, California. Many of the students were from
socioeconomically disadvantaged households (94.1%). Half of the students (51.6%) who
attended the school Latino/a, and 28.2% were English language learners ranging in levels from
emergent to advanced (English language development). Forty-three-point eight percent of the
students were African American, with the remaining students being 1.4% White/Caucasian, Two
or more races 1.4%, Asian 0.2%, Native American, or Alaskan Native 0.4%, Filipino 0.4%,
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 0.5%, and no response 0.4%. The 2017-2018 standardized
test data showed 34% of the students met or exceeded the state average in English language Arts
and 21% of the students met or exceeded mathematics standards. In 2018-2019 there was no
change in English Language Arts, and a 1% increase in mathematics. The data indicated most of
the students were not performing well academically (School Accountability Report Card, 2018-
2019).
Mrs. Nelson was an African American, who was born in Los Angeles County. At the
time of the study, she had been in the district for 19 years. She had only taught at Marshall
Elementary School. However, she began her teaching career 6 years earlier in a more affluent
school district as an early childhood teacher (preschool). She left the more affluent school district
to work in the Chisholm School District. Kindergarten was the only grade she taught in the
Chisholm School District for 19 years. During the study, she was teaching a combination class
composed of kindergarten and first grade students. Mrs. Nelson stated she became a teacher
because “[she] loved children.” Additionally, Mrs. Nelson, stated her decision to work in a low

195

socio-economic district, “because the more affluent district would always have more, would
always have better, and the children in the Chisholm school district deserved the same
[educational opportunities] as the students in the affluent district.”
She was a dedicated teacher who wanted the best for her students. Her classroom lacked
structure and she used various methods of behavior modification to create structure. She
modified the classroom behavior to accommodate the students with the most disruptive behavior.
She did not follow the district’s pacing guide and was quite frustrated that she had been tasked
with teaching a combination class during the year of the study. Mrs. Nelson was not a student of
culturally relevant responsive pedagogy. She delivered the curriculum with a focus on early
childhood education and kinder focused lessons and her approach was thus remedial and more
like intervention for her first-grade students.
There was some student engagement, use of academic language, and differentiation of the
instruction. She created her own way of delivering instruction drawing from the district
curriculum if it connected to what she wanted to teach. Mrs. Nelson’s rationale for not using the
district curriculum was that her students were not able to understand it. It was too much. Her
decisions were not grounded in data and instead were the result of her beliefs about the students’
abilities. Over the course of 3 months of observations, science nor social studies was observed
being taught to the students.
During the 2018-2019 school year, there were 26 students in the class at the beginning of
the study. Eleven of the students were first graders and 15 were kindergarteners. Three students
left the class over the course of the study, two at the beginning. The first, EJ (ethnicity
unknown), was removed due to behavior. A second student, an African American female, was
removed by her parents after being assaulted by another student. The third student, also an

196

African American female, was removed by the principal towards the end of the data collection
period because she was experiencing homeless. Therefore, the demographics of the classroom
were as follows: 12 African Americans and 12 Latino/a students, 13 boys and 11 girls, 7 Latino
male students and 5 Latina female students, 5 African American males and 7 African American
females. All the Latino/a students were classified as English language learners, their ranges were
expanding and bridging, as none of the students spoke only Spanish and possessed some English
language speaking ability.
In my conceptual framework, I argued beliefs held by educators of the same
race/ethnicity of their students, either negatively or positively affected their pedagogical
practices, which negatively or positively shaped students’ learning opportunities. The three
elements created a triangle of three linked concepts: ideology, culturally relevant pedagogy, and
meaningful learning experiences.
Using my conceptual framework as a guide, the following findings emerged from the
data: Mrs. Nelson’s identity was constructed as an early childhood education teacher who taught
kindergarten, this influenced her beliefs regarding how and what the students were taught. The
second finding is that Mrs. Nelson held a deficit belief, regarding her students’ academic
abilities. Furthermore, the data revealed the students’ opportunities to learn were limited by her
low expectations. The third finding relates to her inconsistent use of behavior
modification/expectations she set for students (lack of structure in the classroom). The fourth
finding was, she did not provide students with meaningful learning experiences.
Ideology: Constructed as an Early Childhood Educator, who taught kindergarten.
The first theme that emerged from the data was Mrs. Nelson saw herself as a kindergarten
teacher, but she taught as if she was an early childhood educator, which was her singular belief

197

and therefore the education provided to her students was remedial. I present the findings in two
themes, first speaking to her identity and beliefs as an early childhood educator who taught
kindergarten and then turning to the way that her identity was influenced and was reflected in her
pedagogy.
Identity as an Early Childhood Educator
Mrs. Nelson was staunchly entrenched in an identity as kindergarten teacher, however the
way she spoke was that of an early childhood educator. This came through in the way she talked
about herself and the ways that she talked about her responsibilities to her students. Her beliefs
about herself revealed a lack of investigation into her own assumptions and biases regarding her
first-grade students. With respect to the way she talked about herself, on multiple occasions she
said, “I am a kindergarten teacher.” She did not incorporate her first graders into her thinking
about herself as a teacher, nor in her responsibility for her students’ learning.
For example, Mrs. Nelson stated, “This is a kindergarten class…I just love
kindergarten…I do not know what the other grades are like, but Kinder is messy, it better be.
Kinder should be messy, free flowing, let the students lead, that is what I believe.”
Although Mrs. Nelson was teaching a combination class, she did not adjust her
statements to acknowledge her first-grade students. Her lack of consciousness regarding her first-
grade students’ needs and her belief and identity as a Kindergarten teacher, with early childhood
educator leanings, excluded her first-grade students’ needs and provided overall remedial
educational experience to all of her students. Her beliefs continued to be revealed during the
interview, when she described herself as being restricted and lacking freedom, in this instance,
Mrs. Nelson was speaking from her background as an early education teacher.

198

Ideology Reflected Pedagogy
Mrs. Nelson stated, “[she] loved…the freedom [she] had before [she] came to this
district.” She went on to say, “I would be allowed to observe them [the students] first, see what
they were interested in, take notes, and then shape the curriculum around their [the students]
interests. There is no freedom, I am not free, I am restricted. That’s all, I just love the freedom I
had before.” While she said she saw herself as a kinder teacher, the way she talked about her
approach to teaching (need for freedom) revealed that she really constructed her identity as an
early childhood education teacher. Upon further investigation, I learned early childhood
educators were allowed to create their own curriculum based on thematic units (Early
Foundations Learning Frameworks, 2012-18). Additionally, a focused kindergarten curriculum,
based on stated standards was introduced in 2010. Therefore, until recently, early educators and
kindergarten teachers were allowed a great bit of leeway regarding what the students and how
the students were taught (Ed. Source 2018).
In a follow up inquiry, she was asked, how the lessons should be taught? Again, she
mentioned kindergarten, and how she missed the freedom from her work in the previous district.
She had not been employed in the previous district for 19 years. However, she stated while she
was in the other district, she was able to create the lessons based on the students’ interest. For
example, she recalled, “The students would come in, I would observe them first, see what they
were interested in, take notes and then I would shape my lessons around their interests, the math,
the science.”
Mrs. Nelson’s statement was connected to her years as an early childhood educator. For
the early childhood educator, there was no specific curriculum used for preschool, there are
recommended standards, themes, and curriculum that may be followed (California Department

199

of Education, Early Learning Foundation Frameworks, 2012-2018). The state standards are
designed for the students to explore their environment, based on their ages and stages of
development. The students’ progress is monitored using the state Desired Results Diagnostic
Profile (DRDP).
The students are rated/assessed from exploring to integrating, based on their ages and
developmental levels. The goal of the DRDP is to have the students ready for transitional
kindergarten or kindergarten based on their ages. Using this method, Mrs. Nelson would have
her students for 2 to 3 years. She would be able to build on the students learning and interest
from the previous years. Mrs. Nelson used this method with her kindergarten students. Hence,
the freedom she spoke of when creating her own lessons.
Additionally, she repeatedly spoke of the strategies she used, however, because of the
monitoring via the district, she believed she had no freedom to use the strategies. Again, the
strategies were early childhood and kindergarten centered. They would be remedial for her first-
grade students and in some instance remedial for her kindergarten students. The early learning
foundations would only provide limited literacy foundation for her kindergarten students.
Furthermore, the strategies would be limited to what she wanted to teach, as the early learning
foundations indicate the minimum students should know, and are not inclusive of the district
core curriculum, based on state standards for the students at the Kindergarten and First-grade
levels. Her staunch focus on the past lead to an inquiry, how should the students learn, Mrs.
Nelson stated, “the lessons should be structured around what the students were interested in
learning.” This would indicate a student-centered approach to instruction. Since she was opposed
to using the district curriculum, I asked her, if given the opportunity to create your own
curriculum, what would it be, what would it look like? She stated:

200

it would be something culturally, something they can connect to. I love to do the
language arts, I love the books, I love teaching phonemic awareness, how to read, I just
need multi-layered lessons. I mean I need to reach my EL students, I need to reach my
African American students, and this is not doing it. I, this is just not doing it. It is too
much, it floods them, I can’t get to all of it. But they want me to get to all of this, all of
these beautiful books, and the coach is ready for stickers and the chart, she comes every
day and [asks] what have you done? I mean, I [am] still right here at unit 1, I can’t even
get passed, it is all these damn literature books, book after book, after book, after book…
Ms. Nelson spoke of her limited ability to provide the instruction with fidelity due to the vastness
of the materials and the cultural disconnect between the program and the students. She was
unable to clearly articulate the exact disconnect that existed. She stated she wanted to reach all
her students, and the curriculum did not provide the avenue for her to do so. She complained
about the number of books provided, and the coach coming to her class to assist her with the
lessons. She wanted to teach the way she taught before she had a combination class without the
district monitoring. From the description of the curriculum, there was a capacity for multi-
layered lessons, there was a means of reaching her students and additional assistance if she
wanted it.
However, she did not use the curriculum, nor did she utilize the assistance.
Therefore, she chose to rebel at the expense of her students’ educational growth and
development. Her belief that the curriculum was too much for the students to access indicated
that while she stated “all students can learn with the right strategies” she did not believe her
students were able to learn using the curriculum the district provided. This indicated she held a
deficit perspective as to her students’ ability to learn.

201

According to literature, teachers have decisional capital. Every decision they make, and
they make many, many decisions daily, shaped, their students’ experiences (Taylor, 2017). Mrs.
Nelson’s singular focus on her identity an early childhood educator, who taught kindergarten,
shaped her belief and her decisions as to how she should teach, what her students should learn
and if they were able to access the curriculum. Mrs. Nelson’s ideological perceptions influenced
how she provided instruction to the students she served (Milner, 2010). Her singular identity of
being a kindergarten teacher, created the conditions, in which she did not attend to her students’
needs.
Deficit Belief with Respect to Students’ Academic Abilities
According to literature, the initial expectations of the teacher in relation to the students’
chances for success is the litmus test for the students’ success or failure in the educational system
(Rist,1970). Furthermore, literature states, ideology is the conscious and unconscious
understandings held and perpetuated by members of society and demonstrated by what one says
and does. Ideology is determined by words and actions, it is therefore intertwined in and
educator’s pedagogy, which in turns influences the students’ learning opportunities (Bartolomé
2008).
Mrs. Nelson was a kindergarten teacher. She was the introduction to the educational
system for many of her students. Mrs. Nelson was teaching students at the foundational levels,
Kindergarten and first grade. Therefore, her expectation that her students “would be flooded” by
the lessons, indicated her deficit belief in her students’ ability. Mrs. Nelson stated, “when I first
started in the district, I followed the curriculum and district pacing guide, Open Court guide was
my bible.” However, with the new curriculum and the added first graders, Mrs. Nelson had
“decided not to follow the Journeys curriculum.” Her explanation was the students did not have

202

the foundational knowledge to understand the literature-based program. How she knew this
information was never provided. The Kinder students were not provided assessments as to their
abilities and the first-grade students had been assessed, yet it was never indicated if the scores
were used.
Mrs. Nelson did mention that the students chosen for the combination class, were chosen
by the teacher. Therefore, she stated, “the students sent to her class were the low-students”. That
was her introduction to the first graders in her classroom and that is how she treated them. Her
expectation that all the students were low, provided the impetus for her remedial educational
delivery to her students. Again, I inquired as to why she did not follow the curriculum and why
she thought the students could not understand it, she stated “It doesn’t [do it] for kinder.” When
asked to expound, she went on to say:
they are starting with all of this literature, literature, literature, literature, literature, and I
understand we love books and reading. But I need to teach them phonics, and the sounds
and all of that first to get them to first grade. But I could read and go through all this
beautiful literature and all these books and then send them there [first grade] and they
don’t even know what the letter “b” is, the letter “c,” they can’t blend, there’s no
phonemic awareness, in kinder, its beautiful the way they have it set up, I mean the books
are amazing, but, when I see them the first day, they [the students] cannot read.
This was the explanation Mrs. Nelson gave for not using the core curriculum, the students do not
know their letters and sounds, they could not read. She was under the impression that her
students had no foundational knowledge before entering her classroom. Again, she did not
reference her first-grade students. She did not indicate their knowledge of the alphabet, nor the
foundational literacy they received in the previous year. She did not use data; she assumed the

203

students cannot read, are unaware of their alphabets, and have not been exposed to literature.
However, her first-grade students, had attended school previously, and, yet again, she did not
mention their needs and their abilities, nor did she consider their previous exposure to the
learning environment prior to entering her classroom.
Furthermore, at no point did she mention student data. Her assumptions were based what
she thought they were capable of. However, there was data available for her first graders, but she
did not use it. Based on her singular focus as a kindergarten teacher, her first-grade students are
provided with remediation, as if they were retained, not in a combination class and her Kinder
students were provided with remediation as well, based on her assumption they could not read
and had not early learning experience.
Moreover, by not using the core and limiting the students access, this contradicts her
statements, indicating “all students could learn with the correct strategy.” Mrs. Nelson stated, “I
use a lot of strategies, white boards with dry/erase markers, think-pair-share, music, singing,
etc.” Therefore, if she used all her strategies and she provided the students with the additional
supports needed, they would be able to access the curriculum. In addition, at no point did she
indicate, students did not have to know how to read for them to interact with the curriculum.
Therefore, exposing the students to the literature would increase their knowledge. However, her
choice to only provide foundation learning based on what she felt the students could do, and not
follow the core, was a deficit approach and denied access to both the kindergarteners and first
graders in her classroom.
Since she did not use the core, I inquired as to how she planned her lessons. She stated, “I
look at the teacher’s guide and the student books and incorporate the parts I want to fit with the
lessons for the day, in connection to what she had used in past.” She planned her lessons based

204

on what she had taught in prior years. She would browse through the curriculum guide and then
she would incorporate some of the skills into what she wanted to teach, what she felt the students
would understand. This is a further demonstration of her deficit perspective regarding her
students’ ability. By doing this she denied both the kindergarten and the first-grade students
access to the grade level core curriculum.
During the teacher’s response, I noticed the students’ books, on their desks. This was the
first time the books were in view. I asked why the books were on the table, if she did not use
them, she stated, “[I] simply place the books on the table, and do not use them, unless the district
visitors are present.” She created the appearance of providing the standards-based instruction, yet
she did not. Not allowing the students access could create deficits the students will carry with
them as they matriculate through the educational system. In literature, the significance of the
primary expectations of the teacher and the relationship to the students’ [may determine]
opportunities for “success or failure within the public-school system” (Rist, 2000, p. 276).
Finally, during the interview I noticed the seating arrangement. When I asked the teacher
about it, she indicated “students were seated to ensure quick access to the students if they needed
assistance, as well as her ability to observe their work progress.” Furthermore, “the more
advanced students and English only students were in the rear and the emergent English language
learners were seated in the front of the classroom.” Therefore, the students were seated according
to their language needs, grade level, and perceived academic ability. According to literature,
ability grouping although a widespread practice, has no consistent effects on student
achievement, at any level (Taylor, 2017). Moreover, the way the students were grouped was not
beneficial to the students’ academic attainment. Grouping the students based on ability deprived
the students learning English from working with students that spoke English as a first language.

205

Therefore, the ability grouping in this instance demonstrated how the teacher grouped the
students based on the teacher’s expectations of the students’ academic ability. Therefore, Mrs.
Nelson’s class configuration was like that of the teacher in Rist’s (2000) study, Ms. Caplow, with
the “high table,” with the exception being there was more than one “high table” in the classroom.
Additionally, the ability level grouping deprived the students learning English from working
with students that spoke English as a first language.
Moreover, the ability grouping in this instance demonstrated how the teacher grouped the
students based on expectations of the students’ academic ability. The fundamental stance was the
development of expectation by the teachers, regarding the differential academic potential and
ability of students, was notably dependent upon the subjectively of interpreted attributes of the
students (Rist, 2000). In this instance, if the students were English language learners, they were
low and if they were in kindergarten, they were the preferred student of choice. The teacher
created a learning environment based upon who she thought would do well and who would not.
Additionally, she consciously divided her class by grade level, with her primary focus
being her kindergarten students. Finally, even though Mrs. Nelson stated she believed all
students could learn she did not articulate that in her words or actions. Her words indicated a
deficit perspective of her students’ abilities and her actions in the classroom further demonstrated
her lack of belief in her students’ academic abilities.
Students’ Academic Opportunities Limited by Low Expectations
Across the 12 to 15 days, I was in her classroom, Mrs. Nelson did not use the district
provided core curriculum. As stated earlier, she relied on her previous experience as an early
education teacher to provide instruction to her students. During the first 3 days of observations
conducted in her classroom, a routine emerged that consisted of morning routine (students

206

entered the classroom, singing songs, reminder of the behavior plan), instruction, center-time,
and free-play. There was also a pattern of engaging with the same students, the same types of
activities, and no differentiation of instruction between the kindergarten and the first-grade
students.
The teacher would indicate either the first-grade or kindergarten students were leaving for
the computer lab, other than that, the lessons observed were homogenous and centered on kinder
(early education learning). During the morning routine, Mrs. Nelson engaged differently with
various students. One student was provided with a different greeting than the other students. I
later learned from listening to the teacher, the student’s parent had visited the classroom, her
father. Knowing that the parents would come to the classroom, the teacher engaged with the
students differently.
The following is an example of the daily morning routine and the engagement with the student
whose parent had come to the classroom:
(T)Teacher: Good Morning, oh my, had my observation papers taken from me, regarding
observation of student that eloped…have no speaker will make music work today.
Let’s start our day. Good morning song. Happy Monday, happy Monday, everyone.
T: Well, hello there. Well, hello there. I am so happy you came.
Michelle (AAF): I am a little late.
T: It is ok. You missed Hi Five’s, have a seat.
Michelle: I love my ruler.
T: You love that ruler.
T: Now let’s take attendance. Some of our friends are still at breakfast.

207

T: First grade, I still have your worksheets. Will take care of that when you come back
from the computer lab, 1
st
grade is today.
T: Transition (song) Pick a problem, pick a problem, today, get a beach ball…
T: Good Morning.
T: Hello. Oh, we have a lot of late friends.
The teacher started her day expressing how she had paperwork taken from her by the principal.
She was expressing this in front of the children. She was attempting to get the class started with
the lesson, stating there would be no music. The students had entered the class and received hi-
fives as a greeting. When Michelle (AAF), entered the classroom late. The students were
provided with additional time to eat breakfast. She let the students know they were late as they
entered the classroom. Michelle, entered and began to speak of a ruler, and being late, the teacher
said it was ok, this only happened with student Michelle. All the other students were told they
were late. She moves on to a morning song. She lets the first-grade students know they will be
leaving for the computer lab, and the worksheet provided will be reviewed later. As other
students enter the classroom, they are reminded they are late.
This type of interaction was displayed over the 3 mornings I observed the classroom.
Most of the students were reminded they were late being late to class, and not greeted as warmly
as Michelle, even though she knew they were having breakfast. As mentioned before, because
Michelle’s parents had visited the classroom, she was not greeted in the same manner as the
other students, whose parents had not visited. Her interaction with the teacher is important
because during several observations, because Michelle was allowed a freedom of moving about
the classroom not provided to all the students.

208

Her interaction is like that of the subjects in Hatt’s (2011) study. Michelle was the child
of a two-parent household, whose parents visited the class and several of the other students came
from single-parent homes. Their parents were unable to come and sit in the class and visit with
the teacher during the school day, because they were working, hence those students were
considered as being at a disadvantage (Hatt, 2011). Mrs. Nelson continued the morning routine,
and transitioned to a math lesson, the following is an example:
T: (In a singing voice) Pick a problem, when is your birthday month; Students repeat
what teacher says,
Ss: When is my birthday month?
T: Estimate, Guess, Chips in estimation jar.
Kenneth: Says a number.
Adam: Says a number.
T: Pours out the chips.
A student counts the chips to see if the guess was correct.
The lesson was a means of teaching the students to estimate (guess) the number of chips in the
jar. The students were chosen based on their birth month. Students are chosen, the teacher pours
out the chips and one of the students counts the number of chips in the jar. The lesson is short
and there is no explanation as to how close the student’s estimation was to the actual number of
chips in the jar. There was no reference to the number of chips in the jar from the previous day.
There was no further discussion. This form of educational delivery is passive learning, where the
students are not required to have a depth of inquiry as to why they are performing a certain task
(Anthony, 1996). The lesson transitioned to the type of weather they were experiencing that day.
T: (Song): What is the weather like today? Repeats, Leo the Lion says it’s rainy.

209

Ss: (in unison) No.
T: Thunderstorm.
Ss: (in unison) No.
T and Ss: It’s Sunny. It’s Sunny.
This was supposed to be a type of science lesson for the students. It is commonly used in
kindergarten and preschool classes. There is no further discussion of the weather, such as if there
are clouds outside or the temperature. The students and teacher agree it is sunny and the lesson
transitions. This is another example of the passive way in that the students are provided
instruction (Anthony, 1996). The students are not provided the opportunity to engage in inquiry.
The information is provided at a basic level. There is no discussion of the seasons, the weather
the day before, or the reason for it being a sunny day. Even though the teacher mentioned in her
interview she wanted to create lessons for the students and the freedom she had before, she does
not take the opportunity to extend the lessons with the students. According to literature, when
students are allowed to engage in the lesson, ask questions and discuss the content they develop
language and a deeper understanding of what they are learning (Santamaria, 2009). The
opportunity to extend the lesson and was not afforded to the students in Mrs. Nelson class during
this period of observation. The teacher transitioned to another lesson math; it is estimation
again. This is the example:
S: Someone knocking on the door, may I answer it?
T: Good Morning. (AAFS)
T: Small beachball, how many in the jar?
S: 2 million.
T: How many buttons in the jar, speaking back to the students?

210

S: 20, another student 22
T: We will find out…
T: Estimate, guess, teacher circulates to several students in class for estimation.
T: directs the class to count the objects, this is estimation class, the class counts in unison
to 21, students scream out louder 21…this ends the whole class math lesson.
This is a continuance of the estimation lesson the teacher started with in the morning routine.
The students are again guessing how many objects are in the jar, a student indicated 2 million.
The teacher does not take this moment to question why the student has used such a large number,
nor does she ask why the students use such low numbers when providing answers. This
continues with the teacher eventually pouring out the objects and the class counting out the
objects in unison.
This passive engagement with students is how she opens the days lessons, and it
continues into the next lessons as well. Also, the lessons are kindergarten centered. There was no
differentiation between first grade and kindergarten students and there was no increase or
decrease in the complexity of the lesson. The students were not invited to discuss the lesson,
there was no connection as to why the students chose the numbers or why they guessed the
numbers. Research asserted, using students’ funds of knowledge, the students’ experiences, skills
and competencies, home knowledge, supports higher-order learning, engages students in
complex problem solving while simultaneously developing basic and more complex skills and
(Hawley & Nieto, 2011). The lesson continued then the teacher transitioned to the alphabets.
When the lesson moved to the alphabets, the following occurred:
T: Letter experts write letter that says J-J, (sounds of the letter) *
No sound or movement.

211

T: What letter did you write?
T: If you’re a letter expert…write T-T-T. (sounds of the letter)
Ss: Teacher.
T: Write letter that says G-G*. What letter did you write?
Ss: G.
T: What letter is W-W-W*?
T: What letter did you write?
Ss: W.
The students used whiteboards and dry-erase markers to write the letters as the teacher
provided the sounds. Many of the students engaged in the lesson could write the letters based on
the sounds the teacher provided. Additionally, the sounds provided were not in sequence.
However, the teacher mentioned during the interview the students did not know their sounds and
alphabets, yet during the observation the students were able to understand and write the letters
associated with the sounds the teacher made of alphabetical sequence, with not visuals. The
students were able to demonstrate their understanding of letters based on the sounds. During the
interview Mrs. Nelson stated, “the students would be flooded”, “she stated she needed to teach
them phonics and the sounds to get them to first grade.”
Additionally, the first-grade students demonstrated their knowledge of the letters and
sounds. Therefore, her assertion that the students were unable to interact with the core, was false.
Mrs. Nelson’s deficit ideology influenced her pedagogical decisions and prohibited her from
seeing her students did possess the skills and knowledge required for academic success (Milner
2010). The thought that students must have foundational skills before they can learn more
rigorous learning activities is a socially constructed misconception (Hawley & Nieto, 2010).

212

Students can simultaneously learn both basic and rigorous skills (Hawley & Nieto, 2010). The
students’ learning ability was further demonstrated when the teacher moved on to what she
called, “Blending Single.”
“Blending Single,” this is a consonant-vowel-consonant lesson involving the students
writing out rhyming word families. This is what occurred during the lesson:
T: Blending single, show me your blending single.
T: Jet, pet, let, wet.
T: Sound segment in jet (3) students respond.
T: Bean bag token to Tyra.
T: Huskie’s markers are not open.
T: What is the beginning sound in P, middle sound E, ending sound T.
T: What vowel is in the word?
T: Long/Short?
T: I see you, to student Damon (M) trying, praise for his participation.
T: Make sure that you do not lose your token to student Nocole. (Verbal correction)
The majority of the students in the class were able to follow along with the lesson. They were
able to write the words without visuals. This was a multilayered lesson requiring the students
know the beginning middle and end sounds of the word. They were also asked to locate the
vowel sounds and differentiate between long and short vowels. Again, the students demonstrated
their ability to engage with letters, sounds, vowels, spell words, yet Mrs. Nelson felt they could
not transfer this knowledge to the core language arts materials. Hawley & Nieto (2010) stated
this type of deficit perspective is used to build students of color self-esteem, by reducing
academic rigor. This idea of under-educating students of color leads to dismal academic

213

outcomes yet it is used to increase students’ self-esteem. However, evidence shows holding
students of color to higher expectations, leads to greater academic outcomes for the students
(Hawley & Nieto, 2010). As the morning lesson continued, Mrs. Nelson, acknowledged the first-
grade students in the classroom, this is an example of the engagement:
T: Wow, no one came for computer lab for first graders today; that is okay, we will keep
going.
T: Sad take S off and replace it with M.
T: We have a new word.
Ss: Mad
T: What happens if you add a silent “e.”
Ss: Made.
T: You are ready today. Keep it up, hardworking room 204.
T: Dgi, flip the middle sound.
T: Praise to student with quiet hands (Nya).
T: Write “hop.”
T: Which letter is the vowel “o” make?
Ss: Students make sound.
T: Long or short?
In this phase of the lesson, she included the first graders. She continued having the
students write out the words she verbally provided, and the students continued to be able to
perform the task. The students were engaged and able to follow along with the lesson. She never
transitioned to the students’ writing sentences or reading book. She covered a range of words and
the students continued to demonstrate the ability to understand the configuration of the words

214

and successfully write them out. Mrs. Nelson used the same type of teaching style and delivery,
verbal. She provided the students with verbal cues, and they used the white boards and dry erase
markers to follow along.
According to research, teachers tend to stereotype how students of color from certain
background learn, that they all learn the same way (Hawley & Nieto, 2010). What she did not
realize is that students learn in different ways, and they should have been afforded the
opportunity to engage with the core text. In another phase of the day, she transitions back to
math. It must be noted the students have not opened a textbook. The warm-up lasts all morning
and there is no differentiation in the instructional delivery to the students.
During another day of observation, I walked in as the teacher was transitioning to a math lesson.
All the students are present. This is the example:
T: Edgar (ML) loves working with numbers.
T: A group of 10 and 2 more.
Ss: Write out answers.
S: I can’t get it.
T: We will work on it every day; you will get this.
T: Edgar…You love doing this so much.
T: First graders a group of 10 and 6 more.
Ss: Write out answers.
T: A group of 10 and 9 more.
Ss: Write out answers.
T: First grade lab cancelled.

215

This short math lesson was interrupted with various behavior disruptions that will be
addressed in the next section. Again, the lesson delivery was verbal. During the lesson, a student
mentioned he did not understand what the teacher asked. She said she they would work on it
every day, and she continued with the lesson. She did not ask him, what part he did not
understand, nor did she change her delivery strategy to meet the needs of the students. The
difference with this lesson is she acknowledged the first-grade students and the increased rigor of
the lesson for the first-grade students. She did not use her dry erase board or any other means of
delivering the lesson to the students. At the end of the lesson, she again mentioned the first-grade
lab time would not be taking place. This ended the lesson and the students prepared to go out for
recess.
The lack of differentiation and connection to other aspects of the math curriculum,
limited the students’ ability to grasp the concepts and the singular delivery method, caused many
of the students to disengage from the lesson. This caused the students to engage in disruptive acts
and limited the lesson delivery. Researcher asserted, a teacher’s lowered expectations and deficit
mind-set create an iterative cycle, where students are not taught inquiry and critical thinking
skills (Milner, 2010). They are not learning at their grade-level, the test scores are low, and there
is no critical reflection by the teacher on their part of in the students’ lack of achievement
(Milner,2010). The students are blamed and at no point are the teachers questioned as to their
role in the lack of student achievement and why it continues to occur (Milner, 2010). This is
what was displayed by Mrs. Nelson during her lessons with her kindergarten and first grade
students.
The teacher delivered the lessons and observed the students’ responses. However, there
was no documentation of which students understood the lesson, needed more assistance, nor who

216

needed enrichment. As mentioned before, she “like[d] to observe” and that was what she did.
There was no new material provided to the students, nor were the students provided with a
dedicated literature or math lesson from the curriculum.
The lessons provided came from the teachers planning, not the district pacing, nor the
curriculum provided. According to literature, instead of the teacher viewing the students through
a stereotyped low-expectations and deficit mind-set, teachers need to access the students’ funds
of knowledge, use the students’ cultural capital as an asset not a liability (Milner, 2010). Using
the students’ funds of knowledge as scaffolding to provide rigorous and relevant learning
experiences and develop critical thinking skills as a means of moving towards eradicating the
achievement and opportunity gaps (Milner, 2010). Mrs. Nelson’s choice to view her students
from a deficit perspective influenced her pedagogical choices, the lessons were limited and did
not provide the depth needed for her students’ academic growth and success. Her deficit
perspective and low expectations was also demonstrated in the way she used the behavior
interventions among the students.
Differential Behavior Modifications and Low Expectations
According to literature, kindergarten was the beginning of a major portion of school
socialization: it was “a key juncture where children enter a new world, with new rules, and begin
to understand themselves differently as a result” (Hatt, 2011, p. 8). The author continues by
using Holland et al.’s (1998) concept of figured worlds, the rules and or forces that tell people
how to behave (act, speak). In Mrs. Nelson class, she used four different types of behavior
modification techniques in her classroom: Kindergarten color change chart, Emoji faces (Happy,
So-So face, and Sad Face), Rottweiler Five (Positive Behavior Intervention System-PBIS), and
Tokens. The chart for the color change chart, emoji faces, and Rottweiler Five, were in the front

217

of the classroom, and she carried the tokens in her pocket. The color change chart was blue,
green, yellow and red. The Emoji faces were happy face, so-so face, and sad face The Rottweiler
Five were the tenets of the PBIS program, which were: be respectful, be responsible, make safe
choices, use positive words, and be a scholar.
Additionally, based on her method of providing rewards, it is established the behavioral
expectation and differentiations are not equitably used amongst the students. Some students are
given leeway, and others are not. The following is an example:
T: I like my Rottweilers with a quiet hand
T: Passed out bean-bag tokens to random students
S: reminded student to be safe, received a bean-bag token
T: I love seeing quiet hands (repeats)
T: Michelle, do you remember this is your seat, next to Abby
Michelle: This is my seat.
T: Ok, stay here, but you have a new seat partner.
T: Regan, please sit next to Abby, right quick.
S: Regan hesitates. She does not want to move her seat.
Michelle: Who will sit next to me then?
Michelle: I am the teacher. I am the teacher.
Students not focused on the lesson, due to disruption.
T: I see a Rottweiler. Most students refocused.
S: Michelle out of her seat, walking.
T: Sit on up, starting off week fresh, Dad was just here, let’s start week fresh, attempts to
continue lesson.

218

This was the beginning of the day. As the students were arriving, Mrs. Nelson is
attempting to settle the class down and begin the lesson. When Michelle arrived, she established
she is not required to follow the guidelines. She was allowed to choose her seat, speak out of
turn, and disrupt the class. The teacher did not speak directly to her to stop the behavior, she
attempted to continue the lesson. When the student becomes louder, she attempted to redirect the
behavior by speaking of the student’s parent visiting the classroom. This did not stop the
behavior.
As a means of redirecting the undesired behavior, other students are rewarded with verbal
praise and tokens for displaying the desired behavior. Michelle wanted to walk around with the
teacher, did not want to sit in her new seat, and she received the reward she sought, attention
from the teacher. According to research, the artifacts used were not based on the academic
abilities of the students, but upon how the students behaved in the classroom (Hatt, 2011). The
teacher rewarded the students for the desired behavior, however she inadvertently rewarded
Michelle, by acquiescing to her wishes and allowing her to disregard the classroom behavior
guidelines.
As the lesson continue, the following observed:
S: Michelle is still out of her seat.
T: You are helping me by following me around.
S: Damon stretches out in chair.
S: Michelle refuses to sit down.
T: Damon, in seat not being safe. Move your pin to the so-so face.
S: Damon begins to cry.
S: Michelle still not in seat.

219

T: Michelle, still with teacher. Na and I will walk around, and you will estimate.
S: Damon begins screaming.
T: Try to breathe. We worked on breathing.
Damon: I need to blow my nose.
T: Go blow your nose
T: Continues lesson.
Michelle continued to walk with the teacher. Mrs. Nelson reminded the student she was
still out of her seat. This did not make the student want to sit down. However, student Damon
had his pin moved to the so-so face for not paying attention. He was triggered by having his pin
moved and began to cry. Michelle was allowed to continue with the undesired behavior.
Damon’s anger continued to escalate. Michelle is of African American decent, Female, from a
two-parent home. Damon is of Latino decent, male, from a single parent home, being raised by
his grandmother. His behavior was no more or less disruptive than Michelle, however he
received an undesired consequence and Na did not. Eli, was not provided the leeway afforded to
Michelle.
According to literature, the teacher used the stop light as a classroom management tool
(Hatt, 2011). When the students behaved in an undesired fashion, the students were required to
move their cars from green, to yellow, to red on the stoplight. Additionally, the movement of the
car resulted in the loss of a privilege (Hatt, 2011). This was representative of the emoji face in
Mrs. Nelson’s class. It was also noted, many of the students in the classroom required to move
their cars were the working-class African American and Caucasian students, rarely were the
affluent Caucasian students required to move their cars (Hatt, 2011). Furthermore, students with

220

parents working multiple jobs, or were not in the home as much with their children were marked
at a disadvantaged (Hatt, 2011).
In Mrs. Nelson’s class, the Latino male student’s emoji face was changed, yet Michelle,
the African American female student did not receive any consequences. This pattern of
inequitable consequences continued:
Ss: not talking, but not participating in lesson,
T: no warning, Cathy, Leah, Mary (moved to so-so face), not focused on lesson
S: Michelle, still not in seat, walking and following teacher
S: Damon, kicking in class
T: Moves students away from him, asked if wants to participate, continues to scream
T: If you see a Ginsburg Rottweiler, look at them and give them a high-five
Students follow directions
Mrs. Nelson attempted continued the lesson; she abruptly stopped and moved three students’
pins to the “so-so” face for not paying attention. Keep in mind, Damon, is still acting out and
Michelle, has not been made to sit in her seat. However, three students, 1 African American
Male and 2 Latino Males, received a negative consequence for being distracted by all the
distractions. Damon’s behavior becomes increasingly worse, she continued to ignore him, moved
other students away from him, and attempted to continue the lesson. The teacher then used a
PBIS tool as an attention getter, she had all the students give each other a high-five if they are
paying attention.
According to literature, students’ ability to tie their shoes and recite their phone numbers
was an indication of smartness, students not able to do so were publicly humiliated, and not
assisted in learning how to perform either of the tasks (Hatt, 2011).

221

In Mrs. Nelson’s class the student’s inability to focus during the disruption was penalized
by having their pin moved on the emoji chart without warning. The students were to understand,
regardless of the distractions, they were to continue with the lesson. According to literature, the
onus for this inequitable treatment is placed on the students, (Gorski,2011). The perception that
the historically marginalized and minoritized students are responsible for the inequitable
educational opportunities being provided (Gorski, 2011).
In another example, the following occurs:
T: I see you; I see you all morning
T: April, Rottweiler High-Five
T: You guys know we ignore his behavior; I do not want anyone hurt today
S: Damon, under desk, stopped crying
T: Moved all seats away from Damon, to stop other students from being hurt
S: He kicks the table
T: Ok, sad face Damon
S: Damon, screams
T: students cannot go to office, office will not take anyone today, calls office for
assistance, no assistance, addresses the researcher,
T: I’m sorry Ms. C, we have friends that behave like this, today we only have 1
S: Damon, screams louder
S: Tosses chair
T: Let me call your grandmother, student calms down
According to literature, the classroom discourse indicated academic ability, when the
teacher used such phrases as “You’re so smart!” “Two thumbs up!” (Hatt, 2011, P14). When

222

Mrs. Nelson says, “I see you!” it is used to indicated she is paying attention to what the student is
doing in the classroom. A verbal reinforcement of the desired behavior. Ms. Nelson saying,
“Rottweiler High-Five” to April, an African American, female student is also indicating the
student’s academic ability.
Damon continues to act-out, Michelle, continues to be out of her seat, with no
consequences. The teacher reminds the class to ignore Damon’s behavior. She moved all the
students away from him, to prevent him from physically harming the other students. He has now
crawled under the desk and is no longer crying. He kicks the table, and she moves his pin to the
“sad face.” Not before announcing this action to the entire class. The student screams because of
his pin being moved to the “sad-face.” Mrs. Nelson then says she cannot send students to the
office, she had no assistance to address the issue. The volume of the students screams increased,
he throws a chair, and then Mrs. Nelson says she will call his grandmother.
This statement immediately quells Damon’s behavior. Mrs. Nelson’s actions towards
Damon, triggered his behavior. She continued to trigger the behavior until it became dangerous
to the other students. Finally, she deescalated the behavior and continued her lesson. According
to literature, the behavior displayed by Mrs. Nelson towards Damon and the other Latin
American students was a form of “othering”. “Othering”, is a means of disenfranchising
historically minoritized and marginalized students based on their socio-economic status (Gorski,
2011). Furthermore, the Latino student was unfairly penalized, while the African American
student was not provided with a consequence. In the literature, the African American students
were penalized for the same behaviors the Caucasian students displayed in the classroom that
was overlooked by the teachers (Hatt, 2011). In another example, the following occurs:
T: I see you Estephania, do not lose your tokens

223

T: Notice how he is focused, students
T: Alright, Lucy, we see you super star
T: I see you Renee, Laura, Thelma
S: Benny, I did it too,
T: I didn’t see you, pretty soon “so-so” face, to Benny
T: “so-so” face, thank you for sitting down, and staying calm
S: thank you June, 2 tokens
During this observation, the Latino/a students were given warnings not to lose their
tokens. The African American students were given verbal praise. One of the male Latino
students, stated “I did it too”, she told him she did not see him, and when he started to pout, she
told him she would move his clothes pin to “so-so face”. She then gave an African American
female student 2 tokens. Hatt (2011), contended that smartness was not only connected to
behavior it was connected to ethnicity and class as well. Being Caucasian and middle class
indicated better behavior outcomes. Furthermore, the teacher’s “race and class-based stereotypes
had significant implications for which students were identified as smart” (Hatt, 2011, P.12).
The informants in the study were looking for a student who made good positive “good
choices” (Hatt, 2011, p. 11), an African American female student from a low-income family
asserted, “I make good choices” “I am always on green” (Hatt, 2011, p. 11). However, the
African American student was ignored, and a Caucasian student was chosen (Hatt, 2011). This is
what Mrs. Nelson, did to her Latino male student. He was not misbehaving, he articulated to her
he was displaying the desired behavior and she gave him a negative warning. This was consistent
throughout the student and teacher interactions in the classroom.
In another observation the following occurred:

224

Student Zion is present, wonders around class, Mrs. Nelson attempts to engage with
student and begin the daily lesson.
Ss: Zion hits Mark, runs from the classroom after teacher attempts takes object from him
student begins throwing things
T: You are going to have a good day today
T: Begins morning routine
S: Zion tries to elope from the classroom
T: Blocks the door to keep him from leaving the classroom, while teaching the lesson
Literacy coach arrives, takes Zion away from the students and speaks with him outside of
class
S: Michelle, moves her pin to “so-so” face
T: Michelle, please stay in your seat
S: Michelle, that was mine (refuses to stay in seat)
T: Michelle, come help me
Teacher and Michelle are counting, Michelle is lead
T: let’s have someone else try, Michelle, go have a seat
S: Michelle, I do not want to have a seat
Zion out of seat
T: May I do this part, let me give him a bean bag toss, I see you Zion, gives him another
token, for a bean bag toss
Michelle and Zion are of African American ethnicity, Damon is of Latino ethnicity. The
way Mrs. Nelson engaged with the students was very different. During this day of observations,
the student Damon has been moved to another classroom. The third student with extremely

225

disruptive behavior was in attendance, Zion. He wonders around the classroom, hits another
student, and throws things when the teacher removes an item from him. Additionally, he
attempted to elope from the classroom on multiple occasions. Leeway was provided to Zion and
Michelle, but not to Damon. This inequitable display of behavior modifications taught the
students their social positioning the classroom (Hatt, 2011). Finally, those choices made by the
teacher and enacted on the students, influenced how the students interact with their peers and
[behaved in the classroom] (Hatt, 2011; Rist, 2001).
Based on the observations, Mrs. Nelson was biased towards the Latino/a students and
favored the African American students. in the classroom among the students. these phenomena
created a disruptive learning environment. Mrs. Nelson used several methods of behavior
correction to create structure in her classroom, there was a multi-tiered behavior program used in
the classroom, it included, Positive Behavior Intervention System (PBIS), which included the
“Rottweiler 5” scholars, the kindergarten color change chart, and the emoji face chart. She made
further modifications to the behavior expectations to accommodate those students with severe
disruptive behavior, as a means of eliciting the desired behavior. However, these modifications
were only provided to the African American students, not the Latino/a students.
She did not use the discipline equitably as the African American students were provided
more leeway than the Latino/a students. There were students in the classroom with very
disruptive behavior. She provided the African American students with incentives and allowed
them freedoms she did not allow the Latino/a students. When asked about the levels of
discipline, she stated the more disruptive students were rewarded for the desired behavior, as a
means of redirection to the desired behaviors. Whereas the other students were punished if they
broke the rules in general. She expected this method to keep the class in order and for the

226

students to understand they were to display the desired behavior, even when the disruptive
students were not. She stated, “I rewarded and ignore hoping this will change the [undesired]
behavior and get them to behave in the [desired] behavior.”
She was not aware of the differences in interaction with the students. She favored the
African American students and displayed bias towards the Latino/a students when there was a
behavior issue. When asked about the behavior of the students, and the mention of some not
provided with the same leeway, she mentioned outside factors, such as the students home life or
a possible developmental need. In addition, she stated she did not know why the students were
being disruptive. Furthermore, she did not realize the students could have been responding to the
way she rewarded the students with extreme behavior. When asked about the other students and
if their behavior was connected to the way the students with extreme behavior acted out, she
stated “that could be the case.” According to literature, the teacher’s beliefs, and expectations of
their students’ ability, whether they perceived their students’ ability for success or teachers
possessed a deficit mind-set, positively or negatively influenced the teachers instructional and
behavioral choices in the classroom (Bartolomé, 2004, Rist 2000, Hatt, 2011).
Lack of Meaningful Learning Opportunities
In my conceptual framework, meaningful learning experiences, and the resulting learning
opportunities for students’, either negative or positive, are based on the pedagogical practices
used by used by teachers. In the literature, there was no clear delineation of “meaningful learning
experiences,” instead it is listed as a type of “learning conditions.” For meaningful learning to
occur, teaching is conducted using constructivist principles and socio-cultural learning theory.
These two learning theories when used with fidelity claim to create meaningful learning
experiences for historically marginalized and minoritized students. According to literature,

227

meaningful learning is an active not passive learning process, centered on purposeful learning
activities and active mental experiences (Anthony, 1996).
In addition to the duality of the definition of meaningful learning it is also inclusive of
socio-cultural learning. According to literature, the theory of socio-cultural learning asserted,
learning is a developmental process, which occurs during social interactions, guided by the
culture and context where the learning takes place (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). The two theories
in tandem, create the learning conditions for students to experience meaningful learning
opportunities. However, during the 9 days of observation and of the 8-10 lessons observed, there
was no evidence of meaningful learning opportunities afforded to the students in Mrs. Nelson’s
class.
The lessons provided were recall, low rigor, and lacked the conditions set forth by the
literature for student-centered meaningful learning. According to literature, meaningful learning
is an active not passive process (Anthony, 1996). It is centered on purposeful learning activities
and active mental exercises (Anthony, 1996). The actively engaged learner was adept at using
strategies for ensuring their work is correct, such as: giving themselves self-assessments,
repurposing their attention, reconsidering their sources of information, and requesting assistance
(Anthony, 1996). The teacher did not provide these tools to the students. The students were left
to their own devices as a means of constructing learning. Below are two lessons that typify the
type of instruction that occurred during a reading language arts lesson and math lesson.
T: Teacher places finger on first word of the sentence as a guide. Teacher corrects
students as they read. Students were reading in a choral fashion.
S: Teacher asked a question, Student answers

228

This was the extent of the language arts lesson for the first-grade students. The students
were given a worksheet, they read worksheet, answered the questions, it was re-read in a choral
fashion, the teacher asked a recall question, one student answered, and the lesson ended. The
reading anthologies were on the students’ desk, but they were not used. The lesson was not
extended, nor were the students read to by the teacher. Constructivist classrooms that use effort-
based learning are helmed by teachers who employ the following: (a) push students to question
and challenge, (b) encourage students to find solutions that are not explicitly clear, (c) require
students to explain concepts, (d) allow students to justify reasoning, (e) urge students to seek
information, (f) allow time for multiple drafts, rehearsals, or trails (g) permit student to critique
their or their peers unfinished work, (h) and teach skills in the context of projects (Lee, 2003, p.
453). These tools were not present in the lessons provided to the students by Mrs. Nelson. There
was no discussion, inquiry, extension of the lesson. The students were told to place the
worksheet in their backpacks and transitioned to the next lesson. When transitioning to the next
lesson the following was observed:
T: Stay in your seats and you will get free choice.
T: you may have manipulatives, no shooting, no straws in motion
S: Lauren, is counting by 5
T: button, straws, clothes pin, hobby pins, shapes, and bears
T: no, no, let me check your work
T: checks the work and places in backpack
LMS: Teacher my hand hurts
T: what happened outside
AAMS: I was using those; I was using those Abby

229

LMS: NOO!!! Give it back
Abby: took close pins
T: Ms. C, we are not done. Me: no, almost indicated wants me to leave, told her almost
done
In the beginning of the lesson there are no instructions provided to the students. They
were told to wait, and they would be allowed to have free play, to choose what they wanted to
work/play with during the lesson. The students chose their manipulatives and began to play with
them. Several items are provided, the students made their choices and begin to play with the
items. A few minutes elapsed before there was an altercation between two of the students. The
teacher did not address the altercation, instead she asked me when the observations would come
to an end. This lesson was not organized, and it took a few more minutes to realize it was a math
lesson. There was no visible learning occurring with the students, and the teacher provided no
guidance as to what the students should be doing. It was implied the students needed no
directions and would know what to do.
This demonstrated her lack of content knowledge regarding the subject being taught and
a missed opportunity for meaningful student learning and differential instructions for those
students of varying levels of understanding of the math concept. According to literature, learning
is a process of knowledge constructions, not of knowledge recording or absorption, learning is
knowledge-dependent; people use prior knowledge to construct new knowledge, the learner is
aware of the processes of cognition and can control and regulate them; this self-awareness, or
metacognition (Flavell, 1976), significantly influences the course of learning (p. 349). A
constructivist belief is that active learners are self-directed and self-regulated in their cognitive
processes (Anthony, 1996).

230

S: Abby, puts clothes pins in student Thelma’s hair
S: Thelma, to Abby Stop! Stop!
S: AAM, Takes the clothes pins from hair
T: Takes clothes pins from Abby
The students used the manipulatives, not for a specific project or lesson. They used them
inappropriately and the teacher did not redirect or provide directions as to how the items should
be used. One student used the clothes pins and to antagonize other students. Additionally, she
would break the materials and the teacher did not provide her with a consequence for her actions.
Students worked with various manipulatives, counting different numbers, differentiating
numbers from letters. This is a further example of her identity as an early childhood educator
affecting her students’ educational attainment.
The students were allowed to explore with no guidance as to the learning goal. According
to literature, teachers using mixed ability grouping as an instructional strategy, while accessing
the students’ fuds of knowledge, provide the students with rigorous and relevant instruction to
meet instructional needs (Santamaria, 2009). This could be used to increase academic growth
and provide individual success (Santamaria, 2009). This was not provided to the students by
Mrs. Nelson, instead there were left to make meaning of the use of the manipulatives on their
own. In another aspect of the lesson, the following occurred:
T: Speaks with student Abby, shows what trying to do with clothespins, sits with Abby,
T: Are you Ok? Show me what you are trying to do with the clothespins
S: Lauren, stop hitting my fishing bowl, (Loudly), interacting with other student AAM
S: Leah leaves group to join, teacher with Rosario and Abby
S: Abby, clipping clothespins on face

231

T: Do not put them on your face, teacher repairs clothespins
S: Rosario, takes the clothespins from the teacher and repairs it
The teacher spoke with the student regarding her behavior. She inquired about her well-
being; this was not the case when a student mentioned earlier to have been injured playing
outside. Again, the student she was speaking with was an African American student (Female)
and the injured student was Latino student. She had the student show her what she was trying to
do with the clothespins. The student handed the items to the teacher without words. Other
students were using the objects, it is not clear if the students understood what the items were to
be used for, as there were no directions provided. There was no connection to anything the
teacher taught during the instruction time with the students.
The student Abby, African American Female, continued to use the clothespins
incorrectly. However, another student Rosario, Latina Female, figured out how to repair the
clothespins. The teacher allows her to do so, but she never inquires how, or why the student
decided to repair the pins, nor did she extend the lesson. According to literature, the diversity of
the task, should be just as diverse as the students producing the work. Hence allowing for the
diversity of expression of each students’ ability based on the students’ academic ability. This was
present because of the nature of CGI, however there was not inquiry by the teacher, no formative
assessments of the students’ knowledge, no inquiry as to why or how the student performed the
task.
Ss: 2 AAM students dueling with magnetic fishing poles
S: LMS counting to 100
Ss: Two AAM tangle fishing rods
S: Rosario, the teacher can fix it, let the teacher fix it for you

232

T: Abby, can do it, Abby is good at this, Abby, untangles fishing rods
S: LFS works alone with manipulatives
Because the students were provided with no guidance for the lessons, the students interacted with
the lessons in several different ways. Some play with the items, some used the items to
demonstrate the ability to count in sequential order. One student demonstrated fine motor skills
and patience with the ability to repair broken items. Another student was able to untie knots
rather quickly. None, of these things was connected to any lesson, nor did the teacher guide the
students in their learning. There were only 9 students in the classroom and the room was rather
quiet as the students interacted with the manipulatives. They appeared to be very engaged, once
everyone settled down, but there was no specific learning goal being reached.
T: Helps students
S: LMS I have 107, I have 500
S: Abby using fishing rods and magnets
S: Thelma, excited with fishing Pole
T: Thelma, Thelma (to quiet down), student quiets down
S: student brings cupcake holder and clothespins
The teacher did not provide differentiated assistance to the students as was needed. As the lesson
continued, the students continued to demonstrate different levels of knowledge. One student
knew the proper way of saying number in the hundreds…then the focus was disrupted with
excitement by one student, the teacher did not inquire why, the student was told to be quiet.
As the math time continued, I realized the students were supposed to be learning math
from a program called Cognitively Guided Instruction (CGI). According to research, “CGI, is a
student-centered approach to teaching math. It uses the student foundational knowledge and

233

builds on their natural number sense and intuitive approaches to problem solving. It is a
curriculum agnostic program, focused on inquiry-based questioning, used to engage student
using their thinking, with the goal of uncovering and expanding every student’s mathematical
understanding (www.heinemann.com 1/5/2022). This explained the students being allowed free
time to work with the materials. This was Mrs. Nelson’s attempt at constructivism. However, she
did not appropriately use the constructivist approach.
According to literature, constructivism is the belief that learning is built upon existing
knowledge (Anthony, 1996). The students are self-directed and self-regulated in their cognitive
processes (Anthony, 1996). The lessons were structured for constructivism, but she gave no
guidance, nothing for the students to build upon. The students were not afforded the opportunity
to build their mathematical capacity, by connecting to prior knowledge, nor building new
knowledge, they were left to their own devices, which did not afford them meaningful learning
experiences.
Eventually, the teacher stopped working with the clothespins, and she started working
with the students with straws. The students were inserting the straws. This appeared to be a
measurement type of lesson, but there was no discussion of measurement. The students spoke of
small and large straws, and how many small straws could be inserted into the large straws. The
teacher work with the students, but never asked any probative questions. Mrs. Nelson, spoke of
being able to observe the students and create lesson, but that is not what she did. There was no
actual lesson cognitively guided lesson occurring, there was no inquiry-based focus.
Towards the end of the lesson the a few of the students and the teacher started to discuss
counting to 100. The following is an example of the lesson:
S: Abby when we get to 100

234

T: I will get more straws
S: Shannon, places magnets on board
More students join the teacher to insert smaller straws into larger straws, at no point did she
inquiry as to why the students were joining, nor did a conversation occur between the students
and the teacher regarding the reason for the interest in the straws. There was no reason given for
the insertion of the straws.
Ss: students want to connect enough straws, to get to the door
T: Rosario, what’s here, you want to help Abby
T: displays creation, Abby you are right, you need 3 small straws for 1 large straw
S: Rosario, still inserting straws, increasing length to reach the door
T: I want to create a merry-go-round
S: (LFS), look teacher, you put all the clothes pins together
Ss: gravitate towards Rosario to assist with what has become the length project
This is the end of the lesson, and this is the first time the teacher has discussed a concept
with the students. A student inquired about reaching 100. The teacher did not extend the lesson,
nor did she let the student complete her thought; instead, she interrupted the student mid-
sentence and said she would buy more straws to reach 100. The student eventually walked away,
and another student, continued to insert smaller straws into the larger straws, the teacher did not
engage with the student, instead she calls out to the student she was speaking with previously
and acknowledges the accuracy of a decision on the number of smaller straws needed for the
larger straws. There continued to be no mathematical inquiry, no guided instruction during the
lesson.

235

The teacher took no notes, nor did she engage with many of the students, to inquire with
them about what they learned or why they made the choice they were making. Allowing the
student free choice as to what they wanted to use for the lesson was not the only aspect of the
lesson. The students-centered concept of the program allowed for the choice, and it required the
teacher engage and guide the students what the students learned. The teacher’s approach to the
lesson was deficit, she displayed limited knowledge of the program, as well as interest in the
students learning. She was disengaged most of the lesson, and the students were left to their own
devices, when using the materials. Some of the students displayed foundational knowledge,
however the teacher did not capitalize on their knowledge, instead she let them play.
Mrs. Nelson was deficit in her instruction. She used her early childhood/preschool
experience to provide foundational literacy to the kindergarten students and remediation to the
first graders. She did not differentiate instruction, provide clear guidance for the students during
math lessons, nor provide the students the supports needed for success. The first-grade students
had foundational knowledge and during the instruction, some of them demonstrated the
knowledge. However, from her deficit perspective, she provided the same method of instruction
to her first-grade students, as she did with the kindergarten students, without depth of inquiry.
Deficit ideological orientations influence the pedagogical decisions teachers make regarding
students of color (Milner, 2010). Employing deficit thinking, teachers carrying with them the
belief that students of color do not possess the skills and knowledge required for success in
learning (Milner, 2010). This was demonstrated on multiple occasions by the way she delivered
the lessons to both groups of her students. She did not increase the rigor, use the core, nor did she
provide structured and focused instructions to the first-grade students.

236

The inaccuracy associated with such thinking is perilous to the in-class experience for
these students, due to deficit mind-set of the teacher that students of color bring no knowledge
and experience into the learning environment. Milner (2010) expounds, deficit ideological
thinking causes teachers of marginalized students to view them as liabilities, and not focus on the
funds of knowledge, the students bring to the classroom. During the math lesson, the students
were also allowed extended time to play and explore. On the other hand, Mrs. Nelson, did not
consider her first-grade students’ need for focused exploration and inquiry. They were taught the
same way as the kindergarten students.
Mrs. Nelson stated the students could not be expected to use the district curriculum if
they had no foundational skills. However, the first-grade students, were able to read, knew their
alphabets, possessed foundational math skills, they had completed kindergarten, and, in her class,
they were treated as if they had been retained. According to literature, the students having started
the school year with social differences, not cognitive differences, Rist surmised, the teacher’s
expectations and actions, based on non-cognitive factors, formed the students’ educational
experiences and subsequent academic performance (Rist, 2000). Also, the study revealed the
students’ academic identities were both negatively and positively influenced by their experiences
within the classroom (Hatt, 2011). Mrs. Nelson’s choices regarding her students’ ability and her
staunch identity, may have negatively impacted both grade level of students she was tasked to
serve.
The researcher also found that smartness was not only connected to behavior it was
connected to ethnicity and class as well, being Caucasian and middle-class indicated better
behavior outcomes (Hatt, 2011). In the case of Mrs. Nelson’s class, the construction of smartness
and behavior was connected to being African American and female. Furthermore, Hatt (2011)

237

found there was a link between those students who were designated as smart and those who
earned extra rewards. In the student the African American students were those who earned extra
rewards regardless of their behavior. Whereas the Latino/a students were more likely to receive a
negative consequence for their actions.
The students labeled as “smart” for behaving in the desired fashion, were also given
measures of power and autonomy within the classroom via jobs in the classroom, as well as
added independence in the classroom (Hatt, 2011). The students in Mrs. Nelson’s class were
allowed the autonomy to go have extra slides, bean bag tosses, and purple balls, with one student
being allowed to be the teachers helper no matter the behavior. The students not labeled as smart
were not afforded such privileges (Hatt, 2011). In Mrs. Nelson’s class, these would be mostly the
male students and the Latino/a students. The identification and labeling of students as smart
based on their behavior affected the choices of both the teacher and the aide (Hatt, 2011).
Summary
At the time of the study, Mrs. Nelson had taught the same grade-level for nineteen years;
the addition of first-grade students disrupted her identity as a kindergarten teacher. In addition, it
demonstrated her deficit ideology of her students’ ability and her lack of ability to engage her
students in a rigorous learning environment. During the 9-days and 27 hours of observations, the
other core subject’s English language development, science and social studies were never
observed being taught, nor did I see her use the Journey’s, neither math curriculum. Mrs.
Nelson’s statements in the beginning of the study indicated she believed all students could learn
with the correct strategies. However, her actions were the opposite of her statements. Also, she
believed all her students brought language with them to school, but she did not give them a true
means of developing that language. Additionally, Mrs. Nelson’s identity as an early childhood

238

educator, limited her ability to provide rigorous instruction to her kindergarten students and
focused her attention solely on her kindergarten students. The first-grade students were provided
limited grade-level instruction and were treated as if they were daily visitors to the classroom.
Mrs. Nelson used her early childhood education background as a guide for providing
instruction. She spoke of the freedom to create her own curriculum and lessons for the students.
However, she did not use those skills, nor did she differentiate her instruction for her first
graders. Furthermore, in practice, her beliefs and pedagogical decisions were deficit and created
learning gaps in her first-grade students and limited learning for her kindergarten students.
Moreover, she at no point incorporated culturally relevant responsive pedagogy, nor did she
incorporate literature, beyond the very basics. The main themes revealed in the data were: her
identity as an early childhood educator, the lack of rigor in the instruction, the lack of
differentiation of instruction between the grades, her lack of awareness of the bias behavior
between the African American and Latino/a students, and there were no instances of meaningful
learning provided to her students. Moreover, her education delivery was routinized, teacher-
centered instruction, based on recall, repetition, and early childhood education.
Cross Case Analysis
This section explores beliefs held by educators of the same race/ethnicity of their
students, either negatively or positively affected their pedagogical practices, which negatively or
positively influenced students’ learning opportunities. The three elements created a triangle of
three linked concepts: teacher ideology, pedagogy, and student learning opportunities, as
demonstrated in the two case studies. The study proposed that beliefs held by teachers, affected
their pedagogical practices, which influenced the students’ meaningful learning opportunities.

239

In a cross-case analysis, the following patterns emerged between Ms. Gonzalez’s and
Mrs. Nelson’s beliefs, practices, and students’ learning opportunities:
• Ideology influenced instructional choices
• Lack of belief in the students’ academic abilities
• Behavior expectations influence students’ learning
• Students were not provided meaningful learning opportunities
Both teachers’ ideologies influenced their instructional choices. One of the teachers used the core
curriculum with fidelity, whereas the other did not use the curriculum at all. Both teachers
exhibited a deficit perspective regarding their students’ academic abilities. Also, one of the
teachers was colorblind, and the other was biased towards the first-grade students, Latino/a
students, and only taught to half of the classroom. Where one teacher did allowed leeway for all
the students regarding behavior, and only used one method of behavior control, the other teacher
lacked structure, used several methods, and created an environment of chaos within her
classroom. Where both teachers fell short were the concepts that involved, culturally relevant
and responsive pedagogy, rigorous instruction and providing opportunities for students to
experience meaningful learning experiences.
Ideology Influenced Instructional Choices
The data from the interviews of both teachers indicated their ideologies played a major
role in their instructional delivery choices. In the case of Ms. Gonzalez, she believed in the
educational system, it had worked for her, it worked for her children and other family members,
she was successful. Therefore, she believed it would work for her students. She followed the
pacing with fidelity, she made sure her students were on track and would be ready for end of
year state testing. However, she did not increase the rigor, neither supplement the lessons with

240

culturally relevant materials, nor did she deviate from the curriculum provided. She was
assimilative and hegemonic in the way she delivered instruction. She did not feel it necessary to
include the students’ culture in the lessons. Ms. Gonzalez’s put the onus on her students’
regarding their success or failure. Bartolomé (2004) asserted the ideology of a person comes
from his/her life experiences and social conditions.
Furthermore, there is a deeply rooted belief in American society that minoritized people
are responsible for their disadvantaged position (Bartolomé, 2004). Moreover, she believes that
the absence of critical reflection of the macro-system (political, social, economic) realities within
the United States, has generated a genuine belief that minoritized people have the same access as
Caucasian-Americans to employment, opportunities, and education. This was the view held by
Ms. Gonzalez, her students would do well, because she used herself as an example and she had
done well. Therefore, if they followed her example, they would have the same experience.
On the other hand, Mrs. Nelson was completely disengaged from the first-grade students
in her classroom and did not use the curriculum at all. She complained that the curriculum did
not meet the needs of the students. She was staunchly focused on being a kindergarten teacher.
Even though she taught as if she was an early childhood educator. This being the case, she did
not use the curriculum designated for either of her grade levels. Additionally, she did not include
her first-grade students needs when she was teaching. She believed the kindergarten class should
be messy, the students allowed to explore, she wanted to observe, and then she would develop
the lessons for the students. She relied on the morning computer lab time to provide the first-
grade students with instruction, while she provided instruction to her kindergarten students.
According to literature, teachers have decisional capital. Every decision they make, and they
make many, many decisions daily, shaped, their students’ experiences (Taylor, 2017). Mrs.

241

Nelson’s singular focus on her identity an early childhood educator, who taught kindergarten,
shaped her belief and her decisions as to how she should teach, what her students should learn
and if they were able to access the curriculum. Mrs. Nelson’s ideological perceptions influenced
how she provided instruction to the students she served (Milner, 2010). Her singular ideology of
being a kindergarten teacher, created the conditions, in which she did not attend to all her
students’ needs.
Lack of Belief in the Students’ Academic Abilities
Both Ms. Gonzalez and Mrs. Nelson stated in the interviews they believed in their
students’ academic abilities. They both stated all students could learn if given the opportunity to
do so. However, both in words and practice, the teachers demonstrated their deficit beliefs in
their students’ academic ability. Ms. Gonzalez initially thought her students would come to her
classroom with low reading skills. This was before she assessed them or had any data provided
to her. Additionally, even though she indicated the students’ strength was reading, she only had
them read for fluency, not for comprehension. Additionally, she did not realize of the 25 students
in her classroom, there were only 6 African American students and 4 of them were in the low
reading group.
Mrs. Gonzalez exhibited what Milner would call color-blindness and context-neutral
mindset (2010) in that although she was aware of the varying ethnicities present in her
classroom, she did not address disparities between her culture and the students’. Failing to
overcome those differences were detrimental to the students’ learning as it took away her ability
to provide targeted and meaningful interventions. In addition, Ms. Gonzalez’s lack of awareness
her context-neutral and colorblind perspective was not fair to her students. According to
literature, teacher may think, “to be fair to all students, one should be color-blind and ignore

242

racial differences” (p. 67, Hawley & Nieto, 2010). However, there must be acknowledgement of
students’ race or ethnicity, as well as the acknowledgement that those entities have been, and still
play a crucial role in what and how students are taught and what they learn (Hawley & Nieto,
2010). Furthermore, the idea of color-blindness is good, since it means people are discriminated
against based on the color of their skin, but it is not good when it blinds educators to their
students’ racial, ethnic, cultural, and linguistic differences (Hawley & Nieto, 2010). This also
played a dominant role in how the students were seated in the classroom and grouped for reading
and English language learning lessons.
The class was configured into cooperative grouping. However, she separated the students
during reading time. She did this because, “the fast readers were mean to the slow readers.” This
situation was created by the teacher, as when the students in the “High” group were reading, the
process was repetitive and provided the students with no depth of inquiry, nor cultural relevance,
it was an iterative lesson in fluency. This process was repeated during the math and English
language development lessons. The process was routinized. The students were only taught low
rigor, recall level lessons, which did not require them to delve deeply into the curriculum. Math
was taught the way the teacher understood it, there was no room provided for students to apply
their own understanding to what it is they were learning. Moreover, she did not use the
district/curriculum based English language learner curriculum, stating “it was too hard for them.”
Instead, she created her own lessons, with low rigor, based on grammar and simple sentences,
there was limited reading and again, no room for the students to expand their learning. She was
not a student of culturally relevant responsive pedagogy; therefore, she did not include the
students’ culture and home knowledge into any of the lessons she taught.

243

Mrs. Nelson was set on providing only primary level instruction to her students. In the
case of Ms. Gonzales, she did use the curriculum with fidelity. Whereas, with Mrs. Nelson, she
did not use the curriculum at all. She felt the student would be “flooded,” with the literature.
There was no point during the observations when she read to or with the students. The students
were provided opportunities to read from the classroom library. However, she did not participate
in the lesson. The students did the reading, from whatever book the student chose. If a student
could not read, they were excluded from the opportunity to practice reading.
She taught the basic tenets of reading, letters, phonics, phonemes, blending, rimes, word
families, and high frequency words. However, she did not create the conditions for the students
to use the foundational learning in context, the parts were not put together in a whole to develop
the students’ reading ability. Mrs. Nelson was unaware, that students could simultaneously learn
both basic and rigorous materials. For example, Mary Cowhey (2006), demonstrated while
teaching students the basics (reading, writing, adding, and subtracting) they were simultaneously
participating in discourse such as philosophy and the civil rights movement, activities that
required higher levels of cognition, while making the curriculum diverse and engaging (Hawley
& Nieto, 2010).
Furthermore, Ms. Gonzalez and Mrs. Nelson, not being students of Culturally
Relevant/Responsive Pedagogy, were unable to use was Ladson-Billings (1995), indicated as one
of the tenets of an effective teacher was to possess strong beliefs in their students’ academic
abilities, in spite of the socio-economic status of the school and community (Ladson-Billings,
1995). Teachers with this belief cultivated an ambiance of mutual respect and collaboration,
within their classrooms, where students worked communally to ensure they all succeeded
(Ladson-Billings, 1995). The curriculum was created to connect to the students’ realities – the

244

value of their culture and the systems of oppression that damaged impeded social justice
(Ladson-Billings, 1995). Educators who adopted culturally relevant/responsive pedagogy,
collectively grounded their practice in the belief that all students could be educated (Ladson-
Billings, 1995). However, neither of the teachers in this study demonstrated the tenets in their
practice.
Finally, both Ms. Gonzalez and Mrs. Nelson, unknowingly demonstrated their deficit
perspectives, thinking it was helpful to the success of students of color if: by reducing academic
they could build student self-esteem. The belief that lowered expectations and under-educating
students of color, which leads to dismal academic outcomes is a common practice of educators
who believe it will help students’ self-esteem (Hawley & Nieto, 2010). However, the evidence is
to the contrary. Teachers that hold their historically marginalized and minoritized students to
high expectations, produce better outcomes for students, their learning is enhanced, which leads
to greater academic outcomes for the students (Hawley & Nieto, 2010). Neither Ms. Gonzalez
nor Mrs. Nelson, did not provide high rigor instruction to their students, they shared a common
deficit belief in their students’ academic abilities, that was demonstrated in both their words and
instructional practices.
Behavior Expectations Influenced Students’ Learning
Classroom management and behavior expectations played a major role in both
classrooms. Mrs. Gonzalez used a 19-year-old, faded, color chart to regulate behavior in her
classroom. In addition, she used verbal clues, proximity and treats to elicit the desired behavior
from her students. Mrs. Nelson used a similar method of behavior modification. In her
classroom, there was color changing, positive behavior intervention systems, and emoji faces.
Additionally, she used proximity and treats. They both provided a fluidity to their behavior

245

scales, in which they allowed students moving into negative consequences the opportunity to
move to positive consequence throughout the day. Both Ms. Gonzalez and Mrs. Nelson used the
behavior as a means of classroom management and construction of smartness. Students’
behavior was connected to both positive and negative consequences, as well as academic
expectations.
Both Mrs. Gonzalez and Mrs. Nelson had modified behavior expectations for specific
students in their classrooms. In Ms. Gonzalez’s class, one student was provided a different
contract than the other students. This student was provided leeway regarding arriving to school
on time. He only had to arrive 3-days out of the week to school on time and had to be on green or
blue for 3-days of the week and he received a “good” report. Whereas with Mrs. Nelson, she did
used, ignore, reward, consequence for the 3 students in her classroom with the extremely
disruptive behaviors. The behavior guidelines were used by the teacher to establish what
“scholars” did in the classroom. In both classrooms, “scholars” were quiet, followed directions,
completed their assignments, and in the case of Ms. Gonzalez, did not have to leave the
classroom to use the restroom.
Ms. Gonzalez’s used attention calls such as “class, class,” and the students responded,
“yes, yes.” Also, she would randomly call a table or a students’ name and say, “I like the way
table 1 is working,” or “I like the way Chris is working,” this was used to quiet the class and
redirect the students to complete their assigned tasks. In Mrs. Nelson’s class, she would say “if
you see a Ginsburg Rottweiler, give them a high five” or she would say, “I see you, Cassy,”
again this was used to gain the attention of the class and keep everyone on task. The teachers
differed in their approaches to behavior in, Ms. Gonzalez had 1 main approach to classroom
management and Mrs. Nelson had several. Ms. Gonzalez used the color chart to order, and Mrs.

246

Nelson used call and response, color change, ignoring, tokens, and the PBIS program to garner
the desired behavior.
In both Ms. Gonzalez’ and Mrs. Nelson’s class, smartness was constructed based on
students’ behavior. If a student was quiet, paying attention and did not cause a disruption, the
students was rewarded with tokens. In Ms. Gonzalez’s class, the token was a piece of candy, a
trip to the treasure box, a class job, and a good end of week report sent home to the students’
parents. In Mrs. Nelson’s class students were provided with tokens for purple ball tosses, bean
bag tosses, and outside slides. It was never established the number of tokens needed to acquire
the rewards. However, students with the tokens were allowed to participate in the rewards
process.
Furthermore, the rewards system was used as a means of doling out consequences as
well. In Ms. Gonzalez’s class, in the beginning, the students were not provided a warning before
they received a consequence, a color change. When a parent visited the classroom and
complained about her child wetting himself. Ms. Gonzalez changed her method and began to
offer a warning before, having the students change their colors for going to the restroom. In Mrs.
Nelson’s class, she gave out tokens to students, and took tokens from students depending on the
behavior. This is what Hatt concluded as the special artifacts in the classroom used by the adults
to establish which students were smart and which were not (Hatt, 2011). Additionally, it was
revealed the students’ academic identities were both negatively and positively influenced by their
experiences within the classroom (Hatt, 2011). There were not many instances in Ms. Gonzalez’s
class where the students did not fall in line with the behavior expectations. The one exception
was Za. He was provided more leeway than the other students. This was due to the teacher
feeling sorry for him regarding his homelife. In addition, he was the student that wet himself and

247

his mother complained. Whereas in Mrs. Nelson’s class, she gave more tokens to the African
American students and the girls students than the boy students. Moreover, the students were
expected to understand why there was a difference in the way the tokens were received. In one
instance, a Latino male student began crying when his tokens were taken for talking. He was not
being disruptive; he was simply noticed by the teacher as being off task and his tokens were
taken. Later in the study this student began behaving like the other three disruptive students in
the classroom. He was not provided the same leeway; he was given more severe negative
consequences.
Both Ms. Gonzalez and Mrs. Nelson, provided rewards and consequences to the students
they deemed “smart.” This was established by the calling of the students’ name followed by
commending them for the desired behavior. The students who the teachers deemed “smart,” and
exhibited the desired behavior were provided more privileges and rewards than those who did
not fit the mold of what the teachers deemed “smart.” This is what Hatt (2011), described as link
between those students who were designated as smart and those who earned extra rewards. The
students labeled as “smart” for behaving in the desired fashion, were also given measures of
power and autonomy within the classroom via jobs in the classroom, as well as added
independence in the classroom (Hatt, 2011). The student not labeled as smart were not afforded
such privileges (Hatt, 201). The identification and labeling of students as smart based on their
behavior affected the choices of both the teacher and the aide (Hatt, 2011). This was the same in
the case of Ms. Gonzalez and Mrs. Nelson. However, none of the behavior modifications,
rewards, and attempts by the teachers to maintain order, altered the teachers lack delivery of
meaningful learning for the students.

248

Students Were not Provided Meaningful Learning Opportunities
Both Ms. Gonzalez and Mrs. Nelson possessed a deficit perspective which inhibited their
ability to provide their students with meaningful learning opportunities. Ms. Gonzalez followed
the curriculum with fidelity. However, the way in which the lessons were taught were low-level
and routinized. Additionally, they were limited to the content knowledge of the teacher, and she
demonstrated a lack of understanding in the ability to provide high quality and rigorous
instruction to her students. Mrs. Nelson did not provide instruction from the district curriculum at
all. She taught the students what she thought they needed to learn; stating the curriculum was not
what they needed, “it would flood them.” Furthermore, Mrs. Nelson taught only kindergarten
level instruction to her combination kindergarten and first grade classroom. Neither teacher
provided their students with depth of inquiry, nor did they tap into the students’ knowledge and
abilities they brought into the classroom from their home, community, and previous educational
experiences.
The teachers were in a perpetual state of providing intervention instead of first best
instruction, with high rigor and cultural relevance to their students. Their deficit perspectives
limited the students’ learning opportunities. Both teachers missed the mark in what Anthony
(1996), described as opportunities for meaningful learning. Anthony (1996) contended, that
meaningful learning was an active not passive learning process, centered on purposeful learning
activities and active mental experiences. Constructivism is the opposite of passive learning.
Passive learning is a process by which learning is regulated to rote memorization and
assimilation of new information (Anthony, 1996). Conversely, constructivism in the belief that
learning is built upon existing knowledge (Anthony, 1996). The students in both classes received
instruction in the latter.

249

Ms. Gonzalez had her students read in a choral fashion, and only asked recall questions.
There was no summarizing of information, there was no inquiry beyond the questions asked by
the teacher. During math, she taught the students one-method, believing they were unable to do
more. If a students realized a different method, the students was told to follow the instruction
provided and continue with the lesson. During the English language development lessons, this
provided the greatest opportunity for the students to delve into their culture, home knowledge
and writing abilities. However, Mrs. Nelson, believing writing was an extreme weakness for the
students, limited the lessons, to one to student simple sentence writing, focused on grammar.
Similarly, Mrs. Nelson taught her students alphabets, sounds, word families, and single
digit math. She did not use the lessons she taught the students to move them towards the use of
literature, she gave no context for what she taught the students. The students knew their
alphabets, sounds, high frequency words, and word families, however, the teacher’s lack of
belief in her students’ abilities, would be the impetuous for her to maintain the low-level, non-
rigorous instruction in place for her students. The students were not provided with what Anthony
(1996) called active learning with a duality for its definition, it is defined as active learning
activities and active mental experiences (Anthony, 1996).
The activities depicted in active learning include problem-solving, small group work,
inquiry based-questioning, and experiential learning. The learning is completely the reverse of
passive learning. Passive learning involves listening to teacher’s lecture, answering close-ended
questions, constantly solving problems students have already demonstrated proficiency, even
mastery (Anthony, 1996). Engaged (active) mental experiences involve cognitive endeavors and
establishing a position of intellectual inquiry, which is dissimilar from passive cognitive
experiences in which students incorporate new understanding via rote memorization and practice

250

of lower-level skills (Anthony, 1996). The teachers in both classes provided students with
passive learning activities, where the students only received surface level instruction. The
students were not provided the opportunity for depth of inquiry and connectivity to prior
knowledge for long-term learning and retention (Santamaria, 2009).
Ms. Gonzalez and Mrs. Nelson both fell short in providing the students with the
instruction needed for them to be successful beyond their respective grade levels. They did not
intend to do so, but they did. Ms. Gonzalez did use the district curriculum and provided more
structure in her classroom. Yet she fell short in providing a rigorous, culturally relevant
educational environment. The instruction was limited to English language arts, mathematics, and
English language development for the ELD students. The lessons were on pacing and met with
district requirements. She did not supplement with culturally relevant materials, nor did she
include the other core subjects as a means of increasing depth of inquiry and rigor. Mrs. Nelson,
complained about the lack of culture and the curriculum being too much for her students, yet she
did not teacher them enough. She focused on primary skills, taught out of context, and did not
include her first graders curriculum at all. She felt her limited method of lesson delivery was
enough for her students to be successful. This was not so, not for the kindergartners nor the first
graders. Both teachers’ deficit perspectives negatively influenced their instructional choices.
Both teachers verbally stated they believed all students could learn if provided the
opportunity to do so. However, their pedagogical practices demonstrated their deficit
perspectives regarding their students’ ability to learn. The teachers did not have to be students of
culturally relevant/responsive pedagogy to be inclusive of students’ funds of knowledge and
ability to learn. They had to truly believe the students were capable of learning and want the
students to see themselves being successful. They had to be willing to question the lack of

251

inclusion of the students in the curriculum and then seek methods of including them. The
longevity of the teachers in the same grade levels, and belief in their successes created a
stagnation in the way they delivered lessons. Therefore, they did not modify their methods of
instructional delivery. The teachers unknowingly perpetuated the dominate narrative that
historically marginalized and minoritized students are limited in their ability to be educated, that
they do not bring assets to the classroom. The teachers focused on the need for intervention and
not enrichment. They focused on hegemonic assimilation and not the students’ funds of
knowledge, home, and cultural assets.
Revised Conceptual Framework
According to Maxwell (2013), a key point to understand about a conceptual framework is
that it is a model of a tentative theory of the phenomena that is being studied (p. 39). My
conceptual framework emerged from my experiences as a student in the public education system
and my career as an educator in the public education system. It is framed from my assumptions,
expectations, and beliefs about the phenomena (Maxwell, 2013, p. 39). In the beginning my
theories about the phenomenon were partially supported by the literature that was at the center of
the initial design of my conceptual framework.
There was limited literature were the specific subjects studied were African American
and Latina teachers and their beliefs and pedagogical practices. My hypothesis of “actual ideas
that I [held] about the phenomena studied” (Maxwell, 2013, p. 39) were separated by the sources
of insights I obtained while collecting, analyzing, and interpreting the data. Therefore, the
revisions to my conceptual framework emerged from what I learned as I engaged in the analysis
and deciphering of the data. This new knowledge led to the development of my findings and
themes.

252

My initial assumptions were African American and Latina teachers’ ideological
perspective of their African American and Latina students influenced their pedagogical practices,
and the meaningful learning experiences for their students. My initial concept existed on a
continuum. As I delved into the data, I realized it was a triangle. However, it was not a bi-
directional triangle. I learned I had to consider the teachers’ beliefs influenced the way they
taught their students even if they were unaware of their biases. I learned the teachers thought
using the curriculum with fidelity or not at all was best for their students. The Latina teacher
used the curriculum with fidelity. She did not see the need to supplement the curriculum with
outside sources. The African American teacher did not use the curriculum at all. She felt it was
too much for her students to do.
Additionally, the teachers used as informants for the case studies were considered highly
qualified and academically effective teachers by the principals of their respective schools and
within the district. Therefore, my initial conceptual framework was tentative, constructed from
the literature on ideology (asset, mixed, deficit), pedagogy (culturally relevant and responsive),
and meaningful learning experiences from a sociocultural and constructivist perspective, to
promote high student engagement.
In my revised conceptual framework, I argue teachers beliefs are revealed and reflected
in their pedagogical practices with their African American and Latina students, as it relates to
their choice of lesson delivery, the way they deny inclusion of the students funds of knowledge,
the way the students are disciplined for enacting their funds of knowledge, the lack of inclusion
of the students’ home language, culture, and the overall unconscious bias enacted by the African
American and Latina teachers towards the African American and Latina students. Finally, the
teachers do not provide the students with rigorous, student-centered meaningful learning.

253

The teachers were not reflective of their pedagogical practices, nor were they aware of
the biases they held regarding their students’ academic ability. If teachers are not reflective about
their pedagogical practices or the biases they hold, they will likely enact practices that are not
aligned with the needs of their students or be able to see whether the practices they provide
produce student-centered meaningful learning experiences. The teachers taught the same grades
for their entire careers, except for the African American teacher having a combination
Kindergarten and first grade class for the first time in 20 years. Therefore, the teachers were in a
set routine that was demonstrated in their use of stagnant pedagogical strategies.
Furthermore, consistent with my initial conceptual framework the teachers’ deficit
ideology influenced their perspective of their students’ academic abilities. I assert that teachers
would not access students’ funds of knowledge to construct schematic connectors to the
students’ home knowledge and language. The teachers’ low expectations were demonstrated in
how they used low levels of rigor believing the students were not able to engage in more
rigorous instruction. Finally, the teachers’ low expectations and lack of rigor produced student
disengagement and, in some cases, students acting out which resulted in them receiving punitive
behavior corrections.
I present my revised conceptual framework model as the following:
Figure 3
Revised Conceptual Framework

Teacher Ideologies

Deficit Mixed Asset

Teacher Pedagogies

Deficit Mixed Asset
Students’
Meaningful Learning Experiences

Not Student- Mixed Student
Centered Some Student Centered
Low Some High
Engagement Engagement Engagement

Students

254

Based on the data and the themes that emerged it is the students that are in the center of
the learning process, no matter where the teacher falls within my framework. Bartolomé (2004)
contended that a persons’ beliefs come from their life experiences and social conditions. The
teachers’ ideology was such that they believed the students they served were not capable of high
level of rigorous academic work. They believed the students needed constant remediation.
Furthermore, in the absence of socio-political and ideological clarity, they were not reflective of
their practices, and they employed an assimilationist method of teaching, which is inherently
deficit to the historically minoritized and marginalized students (Bartolomé, 2004).
According to Taylor (2017), teachers possess decisional capital. Every decision they
make influences their students learning. The teachers deciding to provide low-level educational
rigor and not delve into the students’ funds of knowledge would have long-term effects on their
students’ academic attainment. Furthermore, Rist (2000) asserted choices made by the teachers
based on limited academic data was used to make educational decisions that would follow the
students. This was present in the observations during my study. The teachers believed the
students were not capable of grade level work, even when they had received the instruction the
year before.
Additionally, even when the students performed well, the teacher did not increase the
rigor, nor did they enrich the assignments. During the ELD lessons the teacher used herself as an
example of success and ability to speak English and Spanish. This was present in the Taylor
(2017), piece where the educator did not realize her positionality and race played a role in her
ability to navigate society.
Neither of the teachers were students of CRT. However, Ms. Nelson did mention the lack
of cultural connections to the literature. However, she would not use the core curriculum to

255

provide instruction to the students. I saw that Ms. Gonzalez did follow the core and ensured the
students would be ready for the state testing, but she did not supplement the materials. Nor was
she aware that 4 out of 6 of her African American students in her classroom were in the low
reading group. In Mrs. Nelson’s class she was not agreeable to teaching more than one grade
level. Therefore, she only taught at a Kindergarten. Neither of the teachers provided culturally
inclusive, students centered instruction.
The revised framework removed the teacher from the center and placed the students there
alone. It is the teachers’ beliefs and practices that influence the presence or lack of meaningful
learning for students. What the teachers think, how they see the students, and what they feel the
students are capable of, influence the students educational experience.

256

Chapter Five
This dissertation explored the ways in which the academic and behavioral expectations of
teachers of students of the same ethnicity, influenced the teachers’ pedagogical choices and the
meaningful learning opportunities provided to the students. A qualitative multi-site, multi-case
study was used to address the research question:
• How are 1 African American and 1 Latina teachers’ academic and behavioral
expectations revealed or reflected in their instructional practices and in their
students’ learning opportunities?
To answer this question, I used purposeful sampling to select two elementary school
teachers who were of the same ethnicity of their students and deemed exceptional teachers by
their principals. I selected two teachers who taught Kindergarten – 2
nd
grade. The data I collected
to answer the question included two in-person interviews of each teacher. The interview with
Ms. Gonzalez took 2 days. One interview took place in the beginning of the study and one at the
end of the study. Mrs. Nelson’s interviews took place over several days, as she was hesitant to sit
for the sessions. The observations for the class took place over the span of three-months.
Additionally, there were 12 to 15 direct classroom observations lasting from 1 ½ to 2 hours per
session for total of approximately 24 to 36 hours each.
Additionally, I reviewed the teacher’s edition, lesson plans, online applications, student
textbooks and workbooks, and behavior tools displayed in the classroom. The data collected
from this study provided a means for me to understand how the pedagogical practices, beliefs,
academic and behavioral expectations of two teachers of the same ethnicity as the students they
served, did not mean the students would be provided culturally relevant/responsive lessons, nor
did it ensure meaningful learning opportunities for the students.

257

The data collected from the study provided insight into the instructional practices of two
teachers, one Latinx and one African American, with students of the same ethnicity represented
in their classrooms. Even though the teachers said they believed in their students’ ability, it was
not displayed in the instruction provided to the students. Based on the gatekeepers at the time of
the commencement of the study, the two teachers chosen for the study were deem the highly
qualified primary grade teachers. However, the data that emerged from the study indicated that
even though they were considered the best, their ideologies, pedagogies, behavioral expectations,
and opportunities provided for meaningful learning experiences for their students were anemic at
best.
Moreover, their practices were consistent with the concept of the deficit perspective, I
outlined in my conceptual framework. In my conceptual framework, I argued beliefs held by
educators of the same race/ethnicity of their students, either negatively or positively affected
their pedagogical practices, which negatively or positively influenced students’ learning
opportunities. The three elements created a triangle of three linked concepts: teacher ideology,
the tenets of culturally relevant pedagogy (CRP), and meaningful learning experiences (student
learning opportunities).
I also argued that the pedagogy of a teacher with a deficit ideology would be reflective of
those beliefs and would be demonstrated through basic, rote-learning, and an absence of inquiry,
and therefore, few, if any, meaningful learning experiences for students. In the alternative, if the
teacher held a combination of deficit and asset ideology, the teacher would demonstrate a
combination of pedagogical practices that included rote learning, as well as some inquiry-based
learning, and there would be some student engagement, as well as some meaningful learning.
Finally, if the teacher possessed an asset ideology, the pedagogical practices would be student-

258

centered, hence producing meaning learning experiences and opportunities for the students to
learn. In this chapter, I will review the findings of the data and offer implication for teacher
practice, education policy, and educational research.
Summary of Findings
Ms. Gonzalez was a second grade multiple-subject teacher. She was a Latina woman who
grew up in the same city as the school at which she had spent her 19-year teaching career. Even
though she stated she believed her students would do well, she possessed deficit ideology
regarding her students’ behavioral and academic abilities. She believed the students’ home life
impeded their ability to learn. She did not want the students’ home life to involved in their
education. She felt the students should “forget about what was happening at home and be happy
they were at school.” That was her take on the home lives of her students. She did not include the
students’ home life, prior knowledge, nor their culture in her instructional delivery. She was not
a student of culturally relevant responsive pedagogy. Therefore, the lessons provided were based
on the assimilative and hegemonic ideology of the teacher and the curriculum provided for the
students. The lessons were routinized, recall, not requiring depth of inquiry from the students.
Additionally, her choice to not include the students’ culture in the lessons, by supplementing the
lessons with culturally relevant material, not allowing the students to express their homelife
issues, bring in outside knowledge, and provide low rigor, rote, recall based lesson, created the
conditions for an educational experience that lacked cultural relevance and meaningful learning
experiences for the students.
The ideology that Ms. Gonzalez displayed in her classroom was that of low expectations
of and deficit mindset about her students in relation to their academic ability. This meant that she
provided the students with instruction based on low rigor. She assigned work for them to

259

complete that did not require a depth of inquiry. They received verbal encouragement for quietly
completing low rigor, routinized assignments. She failed to increase the rigor of the assignments
and did not see that her lack of cultural awareness and colorblindness limited her ability to create
the conditions for meaningful learning for her students. Furthermore, Ms. Gonzalez’s instruction
lacked the student-centered focus that would have allowed the students to see themselves in their
educational experience.
Ms. Gonzalez’s pedagogical practices were set to maintain the status quo. She followed
the district curriculum, pacing and intervention guidelines. However, she felt the English
language development program was too hard for the students. That is a common thread for Ms.
Gonzalez, the more rigorous work was consistently deemed too hard for her students. Mrs.
Gonzalez was not socio-politically aware. She did not realize the mature nature of the children
she served. When she was made aware of certain language the students used, or how they
behaved with one another, she was surprised, or she would dismiss what was told to her. She was
grossly unaware of her students’ extensive knowledge of the world around them and their ability
to function at a much higher level of educational capability than she realized. This lack of
awareness created a void in her students’ academic growth. As stated before, her pedagogical
practices lacked culturally relevant responsive teaching as she was not a student of the practices.
Therefore, she failed to see the value in students learning based on their own cultural experiences
and knowledge. She did not see the benefit of this method of instruction. Therefore, her students
were provided a non-rigorous, assimilative, and hegemonic instructional experience.
Mrs. Nelson was a Kindergarten and 1
st
grade combination teacher. She was an African
American woman who began her teaching career, as an early childhood education teacher, in an
affluent school district and then transferred to a less-affluent district and taught in the school

260

district used in the study for 19-years. She believed herself to be a Kindergarten teacher, which
was her identity. However, she was centered in her identity as an early childhood educator. She
believed if she was allowed to observe her students and create lessons around their interests, they
would have a better learning experience. She felt having to teach two grades was an imposition.
Therefore, she only taught the kindergarten students in the classroom. She felt the curriculum
was too much for her students, therefore she kept the lessons at the very basic level, foundational
for early literacy and math. She displayed a bias between the African American Students and the
Latino/a students. In addition, she displayed a bias between the boys and the girls in her class, as
well as a marked differentiation between the kindergarten and first-grade students. She was not a
student of culturally relevant/responsive pedagogy. Therefore, the students received primary
based instruction, with no inclusion of their cultural and knowledge.
Mrs. Nelson articulated she believed all students could learn. However, her practice
demonstrated that she held a deficit perspective with regards to her students’ ability to achieve
academically. She did not use the district curriculum or pacing for the students. She only used
her basic instruction of primary literacy and math. Her feeling that the curriculum was too much
for the students was a demonstration of her deficit ideology. She felt the lessons were too hard
for the students, and if they did not possess foundation skills, there were not able to engage with
the text. She created her own foundational literacy lessons, that were routine and early education
and kindergarten focused. Mrs. Nelson was more aware of her students’ home lives and the
knowledge they brought from home. However, she did not use the knowledge, nor the students’
culture when creating lessons for them. Neither did she use their knowledge to enhance their
lessons or bring their culture into their educational experience.

261

Mrs. Nelson’s refusal to use the district curriculum and only use her early childhood
education background, in her mind was a form of consideration for her students. She did not
want to overwhelm them. However, her decision to teach at a basic level, and only teach to have
of the class, was both irresponsible and inequitable. Mrs. Nelson’s attempts to help her students
by providing them with the lessons she has created, does not provide them with the depth and
breadth of academic knowledge for success in subsequent grades. In the following section, I will
address the implications and recommendations that I have derived from my study.
Implications and Recommendations
This dissertation explored the ways in which the ideology and pedagogical practices, as
well as the behavioral expectations of students, of teachers with the same ethnicity influenced the
meaningful learning experiences of the students. It examined the ways in which teachers with
either asset, mixed, or deficit ideologies, and behavioral expectations of the students influenced
their practice. Findings from this study revealed that both teachers held deficit ideology
regarding their students’ academic capabilities. Both teachers failed at providing students with
rigorous lessons and meaningful learning experiences. Additionally, both were not students of
culturally relevant responsive practices, therefore, the lessons the students were provided not
only lacked rigor and depth, but they were also void of cultural significance to the students. In
the following section, I will discuss the implications that emerged from these findings as they
related to teacher practice, educational policy, and the research community.
Practice
The goal of this study was to learn if the teachers shared the same ethnicity of the
students would the students, then have meaningful learning experiences. There was limited
information on this topic. However, the information provided indicate minoritized teachers who

262

have been educated in the American teaching programs, adopt the same ideological and
pedagogical perspectives of non-minoritized teachers. Therefore, they reproduce the inequities
students of color would be subjected to if the teacher was of a different ethnicity. In order for
teachers, even those of the same ethnicity to not perpetuate the status quo, they must be made
aware of the inequities and then be able to confront their preconceived biases and mindsets, both
conscious and subconscious, as a means to confront harmful deficit beliefs about their students
(Bartolomé, 2004).
Furthermore, the teachers must develop a political and ideological clarity that allows
them to realize the sociopolitical and economic realities that face their students, as well as how
those factors affect academic performance in the classroom. Moreover, there must be an internal
struggle by the teachers to come to their own explanation for the socioeconomic and political
disparities, which allows them to be reflective of their own beliefs and their alignment to the
dominant society (Bartolomé, 2004). The teachers must be aware of their perpetuation of their
students lack achievement and how this perpetuates the deficit perspective held by society of
students of color. They must confront how they are centered both conscious and unconsciously
in the narrative, and how they are contributing to the educational inequity.
In addition to the examination of teacher’s ideology, teachers of minoritized students
must examine their pedagogical approach and how/if it is grounded in the students’ culture.
When working with minoritized students, it is extremely important to possess content knowledge
about cultural diversity in order to meet the needs of the students being served (Gay, 2002).
Teachers need to be able to create curriculum and learning experiences that are reflective of the
cultures of their students, including the minoritized students’ experiences in their educational
narrative. Making students aware of the important contributions of people of diverse

263

backgrounds and ethnicities (Gay, 2002). Additionally, the teacher must provide rigorous
instruction, while simultaneously scaffolding their students’ learning, while being inclusive of
various aspects of their students distinct and diverse cultures.
In order to effectively teach minoritized students, teacher must include culturally
responsive pedagogy and use the tenets, viewpoints and experiences of their diverse students in
the teaching practice (Gay, 2002). This means the teachers must be willing to be uncomfortable
and confront the social injustices and inequities minoritized students face every day. Teachers
who are students of the tenets of culturally relevant/responsive pedagogy provide rigorous
instruction; this provides the opportunity for students to think critically about the macro-society
that contributes to their marginalization, thereby providing a context and understanding, as a
means of removing the inhibiters to students’ academic success (Gay, 2002). Teachers of
minoritized students, do a disservice to the students in their charge if they are not inclusive of
pivotal components of culture within the instruction. Instruction provided in this manner does not
provide the students with a connection to their experiences, nor does it provide a means for them
to advocate for themselves and dismantle the institutions that perpetuate their marginalization.
Furthermore, teachers must know there are three types of curriculums formal, symbolic
and societal, and historically marginalized and minoritized students must be taught all three
(Gay, 2022). Teachers could accomplish this task by possessing knowledge of the three kinds of
curricula that are most often present in the classrooms of teachers who practice culturally
relevant pedagogy (Gay, 2002). The first of the curricula is formal. The formal curricula plan for
instruction that are approved by policy and governing bodies of educational systems and are
complemented by adopted textbooks and other curriculum guidelines, such as standards. Gay
(2002) acknowledged that the instructional material in formal curriculum plans for instruction do

264

not present controversial issues and atrocities faced by multiple ethnic minoritized groups in
history.
The formal curricula trend was to avoid issues such as racism, hegemony, and
powerlessness. They are designed to give more attention to African Americans than other ethnic
minority groups of color and ignore the complexities of race, class, and gender. They emphasize
factual knowledge, while ignoring other forms of knowledge such as values and experiences.
Moreover, Gay (2002) argued teachers must be taught and equipped with the skills to analyze
curricular documents for quantity, accuracy, complexity, placement, purpose, variety,
significance, and authenticity of the narrative test, visual illustrations, learning activities, role
models, and the authors of the instructional materials.
The second type of curriculum is the symbolic curriculum (Gay, 2002). The symbolic
curriculum is inclusive of images, symbols, icons, mottoes, awards, celebrations, and other
artifacts that are used to teach students knowledge, skills, morals, and values (Gay, 2002, p. 108).
Classrooms and school hallways are tools to advertise, and students learn from what is displayed
in those spaces. The researcher asserted culturally responsive teachers must be “critically
conscious of the power of the symbolic curriculum, as an instrument of teaching and use it to
help convey pertinent information about values, and actions about ethnic and cultural diversity to
students” (p. 108).
The third type of curriculum Gay (2002) discussed was the societal curriculum. The
societal curriculum includes the knowledge, ideas, and impressions about ethnic minorities that
are portrayed in the mass media. This information can often be presented as inaccurate and/or
prejudicial and perpetuates the myths about life outside of mainstream American (Gay, 2002).
The images give credence to the view of minoritized culture as not as important and marginal.

265

Gay (2002) asserted, while the images are inaccurate and full of ethnic stereotypes, mass media
outlets, such as television programs, movies, magazines, and newspapers depict “cultural, social,
ethnic, and political values, knowledge and advocacies” and construct common knowledge and
ideology (p. 109).
None of the three curriculums were practiced by either of the teachers in the study. Ms.
Gonzalez was quite content with the curriculum and district pacing guide. She saw no reason to
deviate. Whereas Mrs. Nelson, used none of the curriculum and taught her students from
memory what she used during her early education teacher years, 25-years prior. Both teachers
were in need of professional development inclusive of culturally relevant responsive instruction
and the importance of implementing the three curriculums.
To provide minoritized students, even in the primary grades, with the skills and abilities
to be aware of and deal with being marginalized, teachers must include aspects of culturally
relevant responsive pedagogy (Ladson-Billings, 1995). A prominent tenet of culturally relevant
responsive pedagogy is for teachers to provide examples and imbed cultural competence and
sociopolitical consciousness in their students. Cultural competence creates the conditions for the
students to appreciate their culture as well as other cultures. Whereas sociopolitical
consciousness promotes engagement and provides the students with the tools to recognized and
solve issues they will encounter both inside and outside of the school setting (Ladson-Billings,
1995,2014). When students are provided contextualized knowledge, inclusive of themselves,
they are more inclined to academic success. Teachers of historically minoritized/marginalized
students must develop a sense of responsibility to aid the students they serve with the skills
needed to advocate for themselves. Simply know there is a problem of their students is not
sufficient. Teachers must provide a means for their students to move from being view as

266

minoritized low performing students, to students that can achieve exceptionally academically.
Moreover, teachers of minoritized students must not mix up the students’ behavior with the
students’ academic abilities. Teachers with culturally relevant/responsive tenets, enact classroom
management aligned to the students’ culture, not that of the dominant society. When students are
explicitly taught the rules of the culture, the knowledge provides students of color with the
understanding and, they are more likely to accept and follow acceptable behaviors. Moreover,
knowledge of the over-arching power system assists students in comprehending, as well the
means to challenge and question the oppressive system that marginalizes and minoritizes them
(Milner, 2010). Additionally, students must be instructed in being critical of the power
structures, not just in learning the information and then conforming and operating in the system,
but to oppose the marginalization and oppressive rules, which widens the opportunity gap in
education (Milner, 2010).
Finally, the lessons provided to minoritized students must be meaningful. Creating
lessons that are easy for the students is a disserves and perpetuates the educational gaps the
students experience. Teachers with deficit mind set and low expectations view themselves as
simply showing up at work, providing a space away from the students’ home life, and feeling
sorry for the students, as being considerate of the students, as well as going easy on them as a
mean of being empathetic to “those” poor students (Milner, 2010). This type of stereotypical
behavior based on the belief in tenet four, further perpetuates the opportunity gap, creating a lack
of students of color in gifted-high achieving classes, as well as an over representation of students
of color in special education classes (Milner, 2010).
Moreover, Milner (2010) asserts lowered expectations and deficit mind-set creates an
iterative cycle, where students are not taught inquiry and critical thinking skills, they are not

267

learning, their test scores are low, there is no critical reflection by the teachers on their part in the
students’ lack of achievement, the students are blamed and at no point are the teachers
questioned as to their methods or the role they play in the students lack of achievement, and all
involved cannot think of a reason why this continues to happen (Milner, 2010). To put a stop to
this practice, teachers must first acknowledge and use the knowledge the students bring with
them from their homes and communities.
Moll et al. (1992) defines funds of knowledge as the “historically accumulated and
culturally developed bodies of knowledge and skills essential for household or individual
functioning and well-being” (p. 133). Additionally, the researchers contend, funds of knowledge,
are inclusive of a foundational knowledge, that students bring with them to the classroom, which
educators may tactically infuse into the learning environment (Moll et al., 1992). Teachers who
embrace and used the students home knowledge, are aware of the world their students must
navigate. If provides them with the context needed to validate the students culture and use the
knowledge as a scaffold to build academic content (Moll et al., 1992). Students home knowledge
academically strengthens the teacher’s ability to provide the cultural scaffolding, and
connections between home and school knowledge. This creates meaningful learning
opportunities for, that are centered in the students’ daily reality, and not in the dominate culture,
that is a foreign entity to most minoritized/marginalized students. Being inclusive of the of the
student home knowledge is needed for providing student with the tools to combat the
marginalization they encounter. Including the tools, the students’ family have used to navigate
the system, in an academic setting provides them with the skills needed to effectively deal with
the systems of oppression on the both the macro-system and micro-system. In order for this to

268

work effectively, teacher must be provided with focused professional, that will require them to
examine their biases.
Professional learning, growth and development should not be the responsibility of the
teachers. If the goal is to ensure teachers are prepared to provide the best first instruction to
students of color, their practice must be infused with opportunities for them to be reflective of
their ideological perceptions, pedagogical practices, and means of providing meaningful learning
opportunities for their students. In the absence if a critical analysis of teachers’ internal belief
systems, they are not aware of, nor are they able to deal with their fundamental negative
ideological perspectives, hence they perpetuate the dominant societal status quo, which is
undoubtedly detrimental to the students they serve (Bartolomé, 2004, 2008). Simply being a
teacher of the same ethnicity is not sufficient to ensure minoritized and marginalized students
will receive rigorous and meaningful learning experiences for them to be successful. Teachers
must constantly reflect on their ideology, practice, and biases associated with teaching students
of color, even if they are of the same ethnicity. Using such a professional growth model will
ensure teachers do not perpetuate status quo of the dominant culture, which is extremely harmful
to their students’ academic experience.
Many teacher education programs’ graduates are primarily composed of middle-class,
English-only speaking, Caucasian-women, without understanding, nor having had to examine
their ideological orientation. A workforce dominated by people without a clear ideological
orientation entering the teaching profession, is extremely problematic, since they will be entering
classrooms with an increasing number of minoritized, multilingual students of color (Bartolomé,
2004, 2008). Given the current shift of student demographics, it is important that teachers
analyze their ideologies, as a means of not continuing the dominate, harmful hegemonic and

269

deficit systems that permeate the educational system (Bartolomé, 2008). Therefore, pre-service
teachers must be provided the opportunity to develop sufficient cultural competence before
beginning their teaching careers. This will provide them with the skills needed to ensure the
scaffolding needed by the students is in place for students’ academic success. The ability to
provide appropriate cultural scaffolds has positive effects on the academic achievement of
students of color (Gay, 2002). They must be aware of, acknowledge and use the students home
knowledge, as a means of understanding the students they are charged to serve. Both the
indoctrination programs and support programs are responsible for the development of the
cultural competence teachers need to be successful in educating historically marginalized and
minoritized students.
When a person decides to enter the teaching profession, they unknowing take on a
burden. They are assigned unwritten responsibilities at the point of entry into the profession,
their classroom, and especially when the students enter their classroom doors. The burden is even
more taxing when the students the teachers are charged to serve are children that have been
minoritized and marginalized, just by the color of their skin. The teachers are not just responsible
for the curriculum provided by the state, they are responsible for the unwritten curriculum, the
nuisances the students will need to be successful in a system that is not designed for all of them
to be successful. The teachers that are aware of this burden are willing work to dismantle the
dominant ideologies. If they are aware of the role in the education experience of the students
they serve, they know it is tantamount for them to provide the students with the tools to be
culturally competent, while simultaneously navigating the dominant society. Teachers must
know embracing hegemonic and assimilative ideologies, erases who the students are, and unless
teachers are willing to discontinue such practices, the educational experiences of students of

270

color will continue to render the same results, with the students not able to excel the way the
teachers stated they believed their students could.
Policy
This study of two teachers of the same ethnicity of the students they were charged to
teach, is not intended to be a panacea for the challenges faced by historically marginalized and
minoritized students. In attempting to find understanding of how the ideology of the teacher and
the behavior of the students, influenced the pedagogical practices of the teacher, even if the
teacher is of the same ethnicity of the students, it was demonstrated the minoritized and
marginalized teacher perpetuated the status quo of the dominant culture. Furthermore, the study
shed light on was the hegemony, assimilation, and biases of the teacher of color, and how these
negative entities were perpetuated against the students of color, by the teachers of color. It also
demonstrated the implications of both the educational experiences of the teachers and the pre-
service teacher indoctrination programs have on the teachers of color, and the lack of cultural
competence the teachers possess.
The impetus for this study is what a teacher believed. The thoughts a person a person has
regarding a particular subject. Therefore, the ideology of a person is tantamount to the choices a
person makes, the way a person interact with others. Ideology is a framework of thought, erected
by members of society to rationalize an existing social order (Bartolomé, 2004). This framework
was brought about from previous experiences and built upon by social conditions. When teachers
are not critical of their belief system, they are subject to the influences of the ideology of the
dominant society.
Therefore, they perpetuate the negative deficit ideology, that is harmful to their students.
This is important in the primary grades, when children are experiencing the foundational learning

271

that will establish their experiences within the educational system. Therefore, preservice teaching
programs must enact policies that require teachers to be critical of their beliefs of the students
they serve, they must be reflective of their ideological perceptions of their students’ academic
abilities. It is not enough that teachers are the same ethnicity as the students they serve. It is not
enough that they say they believe their students are capable. They tend practice instructional
tenets of that of a deficit perspective. As evident from the data, the teachers who said all students
could learn, left a huge “but” hanging in the air when they spoke of their students. They were
both deficit in their practices that were detrimental to their students’ academic and educational
experience.
The teachers recommended are considered the one of the best teachers in their respective
schools. They were highly recommended and are still viewed at the top educators on their
respective campuses. As veteran teachers, they are positioned to influence the ideologies and
practices of other teachers on their campus, as well as new teachers entering the profession,
within this district. This means the perpetuation of the deficit perception of the students will
continue if there is no confrontation of the deficit ideologies of the teachers. In terms of building
capacity in the teachers it must begin in the pre-service and in-service programs as well as the
hiring practices at the district level.
It is necessary for professional learning and growth over the span of the teaching
profession, for reflective teaching, cultural competency, and courageous conversations. The type
of professional growth needs to include uncomfortable conversations about internal biases,
deficit beliefs and mediocre instructional practices, void of students cultural and home
knowledge. The professional conversations need to happen over time and need to be led by those
with the depth of content knowledge needed to enact the change beneficial for students of color.

272

The professional learning should continue until the teachers’ practices demonstrate their
ideology has evolved to that of realizing the full potential of the student they serve as well as a
change in their pedagogical practices.
Deciding to confront deficit ideology and pedagogical practices should be at the forefront
of both pre-service and in-service teaching programs. It should also, be included in the hiring
process. There should be a cultural competence requirement, reflective teaching component, and
ongoing professional learning to explore the biases teachers possess regarding the culture,
homelife, learning ability and experiences of students of color. This is needed to combat what
was deemed as the failure of the teacher education program to require pre-services teachers to be
critical of their ideological perceptions, which has resulted in a teacher workforce that is unaware
it holds the beliefs and attitudes of the dominant ideology (Bartolomé, 2004). This is also true of
teachers of color.
They are not aware of the marginalization their students face and therefore they
unconsciously perpetuate the status quo, thinking they are helping the students, with their lack of
cultural inclusion, and instead the indoctrination of the status quo of the dominant culture by way
of assimilation and hegemony. The teachers may not do this intentionally, as in this dissertation,
but their deficit ideology and practices, and unconscious biases inhibited their students’
academic success and educational experience. Therefore, it is imperative that pre-service
teaching programs make it a policy that mandates teachers are reflective of their beliefs and are
critical of their ideologies, and pedagogical practices, as well as the need for cultural competence
training. This requirement must be included in teaching programs and included in the
professional development of all teachers in the profession, as a requirement for entering the
profession.

273

Research
This study provided insights into the ideology of teachers of the same ethnicity of the
students they serve, and how the students behavior, influenced the pedagogical practices of the
teachers. Although measures have been taken to ensure that the data and the findings of the two
subjects were as accurate as possible, the study was limited by factors that would have otherwise
provided a more complete picture of the teachers’ beliefs, practices, and students meaningful
learning experiences.
First, times and day allotted by the teachers to collect the data placed limitations on the
amount of data collected. Additional time and days would have provided a more complete view
of and understanding of their beliefs, practices, and students meaningful learning experiences.
Further, the inclusion of data from the students would have provide a richer understanding of the
effect of the teachers’ beliefs, practices, and students meaningful learning experiences from the
students’ perspective. Having access to the students and being able to record their perspectives
regarding their teachers and their learning experiences would have provided more insight into the
stated and actual beliefs and practices of the two teachers.
As far the research that is already in existence, there was a large amount of literature that
discussed the theories of ideology, many iterations of culturally relevant/responsive pedagogy,
and meaningful learning from a constructivist perspective. There was also a fair amount of
empirical literature that provided guidance in how to combat the negative and enact the positive
aspects of ideology, culturally relevant responsive pedagogy, and meaningful learning
experiences. However, literature regarding teachers of color and their ideology, pedagogy, and
meaningful learning for students of color was extremely limited. Further research is needed to
explain how teachers of color interact with students of color, as current/recent literature indicates

274

a student just seeing a teacher of color had a positive impact on their educational experience.
Both pre-service and in-service teachers greatly benefit from such studies as a means of
incorporating them into their practice and for in-service teachers changing their practice.
Finally, research regarding how teachers of color are being reflective and using culturally
competent pedagogy to dismantle the dominate narrative would be valuable addition to
educational literature, because it should not be assumed that is what they are doing. This would
be important as the thought that just because a teacher shares the same ethnicity as the students
does not ensure the educational experience is beneficial or genuine for the students.

275

References
Aguirre, F. P. (2005). Mendez v. Westminster school district: How it affected Brown v. Board of
Education. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 4(4), 321–332.

Ancess, J. (2004). Snapshots of meaning-making classrooms. Educational Leadership, 62(1),
36–50.

Anthony, G. (1996). Active learning in a constructivist framework. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 31(4), 349–369.

Bartolomé, L. I. (2004). Critical pedagogy and teacher education: Radicalizing prospective
teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly, 31(1), 97–122.

Bartolomé, L. I. (Ed.). (2008). Ideologies in education: Unmasking the trap of teacher
neutrality (Vol. 319). Peter Lang.

Barton, A. C., & Tan, E. (2009). Funds of knowledge and discourses and hybrid space. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 50–73.

Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory
and methods. Pearson Allyn & Bacon.

California Department of Education. (2015). CAASPP test results for English language
arts/literacy and mathematics. Retrieved from
http://caaspp.cde.ca.gov/sb2015/ViewReport?ps=true&lstTestYear=2015&lstTestType=
B&lstCounty=&lstDistrict=&lstSchool=

Cadiero-Kaplan, K. (2008). Critically examining beliefs, orientations, ideologies, and practices
toward literacy instruction: A process of praxis. In Ideologies in Education: Unmasking
the Trap of Teacher Neutrality (pp. 117–134). Peter Lang.

Camangian, P. R. (2015). Teach like lives depend on it: Agitate, arouse, and inspire. Urban
Education, 50(4), 424–453.

Chavez, A., & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1999). Racial and ethnic identity development. New
Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 84, 39–47.

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory. Sage.

Creswell, J. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches.
Sage.

276

Cooper, C. R. (2002). Five bridges along students’ pathways to college: A developmental
blueprint of families, teachers, counselors, mentors, and peers in the Puente
Project. Educational Policy, 16(4), 607–622.

Cooper, P. M. (2003). Effective white teachers of black children teaching within a community.
Journal of Teacher Education, 54(5), 413–427.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement. Education policy
analysis archives, 8, 1–1.

Darling-Hammond, L., & Sykes, G. (2003). Wanted, A national teacher supply policy for
education: The right way to meet the" highly qualified teacher" challenge. Education
Policy Analysis Archives, 11, 33–33.

Delpit, L. D. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people's
children. Harvard Educational Review, 58(3), 280-298. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.usc.edu/docview/61016731?accountid=14749

Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. The New Press.

Duncan‐Andrade, J. (2007). Gangstas, wankstas, and ridas: Defining, developing, and supporting
effective teachers in urban schools. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in
Education, 20(6), 617–638.

Espinosa, L. M., & Laffey, J. M. (2003). Urban primary teacher perceptions of children with
challenging behaviors. Journal of Children and Poverty, 9(2), 135–156.

Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education,
53(2), 106–116.

González, N., & Moll, L. C. (2002). Cruzando el puente: Building bridges to funds of
knowledge. Educational Policy, 16(4), 623–641.

Gorski, P. C. (2011). Unlearning deficit ideology and the scornful gaze: Thoughts on
authenticating the class discourse in education. Counterpoints, 152–173.

Gutierrez, K. & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: individual traits or repertoires of
practice. Educational Researcher, 32(5), 19–25.

Haberman, M. (1991). The pedagogy of poverty versus good teaching. Phi Delta Kappa, 73(4),
290–294.

Hatt, B. (2011). Smartness as a cultural practice in schools. American Educational Research
Journal, 49(3), 438–460.

277

Hawley, W. D., & Nieto, S. (2010). Another Inconvenient Truth: Race and Ethnicity
Matter. Educational leadership, 68(3), 66–71.

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

Ed Source (2022) SBAC Data.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2009). The Dream-keepers: Successful teachers of African American
children (2
nd
ed.). Jossey-Bass.

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

Lee, J. O. (2003). Implementing high standards in urban schools: Problems and solutions, Phi
Delta Kappa International, 84(6), 449–455.

Maxwell, J. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Sage.

Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Jossey-Bass.

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

Milner, H. R., & Tenore, F. B. (2010). Classroom management in diverse classrooms. Urban
Education, 45(5), 560–601.

Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching:
Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into
Practice, 31(2), 132–141.

Nation’s Report Card. (2015). 2015 Mathematics and reading assessments. Retrieved from
http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2015/#mathematics/groups?grade=4

Nasir, N. & Hand, V. (2006). Exploring sociocultural perspectives on race, culture, and learning.
Educational Research, 76(4), 449–475.

Ogbu, J. U. (1987). Variability in minority school performance: A problem in search of an
explanation. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 18(4), 312–334.

Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy, a needed change in stance, terminology, and
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.

278

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Sage.

Rist, R. C. (2000). Student social class and teacher expectations: The self-fulfilling prophecy in
ghetto education. Harvard Educational Review, 70(3), 257–301.

Sleeter, C. E. (2001). Preparing teachers for culturally diverse schools research and the
overwhelming presence of whiteness. Journal of teacher education, 52(2), 94–106.

Strunk, K. O. (2014). The Vergara ruling is a victory for California public school students, but
further reforms are still needed to protect students’ rights to a high-quality education. LSE
American Politics and Policy.

Santamaría, L. J. (2009) Culturally Responsive Differentiated Instruction: Narrowing Gaps
between Best Pedagogical Practices Benefiting All Learners, Teachers College Record
Volume 111, Number 1, January 2009, pp. 214–247

Taylor, A. J. (2017). Putting Race on the Table: How Teachers Make Sense of the Role of Race
in Their Practice, Harvard Educational Review, 87(1), 50–73.

Tharp, R., & Gallimore, R. (1998). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling in
social context. Cambridge University Press.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP), 1990, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011,
and 2013 Mathematics Assessments. (2014). Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d14/tables/dt14_222.12.asp

Valencia, R. (1997). The evolution of deficit thinking: educational thought and practice. Falmer
Press.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This qualitative study examined the beliefs, pedagogical practices, and behavioral expectations of two elementary school teachers, one African American and one Latina, and the influence on the learning opportunities of African American and Latina/o students. The beliefs of the teachers’ regarding the students' educational abilities will be explored, the types of the lessons presented to the students will be examined, the responses to students’ behavior will be addressed, and solutions will be offered. The study looked at the teachers’ ideology and how their ideology influenced their instructional methods. Data collection was conducted via interviews and classroom observations. The data was triangulated to identify teacher beliefs, pedagogical practices, and behavioral expectations.
The findings were the African American and Latina teacher held deficit beliefs regarding their students’ academic abilities, neither used culturally relevant pedagogical practices nor did they provide meaningful learning experiences. Finally, their behavioral expectations led them to use punitive methods to elicit desired behavior from their students. In the two case studies the following themes emerged: deficit ideology regarding students’ academic ability and behavior, lack of culturally relevant pedagogy, lack of meaningful learning experiences, teachers’ ideology reflected in pedagogy, and behavior used as a method to construct social order. The themes were consistent with the literature regarding the education of historically marginalized and minoritized students. The exception was the teachers were the same ethnicity as the students. The themes encompassed instructional expectations and practices that perpetuate the lack of access to quality education programs for historically marginalized and minoritized students.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Incorporation of culturally relevant pedagogy to improve my practice and address the opportunity gap

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Enabling dis/abled females

PDF

Changing pedagogy to promote the success of international students

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Transformative learning: action research disrupting the status quo in literature in classrooms

PDF

Cultivating critical reflection: an action research study on teaching and supporting district intern participants through critical reflection

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Instructional coaching: disrupting traditional math practices through inquiry and action research

PDF

Engaging school leaders to conceptualize culturally relevant pedagogy

PDF

The disproportionality of African Americans in special education programs: an exploratory study

Asset Metadata

Creator Clifton, Joanna YeVette (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Degree Conferral Date 2022-12

Publication Date 09/29/2022

Defense Date 09/02/2022

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

Tag African American,asset,culturally relevant pedagogy,deficit,ideology,Latina,meaningful learning opportunities,OAI-PMH Harvest,Teachers

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Slayton, Julie Michele (committee chair), Rosas, Rene (committee member), Samkian, Artineh (committee member)

Creator Email jclifton@usc.edu,joannaclifton@yahoo.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC112059622

Unique identifier UC112059622

Legacy Identifier etd-CliftonJoa-11254

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Clifton, Joanna YeVette

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20221003-usctheses-batch-985 (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