University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Reframing school reform with effective tactics: institutionalizing culturally responsive pedagogy in alignment with policy-based accountability to ensure the achievement of African aAmerican stud...

(USC Thesis Other)

Reframing school reform with effective tactics: institutionalizing culturally responsive pedagogy in alignment with policy-based accountability to ensure the achievement of African aAmerican stud...

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
REFRAMING SCHOOL REFORM WITH EFFECTIVE TACTICS:

INSTITUTIONALIZING CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDEGOGY

IN ALIGNMENT WITH POLICY-BASED ACCOUNTABILITY TO ENSURE

THE ACHIEVEMENT OF AFRICAN-AMERICAN STUDENTS

AT THE SCHOOL LEVEL IN URBAN SETTINGS

by

Tameka L. McGlawn

____________________________________________________________________

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

August 2008

Copyright 2008 Tameka L. McGlawn

ii
DEDICATION

Dedicated to the honorable memory of ancestors Mrs. Euneda T. McGlawn and
Dr. Sharon Grant-Henry, both were my heroines, my inspirations and
the unyielding resources of love.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

To embark upon an arduous and blessed task, such as this dissertation,
requires the unified efforts of many. I am indebted to a host of people who have been
involved in this journey. Much gratitude to Superintendent Anastos, the Lemon
Grove School District (LGSD) Board Members and all of the LGSD “team-mates”
who were involved in this process. A gracious, humble, and honorable thank you to
the members of my dissertation committee, Dr. Datnow, Dr. Rousseau, and Dr.
Weber, your collective guidance was a gift. To my “team-mates” at the Kearny High
Educational Complex, your understanding and support was consistently amazing.
And finally to my family, (especially Monique Whitfield) and my friends who are
my family, your patience and unconditional love has been the wind beneath my
wings. Team-work made the Dream-work. I am forever grateful to all of you.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION…………………………………………………………… ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………………… iii

ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………… vi

CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY………………………………. 1
Introduction………………………………………………………… …… 1
Background of the Problem……………………………………………… 1
Standards-Based Reform and African-American Student
Achievement...…………………………………………………… 4
The Statement of the Problem…………………………………………… 6
Purpose of the Study…………………………………………………….. 8
Research Questions……………………………………………… 8
Significance of Study…………………………………………….......….. 9

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW …………………………………… 10
Introduction…………………………………………………………….... 10
An Analysis of School Reform and Policy-Based Accountability… …… 12
Fundamental School Reform & Policy-Based Accountability
Expectations…………………………………………………… 12
Policy Review: Equity-Based Educational Policies and
Laws………………………………………………………..…. 18
Brown vs. Board of Education (1954)…………………… 18
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (1965)……….. 20
Goals 2000: Educate America Act (1994)……………….. 23
No Child Left Behind (2002)……………………………. 24
Defining Culturally Responsive Pedagogy (CRP)……………………… 29
Understanding Culturally Responsive Pedagogy……………… 29
Culturally Mediated Instruction: African American Student
Achievement…………………………………………………… 30
Understanding the Impact of CRP on Instruction……………………… 32
Learning Variances and Achievement: Valuing Cultural
Epistemology…………………………………………………. 32
Achievement Studies of Culturally Responsive Pedagogy……… 33
Conclusion……………………………………………………………… 39
Literature Review Summary….………………………………… 39

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY…………………………………………… 42
Introduction…………………………………………………………… 42
Study Design…………………………………………………………… 43
Sample and Population………………………………………………… 44

v
Mission Statement Overview: Lemon Grove Middle School……. 46
Mission Statement Overview: Palm Middle School……………… 47
Instrumentation and Data Collection Procedures………………………... 47
Data Analysis Procedures……………………………………………….. 49
Ethical Considerations……………………………………………………. 50
Limitations of Study………………………………………………………. 51
Summary………………………………………………………………….. 51

CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATIONS OF
FINDINGS…………………………………………………………………… 53
Introduction……………………………………………………………….. 53
Research Question………………………………………………………… 54
Institutionalizing CRP in Lemon Grove School District………………….. 55
Practitioners’ Perceptions of CRP and Policy-Based Accountability……. 59
The Influence of CRP on Instruction and Relationships………………… 76
Organizational Structures and Resources…………………………..…… 88
Conclusion………………………………………………………...…….. 101

CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS OF FINDINGS………….. 106
Introduction…………………………………………………………….. 106
Connections to Prior Research…………………………………….….. 107
An Analysis of School Reform and Policy-Based
Accountability……… …………………………………………….108
Defining Culturally Responsive Pedagogy ……………………….110
Understanding the Impact of CRP on Instruction and
Relationships…..…………………………………………………..114
Organizational Structures and Resources…………………………117
Implications for Future Research… …………………………………….120
Implications for Policy and Strategic Practice…………………………….121
Conclusions………………………………………………………………..123

REFERENCES……………………………………………………........…………125

APPENDIX A: Interview Protocol for Teachers…………………………..135
APPENDIX B: Interview Protocol for Administrators…………………… 138
APPENDIX C: Interview Protocol for the Superintendent(s)/
Board Member(s) Central Office Administration…………141
APPENDIX D: Lemon Grove School District Artifact
Research Framework………………………………………144

vi
ABSTRACT

While legislative action and fiscal resources have been utilized to address

Equity in public education through policy action nation-wide, school reform,

primarily in urban settings continues to produce dismal large-scale results for

African American students. Systemically addressing the achievement of African

American students continues to persist as a challenging and complex matter. It has

become a critical debate as to whether or not the implementation of standards-based

reform and/or policy-based accountability in isolation is the appropriate method to

improve the achievement of African American students. There is sufficient evidence

that indicates that mandated accountability initiatives are not enough to bridge the

widening gap of educational access and achievement opportunities for African

American students.

The purpose of this qualitative research study was to investigate how

educators who implement Culturally Responsive Pedagogy (CRP) in alignment with

policy-based accountability can positively influence the education of African

American students while attending to state and federal accountability policies.

Utilizing qualitative research methodology and data analysis procedures, it was

identified that there are “achievement and performance gaps” between federal and

state policies and the execution of local level implementation, which present a

difficult task for policy-makers and educational practitioners. Also, identified were

the fundamental challenges entailed in actualizing school reform while aligning

vii

policy-based accountability in order to address achievement disparities. Critical areas

to understanding CRP and how it can effectively be utilized to support the

achievement of African American students included defining CRP, an examination

of CRP’s influence on instruction and relationships with African American students,

and the organizational structures and resources required to affect learning

opportunities for African American students while producing measurable

achievement for African American students.

When effectively implemented with these components, Culturally

Responsive Pedagogy (CRP) aligned with policy-based accountability can be

considered a possible tactic and solution to improving the achievement for African

American students. The implications detailed in this study can be used to design a

promising Culturally Responsive Pedagogical framework, for state, district, and local

policymakers and educators who are invested in the achievement of African

American students.

1

CHAPTER 1

OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY

Introduction

Background of the Problem

At the conclusion of high school, African-American students typically
acquire math and reading skills that are identical to that of 8
th
grade Caucasian
students (Ed. Trust, 2003). Meiner, Stewart, and England (1989) underscore what is
often identified as school-performance disparities, where African American students
are 3 times more likely than a Caucasian student to be placed in Special Education,
3.2 times less likely to be placed in a gifted class, and twice as likely to be corporally
punished or suspended at school. They purport that this type of dynamic is
considered second-generation discrimination.
Issues of equity persist regarding this problem, which have been a historical
burden in America’s public schools for well over fifty years. According to the
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Trial Urban District
Assessment Report (2005), a specially designed project that monitors the
performance of eleven urban districts (including the District of Columbia), 4
th
grade
and 8
th
grade African-American students continue to lag behind their Caucasian
counterparts in the areas of reading and mathematics. In the eleven urban districts,
there was no 4
th
grade or 8
th
grade African-American student who performed at the
advanced level in mathematics. On average, only 13.5% of the African-American 4
th

graders scored at the proficiency level, while the 8
th
grade African-American average

2
at the proficiency level was approximately 6.9%. In addition, there were no African-
American students in the 4
th
or 8
th
grade that scored at the advanced level in reading.
The average proficiency level of African-American students was 11.9% at the 4
th

grade and 11.8% at the 8
th
grade. In fact, in both 4
th
and 8
th
grade, more than 60% of
the African American students performed at the below basic level.
There is a persistent and lingering problem in the performance and
achievement of African American students. As the disparities become more
significant and obvious, the negative results often foster more negative assumptions
about the abilities of African-American students nation-wide. A negative collective,
self-fulfilling prophecy (Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968) may develop as a result of the
messages that African American students receive that they are incapable of abiding
by schools’ social, academic and behavioral codes.
Historically, there have been policy initiatives to support increased equitable
opportunities for African American students, as evidenced by the landmark court
decision, Brown vs. Board of Education. In addition, federal legislation has been a
pivotal component of the standards-based reform movement. The Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA), Improving America’s School Act (Goals 2000),
and No Child Left Behind (NCLB), which is the most current reauthorization of the
ESEA, are considered to be cornerstone mandates that demonstrate our nations’
willingness to address the achievement disparities of African-American students.
Although legislative action has prompted and supported reform through policy action
nation-wide, school reform, primarily in urban settings continues to produce dismal

3
results. In addition, there is sufficient evidence that indicates that court-ordered
accountability and mandated initiatives are not enough to bridge the widening gap of
educational access, achievement opportunities and learning equity for African-
American students. The investment of policymakers and educators has rendered
small-scale results for large-scale challenges.
It is important to recognize the fact that it only takes one school to teach
African-American students at effectively high levels in order to prove that it can be
done (Ed. Trust, 2003), which establishes the premise of promise and scaling-up
replication. In addition, it is critical to understand what states, districts, and schools
are doing to produce intentional action geared towards establishing “best practices”
for serving African-American students in public education. Often times, the
controversial issue surrounding reform initiatives, is the all too common belief of
policy-makers and educators who displace the responsibility of accountability and
high-stakes results in the hands of the students. It is an inherent assumption in school
reform that holding students to “higher” expectations with clearly defined standards
is enough to generate student achievement. This notion, by default, holds the
students and all others responsible for public education, except the government
(Weinstein, Gregory, Strambler, 2004), completely accountable for meeting and
adhering to policy-based accountability structures and obtaining these standards with
little regard for the means in which to reach these goals, nor the structure to execute
this arduous task. Hilliard (1998) states that it is an abandonment of responsibility on
the part of adults to educate and socialize children, when children are held

4
responsible for standards and outcomes without giving them the same level of
attention required to ensure that learning is taking place. The intention of utilizing
standards as a form of accountability in education could be perceived as the
intervention necessary to address student achievement.
Standards-Based Reform and African-American Student Achievement
As an evolving movement from the early 1970’s Outcome-Based Education,
the late 1980’s brought about significant state and district policies to focus attention
on the standardizing the quality of core academic content courses in public schools,
instead of the number of academic content courses (Massell & Kirst, 1997). In a
Consortium for Policy Research in Education Report (CPRE, Series Report #37,
Goertz, Duffy, LeFloch), a historical analysis and study of the development of
Standards-Based Reform in nine states across 25 districts attempted to highlight in
the analysis the major features of and progress with systemic change and reform
efforts.
The Standards-Based Reform Movement, has attempted to raise achievement
for African American students through a myriad of strategies, including, but not
limited to the following; standards-based assessment (mathematics, literacy,
science), high-school graduation requirements, and accountability structures that
include criterion-referenced test intended to demonstrate that all students can “pass,”
under the assumption that in theory, standards-based assessment test and clear
expectations without cultural bias or limitations, that all students will achieve.

5
It is important to applaud the efforts of those who support high expectations
and whose intent is to increase the graduation rate and raise student achievement of
African-American students. However, it becomes a critical debate as to whether or
not the implementation of standards-based reform and policy-based accountability in
isolation is the appropriate approach or method to improve the achievement of
African-American students.
There are many approaches to addressing African-American students’
educational needs. Culturally Relevant Pedagogy (CRP) is one which offers promise.
CRP is often defined as instructional practices that (a) incorporates teachers’
adaptatations of subject-matter content to reflect the cultures of their students, and
(b) helps students become more aware of and knowledgeable about their own
cultures, as well as others (Hood, 1993). CRP is an approach that that focuses on
instructional/classroom practices, rather than school or district policies.
Several characteristics of Culturally Responsive Pedagogy with regards to
instructional practices (Ladson-Billings, 1994) include the following:
1) Positive perspectives on parents and families.
2) Communication of high expectations.
3) Learning with the context of culture.
4) Student-centered instruction.
5) Culturally mediated instruction.
6) Reshaping the curriculum.
7) The Teacher as the facilitator.

6
Culturally Responsive Pedagogy recognizes the importance of including
students’ cultural references in all aspects of learning (Ladson-Billings, 1994). The
characteristics identified in the CRP instructional practices attempt to offer ways to
improve academic performance which could be beneficial for all students. This
pedagogical approach appears to be most effective if it is instituted in a systemic
framework at the school level (Gay, 2000).

The Statement of the Problem

It is evident that there are institutionalized practices that promote, sustain,
accelerate, and produce achievement with and for African-American students (Gay,
2000), while also meeting and/or exceeding policy-based accountability structures
and legislative requirements. However, there remains the lingering problem of how
institutions are addressing the low achievement for African-American students.
There is a glaring contrast in what is evident and what has yet been proven to be
possible. It is apparent that legislative policies and mandated expectations have
sought to produce a higher level of achievement for this population according to
standardized assessment measures; however, there continues to be a persistent
concern regarding the achievement of this population. The issue of what has been
defined as the “achievement gap” and the discrepancy of performance between
African-American students and their Caucasian counter-parts exist as a nation-wide
issue, in spite of the Standards-Based Movement and the historical mandates to
eliminate the gap.

7
There are a number of institutions nationwide who have consistently
demonstrated remarkable success with African-American students and their
achievement including: Vann and Madison Elementary schools Pittsburgh, Marcus
Garvey School(s) in Los Angeles, Amistad Academy in New Haven Connecticut,
Fredrick Douglas Academy in New York, Whitney Young High School and
Davidson Magnet School in Augusta, Georgia, and the DuSable High-School
Leadership Academy, Barbara Sizemore and Betty Shabazz International Charter
School, all three in Chicago, IL. In addition, the New Concept School, which is a
KinderPrep Program, has existed for over 37 years in Chicago.
In addition to this cadre of thriving academic institutions that serve
significant percentages of African-American students, there are national
organizations supported by individuals whose primary concern is the current status
and future of the African-American child: The National Alliance of Black School
Educators, The National Council on Educating Black Children, The Council of
Independent Black Institutions, The National Institute for Urban School
Improvement, and The National Center for Urban School Transformation. These
institutions deliberately identify ways in which to address the educational needs of
African-American students. Although the efforts of these institutions are evident, a
persistent concern regarding the achievement of African-American students still
exists.
The culmination of the urgency in this problem is perhaps best summarized
by Dr. Carol Lee, Professor at Northwestern University:

8
I argue here that a focus on race in understanding and responding to the
achievement gap is needed in the realm of public policy (Walters, 2003),
in pedagogy (King, 1990), and in the African-American community’s
internal responses to this persistent challenge (Hilliard, 1995; Madhubuti,
1990; Nobles, 1985). The National Society for the Study of Education, Pt.
2, 2006, p.75.

Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to identify, at the school level, Culturally
Responsive Pedagogical practices for improving academic achievement of African-
American students. Ultimately, this information will be used to design a promising
Culturally Responsive Pedagogy framework, created to reframe school reform
efforts by identifying effective tactics for state, district, and local policymakers to
use when attempting to improve the achievement of African-American students.
There continues to be a myriad of proposed solutions to ensure the
accelerated and sustained achievement of African American students through
proposed programs, policy-based accountability structures, standards-based
expectations, and reform initiatives. However, currently, there is no existing
systemic framework that proposes a structure to identify moving beyond
fragmentation of policy and practice to a comprehensive model of effective and
intentional tactics to ensure achievement for African-American students in urban
cultures.
Research Questions
This qualitative research study is designed to explore how implementing
Culturally Responsive Pedagogy in alignment with policy-based accountability can

9
influence the education of African-American students in urban schools. The
following overarching research question will guide this research inquiry:
How do educators use Culturally Responsive Pedagogy to teach African-American
students, while still attending to state and federal accountability policies?
In addition, the following sub-questions will also be explored in an effort to further
guide the research:
1. What are practitioners’ perceptions of Culturally Responsive Pedagogy and
how it meets and/or exceeds policy-based accountability standards when
serving African-American students?
2. How does Culturally Responsive Pedagogy influence practitioners’
instruction and relationship with African-American students?
3. What organizational structures and resources are required to meet and/or
exceed policy-based accountability standards, while utilizing Culturally
Responsive Pedagogy that ensures achievement for African American
students?

Significance of the Study

After decades of meaningful attempts, approaches, and strategies, the
establishment of an effective standards-based reform method or a policy-based
accountability structure that produces a comprehensive and tactical approach to
ensuring achievement for and with African-American students has yet to be defined.
Utilizing Culturally Responsive Pedagogy to strengthen the tactics to confront the

10
achievement gap not only could improve and ensure the achievement of African-
American students in public education, but all students might benefit from the
possibilities inherent on this approach. In theory this research attempts to demystify
the challenges inherent in the perpetual “achievement gap,” while producing
effective ways to systemically bridging the intent of policy and the execution of
practice.
Upon completion of this study, the quintessential question on how to ensure
achievement for African-American students at the school level while symbiotically
adhering to standards-based expectations and policy-based accountability will begin
to be answered. In addition, policy-makers and decision-makers will have access to
information that will enable them to make choices that support or reject positions
about what is truly best, equitable, and inclusive for all urban students whose right it
is to receive a quality-oriented public education. It is the intention of this study to
produce tactical and deliberate ways to eliminate the achievement gap, ensure
achievement for African-American students, and restore the intended structure of
equity for public education.

11
CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

According to Elmore (2003), knowing how schools actually improve is our
most urgent task. The chasm historically referred to as the “achievement gap” which
exists between subgroups of students, specifically in this case African-American
students, is a result of our consistent inability to bridge research, policy and effective
practices. The issues surrounding this topic remain one of the most difficult and
critical areas of exploration in education. However, innovative initiatives at high-
performing, high-poverty schools are offering ways to reassess how to serve
historically under-served students while attending to state and federal accountability
policies. In addition, the evolving body of research that identifies how the use of
Culturally Responsive Pedagogy (CRP) impacts the achievement of African-
American students while meeting the requirements of policy-based accountability
expectations is may create a bridge of promise. CRP attempts to offer a myriad of
solutions to many of the lingering and unresolved achievement disparities with
public education in urban settings.
The purpose of the following review of literature is to explore four primary
areas of examination:
1. An examination of School Reform and Policy-Based Accountability.
2. An examination and review of Equity-Based Educational Policies and Laws.
3. An examination of how Culturally Responsive Pedagogy is defined.

12
4. An examination of the framework required for understanding the impact of
Culturally Responsive Pedagogy with African-American students.

An Analysis of School Reform and Policy-Based Accountability

Fundamental School Reform and Policy-Based Accountability Expectations

Historically, the United States had a highly decentralized system of
education. The Tenth Amendment (1791) of the U.S. Constitution (1787) states:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited
by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” (U.S.
Department of Education, 2005). Although the federal government plays a
significant role in education, state and local governments are primarily responsible
for the administration and management of elementary and secondary education. This
fundamental structure where policy is typically defined at the federal and state level
often requires that local school districts are responsible for implementation and
execution of educational goals prescribed in the initiatives.
According to the National Association of State Boards of Education (1998),
school districts are the focal entities for education decision making, controlling the
allocation of resources, personnel decisions, and local programmatic planning,
thereby promoting the idea that the logical structure for institutionalizing and
sustaining any school reform or policy initiative relies on comprehensive systems of
accountability.

13
This section will provide a brief history of U.S. school reform initiatives and
several of the pivotal landmark legislative policies that mandated a higher level of
accountability for student achievement in public schools. The policies discussed
below were deliberately selected to emphasize the legislative and fiscal support of
initiatives aimed at promoting equity-based education that could also be aligned with
improving the achievement of African-American students.
The historical origins of the American school reform movement suggests that
every child can learn and that high standards should be established for all students
thereby closing the achievement gap for students who have historically been “left
behind (Robinson, 2003). Eminent educational historian Larry Cuban (2007) defines
four components of reform that identify time-specific reform eras that have affected
public education in the last 25 years and have dominated national policy agendas
(Cuban, 2007):
1. Whole-school reform began in the early 1980s, with the “effective
schools” movement’s focus on transforming one school at a time by working
on school climate, curriculum, instruction, and testing. It continued with the
federally funded Comprehensive School Reform Program which recently and
now through philanthropists fund small high schools.
2. A second strategy for reform is parental choice. Since the early 1990s,
vouchers, charter schools, magnets, and theme schools have breathed life into
the theory that having a choice of schools motivates parents and engages

14
students, while frightening into corrective action districts fearful of losing
state dollars as students migrate elsewhere.
3. Standards-based accountability, a third approach, shifted into high gear in the
1990s, when U.S. presidents, governors, and mayors embraced it
wholeheartedly. The theory is that when a district’s goals, curricula,
textbooks, tests, and instruction are tightly aligned, teachers will be able to
help students become high performers on tests, graduate from high school,
and go to college.
4. The fourth reform strategy is to concentrate authority and accountability in
elected federal, state, and local officials who can do something about
underperforming schools, rather than relying on unaccountable district
educators who too often block reform. The theory is that changing school
governance—from state takeovers of low-performing districts to mayoral
control of schools—will lead to higher test scores.
Educators, researchers, foundations, corporations, and policymakers have all
been considered educational stakeholders who have long been interested and
involved in improving the nation’s public schools (EdSource Data Report, 2002).
The efforts to support school reform have often been structured by definitive
legislative policies that outlined expectations for accountability. Policy entails the
configuration of a deliberate plan of action which guides decisions and propose to
achieve outcomes. This process is often a set of interrelated decisions taken by a
political actor(s) concerning the selection of goals, which may vary depending on the

15
organizational context in which they are made, and identifying the means to achieve
those goals (Jenkins, 1978). Accountability in the context of education is often
considered to be a tool for improvement with performance indicators linked to state
and federal priorities. An accountability system produces the following: (1) aligns
institutional priorities with state goals, (2) allows students, legislators and leaders of
educational institutions, business leaders, and others interested in education view the
progress towards those goals, and (3) provides a basis for making policy decisions
(HECB, 2004). Accountability components require at least these three structures in
order to be an effective measure of academic improvement for students (Dorn,
1998):
1. Accountability should encourage deeper discussion of educational problems.
Student performance should be the starting point of educational politics, not
an occasion for political opportunism or crude comparisons. Statistical
accountability, with the centralization of statistical production and
dissemination through popular news sources, encourages oversimplification
rather than a more extensive public discussion.
2. Accountability should connect student performance in the classroom practice.
Statistical accountability, with the abstraction of student performance into
numbers without context, removes classroom practices from the discussion of
educational reform.
3. Accountability should make the interests of all children common. This sense
of commonality is the best meaning of "public" in public schooling.

16
Policy-based accountability aligns those decisions made by policy-makers
with a systemic mechanism to monitor and improve desired outcomes as specified by
state and federal legislative initiatives. The accountability measures identified in the
context of education are often linked to state and federal priorities where
synthesizing standards with policy-oriented initiatives are often assumed to raise
achievement and improve the performance of all students. Linn (2001) posits that
there are extreme differences in accountability systems, however, given
policymakers’ and educators’ plans to expand accountability, there is a need to
develop better designs, evaluations, and redesigns of assessment and accountability
systems. He further indicates that policies concerned with school accountability
systems are definitive; however, different accountability approaches typically
measure school quality by utilizing (Linn, 2001) the following approaches: Current
Status, Improvement Over Time, Longitudinal and Quasi-Longitudinal Reporting
Methods, and Adjusting School Rankings.
The Current Status accountability system commonly report the school mean
or median score for students in the grade level assessed. The Florida school
accountability system is an example of this model. The Improvement Over Time
accountability system, which is considered to be a preferable approach to measuring
and reporting school achievement compares test scores between two years but for the
same grade. The Colorado school accountability system is an example of this model.
The Longitudinal and Quasi-Longitudinal Reporting Method tracks the performance
of students form one grade to the next. This approach requires comparable tests

17
across each grade level. Both North Carolina (ABC school accountability system)
and Tennessee (Value-Added Assessment System) are states that employ this model.
Finally, there are states that make adjustments to their accountability systems to
account for how socioeconomic (SES) may effect student achievement. Pennsylvania
and California report a “similar schools scores” to supplement regular school
rankings.
School reform initiatives have persisted with a demand for higher levels of
accountability to ensure the education of all children. In addition, considering the
fiscal support of policy initiatives where states and local school districts are now
receiving more federal funding than ever before (U.S. Department of Education,
2005) the focus of accountability highlights disparities among students and calls
attention to the current status of public education. According to the U.S. Department
of Education Report: Education in the United States (2005) due to policy-based
accountability, some schools in cities and towns across the nation are achieving
strong academic results for all their children, including those in socioeconomic
subgroups that have a history of low performance. However, the fundamental
aspects of school reform and policy-based accountability require a more thorough
analysis of the specific initiatives that directly address affect the achievement of
African-American students and how schools are implementing policy-based
accountability expectations that seek to provide equitable access and opportunities to
learn for all students.

18
Policy Review: Equity-Based Educational Policies and Laws
Interpreting the achievement of African American students requires a deeper
equity-focused analysis of what is needed to ensure academic performance and
improvement. For the purpose of this review, there will be an exploration of the
following; Brown vs. Board of Education (1954), The Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (1965), The Improving America’s School Act and Goals (2000), and
the most current federal legislation, the reauthorization of ESEA, No Child Left
Behind (2002).
Brown vs. Board of Education (1954)
Although Brown v. Board of Education is not typically considered a “reform”
initiative; it is considered the landmark legislation that was the catalyst for the Civil
Rights Movement, desegregation, and racial integration, which included public
schools.
The 1954 United States Supreme Court decision in Oliver L. Brown
et.al. v. Board of Education of Topeka Kansas (KS) et al. (347 U.S. 483) is
considered to be one of the most significant and vital judicious decisions in U.S.
history. Initiated under the leadership of Charles Houston, Litigation Director for the
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and his
strategically designed legal team, which was later lead by Thurgood Marshall, the
proponents of Brown were relentless in their efforts to end racial segregation. Brown
vs. Board of Education was anchored in creating policies specific to human rights
while creating equal protection for all citizens in alignment with the U.S.

19
Constitution, emphasizing equity for children in education, which was perceived as a
civil right.
Specific to African-American students, this legislation was the culmination of
five different cases involving over 200 plaintiffs seeking to secure educational
equity, opportunity and access which was often limited by state and local
governments. The Supreme Court combined cases from Delaware, Kansas, South
Carolina, Virginia, and Washington, D.C., as each case, supported by the NAACP
coveted the same legal recourse (Brown Foundation for Educational Equity,
Excellence and Research, 1996-2004).
The Brown decision initiated educational and social reform throughout the
United States and is regarded as the legislation that has shaping national and
international policies specific to human rights (Brown Foundation for Educational
Equity, Excellence and Research, 1996-2004). The legislative intent of Brown v.
Board of Education can be seen as the foundation for the subsequent initiatives
regarding school and educational reform. In addition, it is considered the cornerstone
legislation that enabled African-American students to be afforded access to
desegregated schools and expanded educational opportunities.
However, according to Weinstein, Gregory, and Strambler (2004), half a
century after Brown vs. Board of Education, the struggle for equal educational
opportunity has yet to be achieved. Further stated, access to integrated schools did
not ensure a quality education for all children, where tragically, schools are now

20
more racially segregated and more unequal now than they were prior to Brown v.
Board of Education.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (1965)
Designed by Francis Keppel, President Johnson’s Commissioner of
Education, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (P.L. 89-10, 79 Stat. 77, 20
U.S.C. ch.70) was established to provide targeted resources to help ensure that
disadvantage students have access to a quality public education (NEA, 2002). The
act was a component of President Johnson’s strategic legislative plan defined as the
“War on Poverty.” As stated by Schugurensky (2002), ESEA was developed under
the guiding principle that children from low-income homes required more
educational services. In addition, it is noted that Brown v. Board of Education is
considered to be one of the significant events that led to the passage of ESEA.
ESEA is considered the first and largest comprehensive federal-level
legislation education law which provides fiscal appropriations for kindergarten
through twelfth grade education. The mandates required in this act stipulate that
funds are authorized to support the following: resources for educational programs,
educator’s professional development, instructional materials, and parental
involvement promotion. According to the National Education Association (2002),
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which was initially authorized through
1970, is the government’s single largest investment in elementary and secondary
education.

21
The establishment of the ESEA is the catalyst for many programs that exist
today. Due to the reauthorization that has historically been reauthorized every five
years since its enactment, ESEA has evolved under a myriad of name changes and
presidencies. Throughout the numerous changes with the ESEA legislation, the
premise for its existence remains the same; it provides targeted resources to help
ensure that disadvantage students have access to a quality public education. In
addition, the fiscal resources allocated under ESEA are provisions that are stipulated
on the civil right for all children to have access to and receive a quality public
education.
ESEA supports educational programs that are considered to be vital to public
education including (NEA, 2002) the following: Title I (targeted to assist
disadvantage students in meeting high expectations), The Eisenhower Professional
Development Program, Bilingual Education, Class Size Reduction, Head Start, Safe
and Drug Free Schools, Education Technology, Native American Education,
Community Learning Centers and Charter Schools.
Under the Improving America’s School Act (P.L. 103-382) an amendment of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, fiscal resources were authorized to
support nationally significant programs and projects that were designed to improve
the quality of education for all children. General funds under from this legislation
were targeted at promoting systemic education at the State and local level. Tenants
of this policy were structured to support development and evaluation models which
targeted four primary areas: 1) assessment of student learning, 2) professional

22
development for teachers and administrators, 3) parent community involvement; and
4) other systemic reform (U.S. Metric Association, 2003).
Since the enactment of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the
federal government has spent more than 321 billion dollars to support the education
of disadvantage children (U.S. Department of Education, 2002). Yet, according to
the Federal Spending Report on the ESEA Act for K-12 Education, only 32 percent
of fourth graders can skillfully read at grade level and the 68 percent who aren’t
reading at grade level are minority children who also qualify for the Free and
Reduced Meal Program.
In addition, despite the fiscal investment of legislative policies that support
public education, the latest National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in
reading showed that less than one-third of our fourth-graders can read at the
proficient or advanced levels. And although the NAEP Long-Term Trend data from
2004 indicates a narrowing of the achievement gaps between white and minority
students, these gaps remain unacceptably large (U.S. Department of Education
Report, 2005).
Furthermore, although there as been a significant pattern of historical fiscal
increases to address equity and access in education, approximately 132% (1996-
2003) since ESEA was first passed by Congress (U.S. Department of Education,
2004), the legislative intent of ensuring that all children receive a quality public
education has not been met, as evidenced by the “achievement” gap.

23
Although the ESEA has been reauthorized throughout the years, including in
2002 as NCLB, it still continues to be the primary policy-based legislation that was
established to promote equity-based education and access to a quality education for
all students. It has sustained its premise while promoting the further development of
educational legislation, policy-based accountability, and ultimately setting the stage
for standards-based school reform initiatives.
Goals 2000: Educate America Act (1994)
The Goals 2000: Educate America Act (P.L. 103-227) is predicated on the
position that all students will reach their full potential and reach higher levels of
achievement when more is expected from them. The deliberate attempt to address the
status of public education in America through this legislation displayed a concerted
policy-level effort to ensure that all students would have access to equity education
and standardized criteria for meeting achievement goals. The legislative intent of the
Improving America’s School Act (IASA), discussed above, was to authorize funding
that would assist all students in meeting the challenge of content and performance
standards required to achieve the stated goals outlined in the Goals 2000: National
Education Goals (U.S. Metric Association, 2003). This reauthorization of ESEA
once again proposed, through Title I funding, an accountability system with
designated requirements that aimed at improving America’s schools. The Act called
for the establishment of a National Education Standards and Improvement Council
which would be responsible for examining national and state content, student
performance, opportunity-to-learn standards, and assessment systems. Although

24
Goals 2000 provided the framework for academic standards in order to measure
student progress, the Act emphasized the importance of providing the support
required to ensure that all students would meet the standards.
According to the U. S. Department of Education Goals 2000: State and Local
Education Systemic Improvement Report (2001), Actual Performance and
Performance Target results indicate that there were substantial improvements in
various areas for each State, the Goals as outlined had not been obtained by 2000.
Although the ISEA and Goals 2000 purported to create standards for what all
students should know and be able to do in order to live and work in the 21
st
century,
these reform initiatives were not enough to secure the expectations of its’ own
agenda by the year 2000.
No Child Left Behind (2002)
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-110), established under
President Bush’s administration, is the most current reauthorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. The Goals 2000: Educate
America Act is often considered the predecessor to No Child Left Behind (NCLB).
NCLB is historically regarded as the standards-based education reform initiative that
revives the high expectations and setting of goals identified under Goals 2000.
Proponents of NCLB argue that this legislation promotes accountability,
closes the achievement gap, provides flexibility for State and local communities, and
creates more options for parents and their children (U.S. Department of Education:
NCLB Reauthorization Report, 2007). In addition, through federally mandated

25
standardized testing, NCLB promises to demonstrate nation-wide achievement.
Several of the expectations detailed under the provisions of NCLB include the
following; academic standards would be set by States, schools will be held
accountable for results, and the government would then support both by increasing
resources. In addition, President Bush supported these claims by stating that “The No
Child Left Behind Act enables America's public schools to receive record levels of
funding from the federal government, and creates unprecedented levels of
accountability to ensure that those funds are producing real results to help every
child in America receive a quality education.” He further contends that as a result of
the implementation of NCLB, “all students will now have a better chance to learn, to
excel, and to live out their dreams” (U.S. Department of Education Report: No Child
Left Behind, 2002).
The legislative intent of the No Child Left Behind Act indicates that there
will be steady academic gains until all students can read and do math at or above
grade level, closing for good the achievement gap between minority students and
their peers (U.S. Department of Education, 2007). Along with stated goals and
expectations of standards-based accountability supported by legislative policy, the
funding resources allocated are also evident. The fiscal provisions of NCLB rose 34
percent during 2001-2006 and funding for Title I schools that serve low-income
disadvantage students also increased by 45% (NCLB Report, 2007).
Lastly, according to the Department of Education NCLB State Accountability
Systems Conference in 2002, several of the systemic expectations involved in

26
creating the framework for NCLB include Accountability features of NCLB, Annual
Reporting Requirements, and Adequate Yearly Progress Components. The
framework is a guide for standardizing an approach to public education while
ensuring equity-based policies for accountability with supporting timelines for
achievement levels for all students where. More specifically, all schools would be
responsible for annual reporting, student progress expectations specific to math and
English would be monitored, support would be provided for instructional
improvement, annual reporting to support decisions about school quality, which
included achievement, assessment rates, graduation rate would be monitored and
reported, overall school improvement criteria would be defined and finally the
quality of teachers and paraprofessionals would be standardized.
NCLB theoretically offers to provide the accountability required to ensure
achievement for all students. However, according to Weinstein, Gregory, and
Strambler (2004), high standards were set with all but the government being held
accountable. They posit that equal and optimal means to reach these standards were
not provided by NCLB-half the expectancy equation. Further stated, the law has
minimized the meaning of high expectations to only three content areas and
achievement is measured by only one form of standardized assessment scores.
However, according to the NCLB Reauthorization Report (2007) submitted
by U.S. Secretary of Education, Margaret Spellings, there is reason to believe that
achievement for all students is improving. In addition, there is specific reference to

27
the narrowing of the “achievement gap” where there is an interpretation of recent
NAEP results:
• More reading progress has been made by nine-year-olds in five years (1999-
2004) than in the previous 28 years combined;
• Math scores for fourth- and eighth-graders and nine- and 13-year-olds have
reached new heights; and
• Achievement gaps in reading and math between African-American and
Hispanic nine-year-olds and their white peers have fallen to all-time lows.
The report further highlights the progressive gains that African American

Students have accomplished under the NCLB legislation. Under NCLB, fourth-
graders in a majority of sampled urban school districts made greater gains in reading
and math than students nationwide on average, according to the NAEP Trial Urban
District Assessments (U.S. Department of Education, 2007). The Council of the
Great City Schools also reported double-digit gains in large urban districts for
fourth-graders in both subjects between 2002 and 2005 (Casserly, 2006).
While this information offers the position that NCLB is producing results by

offering promising outcomes, there are varied interpretations as to whether or not the

data reported by the U.S. Department of Education are presenting a complete picture

of achievement disparities or exactly how the goals of policy-based accountability

will be met by the respective 2014 timeline.

The policies examined here were deliberately selected to emphasize the
historical context of legislative policy-based accountability and the fiscal support of

28
initiatives aimed at promoting achievement, high expectations, and ultimately
accountability that promised to offer every child a quality public education.
Although the policies are defined explicitly in terms of expectations, the measures in
which to implement and execute the said expectations are not as clearly defined.
Further stated, Elmore (2002) suggest that accountability must be a reciprocal
process where every increment of performance that is demanded requires an equal
responsibility to provide the capacity to meet the required expectation while each
investment made to ensure the skill and knowledge is provided, the implied
responsibility of demonstrating a new increment in performance is expected. This
idea suggests that responsibility is placed on the individual(s)/school(s) to meet
expectations with the assumption that the capacity to produce results and meet the
prescribed expectations already exist. Perhaps this contributes to the chasm between
legislation anchored in high expectations of accountability and that of actual
performance.
Implementing Culturally Responsive Pedagogy (CRP) in alignment with
policy-based accountability is a possible tactic that might offer solutions to
achievement disparities that have lingered for African-American students despite
exhaustive and significant legislative efforts. Therefore, in the following section this
review will examine how to define Culturally Responsive Pedagogy.

29
Defining Culturally Responsive Pedagogy

Understanding Culturally Responsive Pedagogy

According to Webster’s New World Dictionary (1997), culture is defined as
an intellectual development at a time or place; patterns of beliefs, values, behaviors
and objects tat constitutes a peoples way of life. Pedagogy is defined as the art or
science of being a teacher; strategies of instruction, the principles and methods of
instruction. As defined by the National Center for Culturally Responsive Educational
Systems (NCCRESt, 2004), Culturally Responsive Pedagogy facilitates and supports
the achievement of all students. In a culturally responsive classroom, effective
teaching and learning occur in a culturally supported learner-centered context,
whereby the strengths students bring to school are identified, nurtured, and utilized
to promote student achievement. Culturally responsive pedagogy is comprised of
three dimensions: (a) institutional, (b) personal, (c) instructional. The institutional
dimension reflects the administration and its policies and values. The personal
dimension refers to the cognitive and emotional process teachers must engage in to
become culturally responsive. The instructional dimension includes materials,
strategies, and activities that form the basis instruction.
Culturally Responsive Pedagogy not only recognizes the importance of
including students’ cultural references in all aspects of learning (Ladson-Billings,
1994), but embraces it as a valuable asset which can be used in the process of
teaching, learning, and ultimately achievement. In addition, Ladson-Billings (1992)
clarifies that Culturally Responsive Pedagogy and teaching includes all of the factors

30
considered to be good teaching, yet it also takes into consideration the learner’s
background while building on and affirming their cultural identity.
Gay (2000) defines Culturally Responsive Teaching as using the cultural
knowledge, prior experiences, and performance styles of diverse students to make
learning more appropriate and effective for them; it teaches to and through these
strengths of students. Children learn about themselves and the world around them
within the context of culture (Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory
at Brown University, 2002), which establishes the lens in which they view the world,
their experiences and how they relate to both. Therefore, specific to this population
of students, it becomes increasingly important to understand how achievement best
occurs consistently and effectively. Perhaps, utilizing culture as an instrumental
catalyst to promote achievement is the medium in which African-American students
can learn best.
There is some level of skepticism concerning whether or not Culturally
Responsive Pedagogy is necessary to address the “achievement gap” or is linked
directly to improving achievement (Ludlow, 1992). The prevailing position from
critics and individuals who oppose the integration of culture in the dialogue
regarding achievement often presents relevant research that aligns the effects of
poverty as a more prevalent factor for school success (Stotsky, 1999) where a focus
on high standards and accountability will address achievement disparities.

31
Culturally Mediated Instruction: African American Student Achievement
Culturally Responsive Pedagogy focuses on mediating instruction. CRP
involves the integration of diverse ways of learning, knowing, understanding, and in
the representation of information. Through mediated instruction that is driven by
CRP, there is a consistent emphasis on how to capitalize on the type of knowledge
that children arrive to school with and is theoretically characterized by a) high
teacher expectations, b) high teacher efficacy, and c) caring relationships that are
reciprocal between teacher and students and among students as well. In addition,
CRP creates a climate where the school and the classrooms in it have
institutionalized practices, beliefs, expectations, and structures that affirm, recognize,
and value the cultural experience, heritage, background and reality of each and every
student.
In addition, Gay (2000) further describes the context of Culturally
Responsive Teaching that follows a consistent framework:
It acknowledges the legitimacy of the cultural heritages of different ethnic
groups, both as legacies that affect students’ dispositions, attitudes, and
approaches to learning worthy content to be taught in the formal
curriculum.
It builds bridges of meaningfulness between home and school experiences
as well as between academic abstractions and lived sociocultural realities.
It uses a wide variety of instructional strategies that are connected to
different learning styles.

32
It teaches students to know and praise their own and each other’s cultural
heritages.
It incorporates multicultural information, resources, and materials in all of the
subjects and skills routinely taught in schools.
This CRP framework provides a structure that can be identified as a useful

model to addressing matters of achievement for African-American students. It is also

evident that how achievement is defined and how it is demonstrated through student

performance are important factors when utilizing and integrating this CRP

framework in the school setting.

Understanding the Impact of CRP on Instruction
Learning Variances and Achievement: Valuing Cultural Epistemology

According to Bazron, Osher, Fleischman (2005), there is a growing and
evolving body of research that demonstrates the importance of addressing the needs
of culturally diverse students and their families. Further stated, many schools often
ignore or downplay the strengths of diverse students and their families. The
exclusion of cultural contributions and attributes from accountability expectations
affect achievement and call into greater question how Culturally Responsive
Pedagogy could impact student achievement, more specifically, that of African-
American students.
It is evident that people create new knowledge as a result of the interaction of
their existing knowledge, beliefs, and values with new ideas, problems and

33
experiences, whereby teaching and learning can occur (Glickman, Gordon, & Ross,
2004). McLaughlin and McLeod (1996) indicate that children who are exposed to
one cultural system at home and encounter another system at school face unique
challenges. The challenges occur when differences in beliefs, values and practices
are handled with respect, children can then benefit from learning the new cultural
systems while honoring their "home" system. But unfortunately, and quite often
children encounter situations that cause them to internalize the status differences
between the home and school cultures and that which is communicated by caregivers
(home) and teachers (school). If their home culture and language are devalued and
potential connections between both cultures are not emphasized, children lose the
strength and coherence of a truly bicultural identity.
Children learn best when they are involved in the learning process and when
teachers have high expectations of what all students will learn. According to The
National Association of Elementary School Principals (2001), “students are active,
not passive, learners who learn best from tasks that require them to relate new facts,
concepts and processes to their existing mental images and to their ongoing
experiences. It is our responsibility to monitor and implement rigorous curriculum
that moves students toward higher levels of thinking” (p. 22).
Achievement Studies of Culturally Responsive Pedagogy
There are few studies explicitly linking Culturally Responsive Pedagogy to
student achievement (NWREL, 2005) in terms of methods of measuring this
phenomena and often calls into question its causal validity and impact. However,

34
there is an evolving body of scientific evidence that includes correlation and case
studies where results are apparent that Culturally Responsive Pedagogy is directly
linked to student achievement, school engagement, and improved performance
(NWREL, 2005).
Ladson-Billings (1994) highlights the promise of Culturally Responsive
Pedagogy in a three-year qualitative ethnographic study that documents the
pedagogical practice of eight teachers considered to be highly effective. The teachers
were selected by principals and parents regardless of the teachers’ race or ethnicity.
They were selected based upon a low number of discipline referrals, high attendance
rates, and standardized test scores.
This study focused on four components to identify practices and

characteristics of CRP. The areas addressed included teacher selection, teacher
interviews, classroom observation/videotaping, and a collective interpretation and
analysis of data. Standardized test scores were also included in this study; however,
it was not utilized as the only indicator for student performance or teacher
effectiveness (Ladson-Billings, 1994).
Several of the significant findings of this study included a summarization of
what is considered to be effective practices of exemplary teachers in diverse settings
that serve African American children. Several of the results concluded are as
follows:
Teachers empower students intellectually, socially,
emotionally, and politically using cultural references

35
to impart knowledge, skills, and attitudes.
Teachers function as conductors or coaches for their
students—assuming responsibility for the students to
achieve excellence and/or sharing and shifting that
responsibility to the students.
Teaching is seen as an art, rather than a skill.
Teachers see themselves as part of the community,
and teaching as a way to give back to the community.
in the largely African American school district, and
saw teaching as a way to give back to the community.
Teachers prioritized creating a community of learners.
Teachers encouraged students to teach and learn from
each other collaboratively.
Teachers were not dependent on state curriculum standards
for teaching. The content of the curriculum was always open
for critical analysis (Ladson-Billings, 1994).
Although the practices of these teachers are considered to be exemplary, they
could also be perceived as effective practices that are required for any teacher who
teaches any student. However, in a subsequent report documenting the results of this
study, Ladson-Billings (1995) extends the interpretation of her results by
emphasizing the distinct principles that qualify CRP as the vehicle for learning. The
principles are definitive achievement and indicate that: 1) students must experience

36
academic success, 2) students must develop or maintain cultural competence, 3) and
students must develop a critical consciousness through which they challenge the
status quo of the current social order. Both studies represent an aspect of Culturally
Responsive Pedagogy that is anchored in one setting.
Another example that presents the potential benefit of institutionalizing
Culturally Responsive Pedagogy conducted by McKinley (2003) reports of a two-
year study designed to systemically identify and examine specific and common
strategies used by 29 teachers in an urban school district of 2,175 elementary and
middle school teachers and over 47,500 students. Each of the 29 selected teachers
had five or more students who achieved at or above State and district standards on
two different standardized assessments, the Washington Assessment of Student
Learning (WASL) and the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS). The methodology used
to examine the teachers’ instructional practices included data collected from
February 2002 through June 2003 through structured in-person and phone
interviews. In addition, teacher and administrative surveys were conducted and 28
video-taped naturalistic classroom observations were also used. McKinley (2003)
reports that strategies observed in the classroom was compared with teachers’ and
principals’ reports on the frequency of use and effectiveness with African-American
students of 121 strategies and contextual variations drawn from seven
comprehensive reviews (Banks et al., 2000; Cole, 1995; Irvine & Armento, 2001;
Ladson-Billings, 1994, 1995; Shade, Kelly, & Oberg, 1997; Wang & Walberg, 1991;
Zeichner, 1996). McKinley (2003) further indicates that the analysis conducted

37
included using the multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), discriminant and
classification analysis, and one-sample t tests.
The results of the study suggest that the 42 strategies identified were related
to curriculum and instruction, contextual features and environment, and classroom
assessment contributed to “leveling the playing field.” According to McKinley
(2003) the analysis suggests that these teachers enhanced their pedagogy to meet
student needs. The teachers shaped their student-teacher academic interactions
through culturally congruence by providing culturally relevant curriculum and
materials, providing meaningful and challenging instruction, and by responding to
students’ cultural traits and needs. In addition, student-teacher social interactions,
classroom management and climate were also identified as key attributes of these
teachers’ effectiveness. Lastly, participants of the study attributed teachers’
effectiveness not to variations in response to race, but by providing equitable
learning opportunities regardless of students’ traits, academic gaps or needs.
McKinley (2003) summarizes the findings: The findings in this study
contribute to an understanding of how 29 teachers balanced student abilities, needs,
learning preferences, and prior experiences to make appropriate instructional and
contextual changes that contributed to students' meeting success standards. The
framework of 42 strategies and contextual features from this study implies ways to
expand teachers' repertoire of strategies and content for collaborations that might
close gaps between African American and White students' achievement.

38
The evidence presented in these two studies represents outcomes that are
beneficial in discovering ways to “scale-up” CRP instructional frameworks. The
results identified in each study offer possible strategies that could be used to align
CRP with policy-based accountability in order to ensure the achievement of African
American students. Although it is critical to identify effective practices that can be
utilized on an individual level; it is also important to understand how the
implementation of CRP can be utilized in a comprehensive way to address strategies
that improve the achievement of African American students.
Eldridge and Orosco (2007) attempt to provide an even wider context for
examining the strengths and weaknesses of CRP by analyzing studies and proposing
ways to improve the field of CRP in public education. In an analysis and overview of
teacher and school-based CRP studies (NCCREST, 2007), strategies of inquiry
included Qualitative Ethnographic-Case Studies (39), Quantitative Self-Study Report
(1), Mixed Methods Observation-Scale Study (1), data collection (observations,
interviews, artifacts, survey instruments), and participants primarily form “minority”
populations. The analysis of the studies offered insight into the examination of how
CRP impacts different components within public education. For example, twenty of
the studies examined the culturally responsive instructional practices of the educators
(Ladson-Billings, 1992; Mitchell, 1998; Takahashi-Breines, 2002; Monkman &
MacGillivray, 2003; Parsons, 2005; Howard, 2000; Lipman, 1996), six studies listed
the culturally responsive characteristics of schools and/or programs (Senesac, 2002;
Morris, 2004; Foster & Peele, 1999; Rueda, 2004), two studies presented narratives

39
of teachers and their role in CRP, and at least one of the studies explored the
differences between teachers’ conceptions about the purpose and function of
schooling. According to the report only a few studies utilize standardized data about
student achievement (Powers, 2006; Arce, 2004; Senesac, 2002; Jesse, 2004).
Finally, one of the Correlational studies indicated that School Climate had the largest
relationship to students’ educational outcomes (Powers, 2006).
The report (NCCREST, 2007) indicated that CRP usually impacts the
following school related entities: teachers, school leadership and organization,
learning and academic rigor, relationships between schools and communities and
agency and transforming inequity. Finally, the study assessed the results of each of
these entities and purports the following implications; CRP requires a focus on
multiple areas that must include the following in order to be effective; (a)
Curriculum, (b) Learning styles, (c) Discourse patterns, (d) Relationships, (e)
Examination of equity: the beliefs and practices of teachers, administration, schools,
districts, parents, and community.
This global approach to assessing the studies that examine CRP provides an
overview for how to deliberately identify areas that require further exploration to
determine how and if educators can use Culturally Responsive Pedagogy to teach
African-American students, while still attending to state and federal accountability
policies.

40
Conclusion
Literature Review Summary

Through reviewing accountability expectations while analyzing the past and
current achievement results of African American students it becomes even more
apparent that the implementation of the policies alone has not guaranteed equity-
based education where this population of students consistently demonstrate
achievement or produce substantial performance gains. This information sets the
stage for understanding the noble intentions and perhaps assumptions that increased
policy-based accountability would be sufficient to guarantee a quality public
education for all children.
However, as reflected in the evidence presented here, it is apparent that a
significant percentage of students, particularity African American students are not
achieving consistently nor has the increase of funding or reauthorization of policies
affected their overall performance in over the last several decades.
Section Three, through defining and examining Culturally Responsive
Pedagogy, there emerges a potential remedy to the “achievement gap” and renders
realistic evidence of what can work with African American children while also
meeting and exceeding policy-based accountability expectations, specifically
standardized assessments. Section four adds relevant evidence to demonstrate how
individual practitioners use CRP in engaging African American students while using
their cultural attributes and existing knowledge to ensure achievement. Lastly, in this
section, there is also a review of institutionalized models that offer ways in which to

41
integrate CRP in order to intervene and improve the achievement of African
American students in a variety of educational settings and across content areas.
Although the CRP approach offers one set of strategies for practice and
intervention, there is little evidence that provides a systemic framework for
integrating CRP with policy-based expectations in order to ensure the achievement
of African American students. Consequently, there are still important questions that
need to be answered:
How do educators use Culturally Responsive Pedagogy to teach African-
American students, while still attending to state and federal accountability policies?
What are practitioner’s perceptions of Culturally Responsive Pedagogy and how it
meets and/or exceeds accountability standards when serving African-American
students? How does Culturally Responsive Pedagogy influence practitioners
instruction and relationship with African-American students? What organizational
structures and resources are required to meet and/or exceed policy- based
accountability standards, while utilizing Culturally Responsive Pedagogy that
ensures achievement for African American students?
This study proposes to explore and investigate these unanswered questions

while contributing to the evolving body of literature that proposes resolutions for
bridging theories for achievement with actualized achievement and results.

42
CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

Introduction

Chapter 3 defines the methodological design, sample population,
instrumentation, data collection procedures and data analysis processes used to
conduct this study. The purpose of this qualitative research study is to investigate
how implementing Culturally Responsive Pedagogy (CRP) in alignment with policy-
based accountability can positively influence the education of African-American
students. The following overarching research question will guide this research
inquiry:
How do educators use Culturally Responsive Pedagogy to teach African-
American students, while still attending to state and federal accountability policies?
In addition, the following sub-questions will also be explored in an effort to
further guide the research:
1. What are practitioners’ perceptions of Culturally Responsive Pedagogy and
how it meets and/or exceeds policy-based accountability standards when
serving African-American students?
2. How does Culturally Responsive Pedagogy influence practitioners’
instruction and relationship with African-American students?
3. What organizational structures and resources are required to meet and/or
exceed policy- based accountability standards, while utilizing Culturally

43
Responsive Pedagogy that ensures achievement for African American
students?
Study Design
According to Merriam (1998), the qualitative case study design is employed
to gain in-depth understanding of a situation and its meaning to those involved.
Therefore, this method is most appropriate for this particular study. Interviews and
document analysis was used to collect data. Merriam (1998) further states that the
information and insights gained from this type of study can directly influence policy,
practice, and future research. This study intends to provide an in-depth exploration of
a school district where improving the achievement of African-American students is
intentional, deliberate, and purposeful.
Qualitative research attempts to focus on the processes, meaning and
understanding (Merriam, 1998) of a phenomenon. The results of this study aim to
produce a rich and comprehensive description of how CRP and policy-based
accountability influence the education of African-American students. In an effort to
explore the educational context and detail of this human and social phenomenon, it
will be critical to approach it seeking the type of depth that renders long term,
sustainable solutions and outcomes. Patton (2002) posits that the trade off of
exploring depth vs. breadth affects the number of respondents, the “richness” of
going into greater depth with these selected issues will afford the opportunity to have
more flexibility in identifying more detailed data about a smaller number of people
and a case with more attention to the nuances that speak to the “real” problems and

44
the “real” solutions that can potentially create “real” change for this population of
students.
Sample and Population

The primary focus of the qualitative study was two middle schools, (grades 6-
8) in Lemon Grove School District (LGSD). LGSD is an urban district in Southern
California that serves approximately 4,147 students grade K-8. LGSD is considered
to be one of the most diverse school districts in San Diego County with 42% of the
students Latino, 21% White, 26% African-American, and 11% representing other
ethnic populations.
Initiated in 1998 and prompted by student data from the California STAR
assessment test, the Lemon Grove School District began to acknowledge the
disproportionate number of students of color in the lowest quartiles on standardized
tests. In addition, LGSD recognized the fact that student referrals for administrative
hearings and special education placements reflected a disproportionate number of
students of color (Hershowitz & Esterbrooks, 2001). According to the previous
Superintendent, L. McLean King, the awareness of these disparities was not enough;
however the awareness served as the catalyst of recognition for a systemic change. In
the fall of 2001, under the direction of the LGSD Governing Board and
Superintendent King, the staff in each of the eight schools, consisting of six
elementary and two middle schools, began the work to institutionalize Culturally
Responsive Pedagogy district-wide. LGSD developed the Collaborative Action
Research for Equity (C.A.R.E.) project, with the goal of creating a district-wide

45
climate and culture that demands and supports systemic equity/anti-racism,
continuous improvement using a data-based inquiry, and research-based pedagogy.
Lemon Grove also has a significant history with respect to the education of
students of color. The March 11
th
, 1931 landmark lawsuit Roberto Alvarez vs. the
Board of Trustees of the Lemon Grove School District, resulting from the January 5,
1931 "Lemon Grove Incident" became the first successful school desegregation court
decision in the history of the United States 23 years prior to the landmark Supreme
Court case of Brown vs. the Topeka School Board. The “Lemon Grove Incident”
occurred when Principal Jerome Tom Greene under the direction of the Lemon
Grove School Board directed refused to permit the Mexican students of Lemon
Grove Grammar School to attend school with the Anglo students and along with
their parents were directed to attend a separate school, Olive Street School which
was an old barn. That day, parents of Mexican children refused to send their children
to school and united to form the Neighborhood Association of Lemon Grove to fight
the segregation (Espinosa, 1986).
The purposeful sampling of this school district and two of its middle schools
was selected based upon the historical and current approach by the district to
institutionalize Culturally Responsive Pedagogy, as well as the historical context for
aligning policy initiatives with mandates that promote equity in schools. According
to Merriam (1998) unique samples are selected based upon unique or atypical
attributes and occurrences.

46
The superintendent of this district, along with teachers and administrators
from both middle schools will directly participate as subjects in this study. The
selection of the two middle schools from this district was based on the following
criterion:
1. At least 25% of the student population is comprised of African-American
students.
2. School sites that have been implementing CRP for 3 or more years.
3. Schools with at least 50% or more students who qualify for the Free/Reduced
Lunch Program.
4. Schools are identified as serving students in an urban area.
5. Schools that met annual (2006) API growth targets for African-American
students and Socio-Economically Disadvantage “sub-groups.”
The superintendent, Mr. Ernest Anastos, and all five members of the LGSD
Board of Education granted permission to conduct this study. In addition, permission
was also provided by the site principals. The Institutional Review Board (IRB)
approval was obtained through both the University of Southern California and the
Lemon Grove School District.
Mission Statement Overview: Lemon Grove Middle School
Lemon Grove Middle School is the largest school in the Lemon Grove
School District with a current enrollment of approximately 770 students comprised
of 40% Latino, 23% White, 28% African-American, and 9% representing other
ethnic populations. The campus has existed for over sixty years. The mission of

47
Lemon Grove Middle School is to empower all students to become literate, healthy,
and productive members of a technologically-based, global society. Lemon Grove
Middle School will provide a world-class education that values high academic
achievement, in an environment that will develop and nurture leadership,
responsibility, creativity, self-confidence, and respect for diversity (SARC Report,
2006).
Mission Statement Overview: Palm Middle School
Palm Middle, the only other middle school in LGSD also serves a diverse
population of approximately 750 students which includes 40% Latino, 21% White,
28% African-American, and 11% representing other ethnic groups. The mission of
Palm Middle School is to aid in the development of the intellectual, emotional,
physical, and social growth of each student. A sense of responsibility and an
appreciation for individual differences and cultural diversities that lead to
responsible citizenship will be encouraged. A positive environment will foster a
healthy self-image, and strengthen self-reliance and accountability. Teachers will
exercise the right to teach, and students will be assured of the right to learn, in a safe
and orderly environment (SARC Report, 2006).

Instrumentation and Data Collection Procedures
In an effort to test for consistency and synthesize the different type of data
sources while exploring and being “sensitive to different real-world nuances”
(Patton, p. 248), I collected three types of qualitative data: a) interviews, b)

48
observations, and c) document analysis. I triangulated the data from these three
sources. Utilizing these three methods will intensify the results of the dissertation
design by comparing the results authentically while answering the research
questions.
The data collection process included twenty-four individual semi-structured
interviews that were on average 30 to 60 minutes long. Interviews included teachers
(12), site-administrators (5), and central office administration (7). Transcribed
audiotapes from each interview and notes taken during the interviews were key
components of the data collection process. The protocols designed for the teacher
and administrative interviews focused on perceptions of Culturally Responsive
Pedagogy and how it meets and/or exceeds policy-based accountability standards
when serving African-American students as well as how instruction and relationship
with African-American students affect achievement. The protocols designed for
district level administrators, central office personnel and Board Members were
designed to capture the historical context for CRP in the district, the implementation
of CRP and the organizational structures and resources utilized to meet and/or
exceed policy-based accountability standards with Culturally Responsive Pedagogy.
The protocols for all interviews are included in Appendices A, B, and C.
The informal observation notes were taken during numerous approximately
15 visits, which included both middle schools as well as the LGSD Central
Administration Office. Lastly, with the support of LGSD staff members, a document
analysis of district-generated data was included as the final form of data collection.

49
Observations during site visits were conducted on campuses before school,
during instructional time, and after school. Conducting observations afforded me
with the opportunity to naturally explore how the organization and the individuals in
it function within their setting. This approach requires a commitment to just “being”
and observing actions, decisions, and behaviors. Information observation field notes
were taken during each visit.
Finally, document analysis offered a third form of data. The documents
included Board Minutes, district and state assessment reports, school generated
reports, teacher developed anecdotal records, and other forms of formal and informal
documentation. A LGSD Artifact Research Framework was used to guide the
collection of this data. In addition, documents such as lesson plans, discipline
referrals and internal communication resources were also requested. In addition to
accessing and reviewing these documents, with permission, I was able to also
photocopy documents in order to categorize and code for future and further analysis.
The LGSD Artifact Research Framework is included in the Appendices.

Data Analysis Procedures

Creswell (2003) defines a six-step process for analyzing and interpreting
data. I used this procedure to orchestrate the results of the study in order to access the
most meaningful outcomes from this exploration. First, I organized and prepared the
data for analysis by transcribing the interviews. Second, I read through each of the
transcriptions, notes, and documents to identify general ideas and an overall meaning
of the data. The research question provided the context for the data coding process. I

50
then utilized NVivo/QSR XSight 2, which is qualitative data analysis software, to
code and organize the transcripts. Manual coding was also used. The data was then
organized into “chunks” and then coded to identify and generate a description of
emerging themes and categorical details from the data. Finally, I created narratives to
interpret the data by conveying the findings of my analysis. I was able to formulate
meaning from the data, identify actualized policy and practice while providing new
questions for further research and exploration.

Ethical Considerations

I was committed to adhering to the requirements of the University of
Southern California Institutional Review Board (IRB) regulations, requirements,
rules, and procedures. I maintained the integrity prescribed in the ethical standards
for conducting research. In addition, I provided informational orientation to all
subjects who participated in this study to convey the purpose of this research and
detail the interview process and protocols. Data gathered during the research,
including audiotaped interviews, interview transcriptions, observation field notes,
and other acquired documents were kept confidential. In addition, all information
pertaining to the identities of participants was purposefully presented to preserve
anonymity. The voluntary option for participating in the study was included in the
consent form.

51
Limitations of Study

According to Patton (2002) purposeful sampling strategies provide a limited
number of cases for examination and qualitative findings are highly contextual and
case dependent. Therefore an obvious limitation to this investigation was the limited
sample size of two schools within one school district. It was acknowledged that a
larger sample size of sites selected from multiple districts may produce a more
extensive and comprehensive investigation. However, the data gathered in this
qualitative study seeks to promote the further investigation of other researchers who
are interested in securing equitable education for African-American students while
attending to federal and state accountability policies.
As Patton (2002) indicates, the researcher is the instrument in qualitative
inquiry, whereby the researchers’ subjectivity can negatively or positively affect the
findings. As an African-American educator in favor of equity in education, I
recognized that it was important to restrict potential bias while investigating the
potential benefits of CRP to this population of students. It was not my intention to
manipulate, direct, or influence the study in any direction which could have
interfered with the findings and mislead readers.

52
Summary
Chapter 3 describes the methodological design, sample population,
instrumentation, data collection procedures and data analysis processes required to
conduct this proposed study. Future chapters will include a presentation of research
findings accompanied by an analysis, a summary, and implications of findings.

53
CHAPTER 4

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATIONS OF FINDINGS

Introduction

Chapter 4 provides an analysis and interpretation of the data collected in this
study. The results of these findings will eventually be used to design a promising
Culturally Responsive Pedagogy framework, created to reframe school reform
efforts by identifying effective tactics for state, district, and local policymakers to
use when attempting to improve the achievement of African-American students.
This study provides an in-depth exploration of two schools aligned with
district level practices where improving the achievement of African-American
students has been an intentional initiative that began with institutionalizing
Culturally Responsive Pedagogy district-wide. The primary focus of this study
included teachers and administrators at two middle schools in Lemon Grove School
District (LGSD). Policies, initiatives and organizational practices within the
district’s organizational leadership structure were also explored with district level
administrators, central office personnel and the current LGSD Board Members.
The organizational framework for Chapter 4 is designed to connect the
thematic underpinnings identified in this study to the corresponding research
questions. After a thorough analysis of the data, the following major themes emerged
and were extracted, triangulated and organized in alignment with the following
corresponding research questions.

54
Research Question
How do educators use Culturally Responsive Pedagogy to teach African-
American students, while still attending to state and federal accountability policies?
The sub-questions were explored and produced the following categorical themes:
Sub Questions and Themes
a) What are practitioners’ perceptions of Culturally Responsive Pedagogy and
how it meets and/or exceeds policy-based accountability standards when
serving African-American students?
1. Practitioners Definition of CRP
2. Practitioners of CRP Meets and/or Exceeds
Policy-Based Accountability Standards When Serving
African-American Students
3. Practitioners Current Perceptions of CRP
b) How does Culturally Responsive Pedagogy influence practitioners’
instruction and relationships with African-American students?
1. Practitioners’ Perceptions of the Influence of CRP on
Instruction
2. Practitioners’ Perceptions of the Influence of CRP on
Relationships

55
c) What organizational structures and resources are required to meet and/or
exceed policy- based accountability standards, while utilizing CRP?
1. Teachers perceptions of the organizational structures
2. School administrators’ perceptions of the organizational
structures
3. Central office staff perceptions of organizational structures

Institutionalizing CRP in Lemon Grove School District
Before delving into the research questions, the following section describes
the basis and foundation for how CRP was initiated, institutionalized, and ultimately
defined by the teachers, administrators, and central office staff members, including
Board Members of LGSD. The aim is to provide historical context and experiential
dynamics that contribute to perceptions of CRP.
According to the previous Superintendent of Lemon Grove School District, in
1998, the Lemon Grove School District began to acknowledge the disproportionate
number of students of color in the lowest quartiles on standardized assessment data.
There was also recognition of student referrals for administrative hearings and
special education placements frequently reflected a disproportionate number of
students of color. In the fall of 2001, under the direction of the LGSD Board of
Education the Superintendent and the staff in each of the eight schools, consisting of
six elementary and two middle schools, began the work to institutionalize Culturally
Responsive Pedagogy district-wide. LGSD then began its work by hiring as a

56
consultant, Mr. Glenn Singleton, Founder and Director of the Pacific Education
Group. This educational consulting group offered several programs that all members
of the LGSD participated in to support the implementation of CRP and
institutionalize programs that offered the structures required to promote diversity,
equity, and achievement for all students in LGSD.
The programs included in this district-wide initiative included Beyond
Diversity, Collaborative Action Research for Equity (CARE), Partnerships for
Academically Successful Students, the Courageous Leadership Institute, and the
Multi-Year Equity Strategies for K-12 Schools. The following overview provides a
brief description of each of these programs (Pacific Education Group, 2007), that are
often referenced by a number of the practitioners who were interviewed:
Beyond Diversity
Beyond Diversity was defined as powerful and personally transforming two-
day workshop designed to help teachers, parents and administrators consider the
implications of racism, exclusion and prejudice on student learning. During the
seminar, participants engaged in a thoughtful, compassionate exploration of racism
and how it manifests in our culture and in our schools. A critical workshop outcome
is an awareness of the degree to which racism and other diversity issues are part of
educational failure. Participants explored strategies of identifying and addressing
policies and practices that negatively impact students’ ability to meet rigorous
academic standards.

57
Collaborative Action Research for Equity (C.A.R.E.)
The Collaborative Action Research for Equity Program (C.A.R.E.) was the
collaborative action research process that was based on a “collaborative,” that is
teams of practitioners who shared the same work group, be it a professional role,
grade level, department, school program, district or geographic region, working
jointly on their individual inquiries. The C.A.R.E. model was built on the notion that
a focused, small start centered on improved instructional and support strategies for
underserved student groups are likely to yield significant whole school changes over
time. C.A.R.E.’s theory of action was designed to keep school teams of the principal
and teachers focused on the following levels of teaching and learning:
• Improving relationships among teachers, students, and families
• Incorporating instructional practices that are culturally responsive
• Expanding curriculum that is culturally relevant
• Authenticating assessment practices so they indicate learning and teaching quality.
Partnerships for Academically Successful Students (PASS)
The Partnership for Academically Successful Students program began in
2003 to provide training support services on cross-cultural collaboration with parents
and communities to school districts. The trainings and professional learning activities
were intended to facilitate the development of inclusive school-community
partnerships that promote the success of low-performing student groups. PASS’
Training component—Instituting Partnerships for Academically Successful Students
(IPASS)—is for school staff, parents or family members, and community partners.

58
The training component had two parts: (1) a 5-day training series and (2) a targeted
community mobilization series.
The Courageous Leadership Institute
The Courageous Leadership Institute: Race, the Achievement Gap, and
Equity was a bold national venture for school leadership teams who had
demonstrated readiness to design and deliver racism-free, equitable school systems.
The goal of the summer Institute was to engage with other leadership teams from
across the country to narrow the racial achievement gap in public education.
Members of the group clarify issues, shared experiences, analyzed their district's
current practices, and used these insights to draw an informed picture of what might
be possible in their school district. The district teams were asked to:
• Clarify their own equity challenges
• Analyze their own district data, policy, and practices
• Design and develop action plans for improving performance
Multi-Year Equity Strategies for K-12 Schools
The Multi-Year Strategy for K-12 Schools was designed to close the
achievement gap through “A Theory of Action.” A Theory of Action was designed
to create a district-wide climate and culture that demands and supports systemic
equity/anti–racism; continuous improvement using data-based inquiry and research-
based pedagogy; engage school leaders in equity-centered collaborative action
research practiced from the central office to the classroom through enhanced will,
skill, knowledge and capacity.

59
Expected outcomes include:
• Improved student achievement for ALL students while narrowing the current and
predictable racial achievement;
• Improved district capacity to design and deliver equity-centered professional
development for instructional staff;
• Improved site-level equity-centered instructional leadership and support; and
• Implementation of classroom-based equity-centered curriculum, instruction and
assessment practices by teachers.
According to information collected through the document analysis, there was
no evaluative component to the programs implemented in consultation with Pacific
Education Group. The only data provided included board-level fiscal decisions to
allocate resources to support the implementation of CRP, but no reported evidence or
artifacts that presented concrete outcomes or results.

Practitioners’ Perceptions of CRP and Policy-Based Accountability
The following section provides a historical basis of perceptions about CRP by
the teachers, administrators, and central office staff members, including the Board
Members of LGSD. The current Superintendent and Assistant Superintendent of
LGSD are fairly new and were not present during the years of implementing CRP,
which was approximately 2001-2005. However, the superintendent offered an
account of the implementation process of CRP in LGSD:
I’m familiar with, a lot of acronyms, yeah, I am. Culturally Responsive
Pedagogy, and I guess we call it here when we give things like that a name,

60
we often call it Culture Responsive Teaching. We sometimes connect it to
differentiated instruction. It’s something that I think that… each educator
probably has a different definition of, but I think we’re, those of use who
have been studying working with kids are pretty much all in the ballpark and
agree on what it could mean. Again, since I’ve just been here a couple years,
when I arrived, there was a lot of discussion among a somewhat limited
number of teachers, who were in fact strong proponents of culturally
responsive teaching, and had been working together kind of monthly
meetings with the support of an outside consultant to develop, to tell you the
truth, it seems like a lot of time was spent talking about the need for
culturally responsive strategies in teaching and pedagogy, but I don’t know
that, when I got here, a whole lot of things hadn’t necessarily been
developed. I don’t think that there had been significant training. We had lots
of training on culture. The district embarked on collaboration with Pacific
Education Group, with a focused, kind of a three-pronged approach.
Conversations at the time, and has specifically to do with helping people
understand that race is an enormous factor, as opposed to perhaps pretending
that they don’t see race as an issue, and I think, so part of that had to do with
helping everyone, teachers, the board, the administrators, get a real good
grounding in both the readings and the teachings and some of the
conversations, and he probably used some of the fishbowl activities. The
impact that race plays in everyone’s life, and then maybe distilling that down
to a particularly, what it plays, how it plays out in a school, in a school
district.

Through interpreting the responses from the teachers and administrators at
both middle schools, as well as personnel from central office, it became apparent that
there was a range of definitions of CRP. In addition, there emerged a pervasive
historical time-line that presented a myriad of perceptions of how CRP was defined
and at one time implemented district-wide to address accountability. In addition,
many participants provided perceptions that also provided insight into the current
utilization status and definition of CRP within the district.
One teacher’s definition of CRP is as follows:
I think, originally, Culturally Responsive Pedagogy meant having an
awareness to our students of varied backgrounds, whether that’s racial
backgrounds, cultural backgrounds, combinations therein. And being aware,

61
not only aware of how we’re instructing those students, but also adapting our
curriculum to engage those students more often, and kind of increase that
engagement. And I say it began, because I feel like we’ve digressed from it,
and so, I really don’t even hear that language much anymore I still try to keep
it in there. We’re definitely overwhelmed with some other expectations, I’d
say, in terms of what we’re focusing on, in terms of writing and math and you
know, supporting those two curriculums, even though it seems like there are
other objectives that might seem more, I don’t want to say important, but
seem like they’re more pressing, I know personally that I still try, but I know
that I don’t do as good of a job as I did in the past, when a stronger, I felt like
there was more support for it.

This teacher provides an interpretation of how CRP was the catalyst for engaging
students through curriculum and instruction. She further suggests that CRP afforded
an awareness that provided a greater understanding for and about the diversity in her
classroom. She explains that due to other expectations, and perhaps curricular and
instructional constraints, CRP currently is not practiced with the same degree of
frequency or level of support.
Another teacher adds:
So that was a few, a couple of day workshops that just took time to evaluate
who you are first, and where you fit in, and then looking at your students and
where they are. It sort of was just an eye opener of who we are as people,
and especially as a person who doesn’t look like a lot of my students, how
does that affect my students when I see them? How does it affect their
parents when I meet them and their families at conferences, and when I call
them? And all of those things, just for me personally, it was like, I knew
these things, but had never really had courageous conversations, I never had
them. I had never really openly, you know, I was one of those teachers who
said, you know, oh, I just look out at my classroom, and I see kids. You
know? And I think for so long I avoided, like a color issue or a race issue or
a culture issue, and I was just like, they’re just kids. But, I didn’t realize until
I was exposed and worked with Beyond Diversity that was doing my students
a disservice, not acknowledging who they are, and not acknowledging what
they’re coming to the table with, and the differences that that may cause. I
think it’s imperative. I think it’s just necessary.

62
Another teacher, with similar years of experience offers another perception:
Culturally Responsive Pedagogy I wouldn’t say I’m an expert. I mean I’ve
been to different kinds of trainings and different, I’ve had a few experiences,
I’ve done Glenn Singleton’s training, it was probably about five or six years
ago, but I’ve done you know a few things like that. And then in the school
district too, you know we’ve had some, some meetings on it and trainings on
it. And the focus has always been on trying to close the achievement gap, so
it’s within the course that was really focused on that. And that has been
offered in this school district I know, but I haven’t taken it.

The administrators also provided information regarding the definition of CRP.
One administrator noted:
This district has been in a professional development…has been developed
and worked with Pacific Educational Group with Singleton, Beyond
Diversity. We’ve worked in several different areas: Culturally Responsive
Pedagogy, engaging parents, trying to initiate school-wide change to affect
positive change, to engage our kids of color, and with the overall goal of
closing the achievement gap. I believe it started when Beyond Diversity
started at the County Office. We started sending folks. And then the
previous superintendent was kind of a visionary guy and felt it was important
for our school to be very active, so he actually entered into a contract with
Pacific Educational Group and mandated that every employee from secretary
to custodian go through Beyond Diversity, which occurred, and our teachers
at our school, we formed what we call…the answer’s escaping me. Pass to
the Parents Equity Teams, and the equity teams were the one – we tried to…
we tried to have representation for primary grades, intermediate grades, and
we were involved in looking at bridging the gap areas such as white
privilege, history of white privilege, the whole educational system, how it’s
failed kids of color and what we can do to make corrections, looking at data
about how our kids are reading, their mathematics scores. And then looking
at schools where they have had turnaround and trying to replicate those best
kind of harness those best practices.

This administrator indicates a systemic approach to how the district was
institutionalizing CRP at one point in time. The administrator defines CRP in terms
of district-level training and professional development, achievement, equity, and
how race intersects with the education system. In addition, there is once again a

63
reference to the resources that were utilized during this process. A Board Member
offers a comparable contribution to the definition of CRP:
When we address Culturally Responsive Pedagogy…I don’t believe that we
truly understand it as educators as a whole district what that means. If we did
we wouldn’t be in the situation that we are. So as far as how my work here
has been primarily dealing with equity and equity in the classroom, because
although we do need to have pedagogy that is culturally relevant and
responsive to students, that’s one thing to bring that in. But if a teacher is
not…has not searched within her own inner…inner being, then, you know,
it’s…it’s not going to happen. I don’t care what’s…what’s brought forth,
what is presented, what we put on the table, what we put on our bulletin
boards. It’s not going to happen. And I have a personal, a very personal
experience with this, the reason I got involved with the school district. And it
is that when we…when we look at children, pretty much, white teaching
staff, how is it that our unconsciousness deals with that child of color sitting
in that seat? And I sat through a classroom and watched what happened.
And examples are black student gets up to sharpen his pencil, go pull a card,
you got out of your seat. I had to sharpen my pencil. It’s broken. You didn’t
raise your hand. Sit in your seat. Another one goes, a white girl goes, gets a
mechanic…exchanges her mechanical pencil in her backpack, nothing is said,
absolutely nothing is said. So when we talk about is it really culturally
responsive pedagogy that has to come into the classroom? Sure it is. But
before that something else has to happen and that is that each teacher has to
first want to teach every child, believe that every child can learn and then
how do we reflect then as teachers, look inward and see what is it that I do?
Am I some kind of way…am I the one who is responsible for this child of
color not learning in my classroom? Is it me? And I think when we can
move into that place as teachers then whatever we bring, whether it
be…whether it be the standards, whether it be on the curriculum that is
reflective of the students…you know we can bring all that in. But if the
teacher doesn’t have the compassion to teach all children it’s not going to
happen.

This Board Member defines CRP in his own terms and the critical need to use
pedagogy in the classroom to support equity, but also offers an example of
observations of what took place in an elementary classroom that is described as
differential treatment of students that is race-based and not reflective of CRP. The

64
Board Member further adds that this experience created the motivation for becoming
a LGSD Board Member in order to support a district-wide expectation to ensure that
CRP is demonstrated in the classroom. The Board Member also offers the perception
about the level of effectiveness of the district-wide initiatives and how the definition
of CRP was defined through the evolution of implementation in the district. This
Board Member extensively states:
Okay so as far as the journey, dating back to when I got involved about seven
years ago, one of the things that we did do is we hired Pacific Ed, the Pacific
Ed Group out of Oakland, Singleton. And the purpose was for him to come
in and train our entire district on cultural…Beyond Cultural Diversity. And
the beyond piece is of course, you know, we know we’re diverse. We know
that, you know, comprised, of course, we’re a diverse group and so now
what, you know. And so I have to say that due to Mr. Singleton’s work I
think we all sort of ramped up to a whole different level of looking, as I said
before, looking within ourselves, each individual, whether you be at the
district office, whether you are part of the labor force, if you are in the
classroom, because everyone here is responsible for the children because we
all come in contact with them. So whatever we have brought with ourselves
from our own upbringing, from how we were raised at home, if there was
racism there, or if we were raised to where there was, that was the way it is.

Once we stepped here we had to all sort of check ourselves and see, hey,
what role do I play in this because we are going to work on truly erasing
racism in Lemon Grove School District. So that’s what Mr. Singleton put for
us to think, contemplate, every time, all day long. And so…so then from
there we broke off into…there was an equity team that met here at the district
office once a month and there were community members, board members,
administrators, principals, district office, because we were the core group that
would be trained by Mr. Singleton on looking at how…how do we
undo…how do we, always looked at it because it exists, but how do we
actually work on it ourselves and then take it back to our…to our school sites
and help other…guide other teachers into when we work in the
classroom…when we’re working with children, how is it I…how do I take
my own unconscious racism out of the teaching so that I’ll teach…all
students can learn. Because that…we know that it does exist and we know
that why we have the achievement gap, why some students of color don’t
achieve. They’re just not given the attention. They’re not taught so that they

65
can achieve. The attention is given elsewhere. I mean and it’s not to say
that…and I believe that it happens in all cultures. It’s not because a teacher’s
white, she’s racist towards or against blacks and Latinos, no, because if
there’s a Latino teacher that teacher will more than likely do the very same
thing. And the one with the most attention will be the Latino students.
Second will come probably the white child, so it’s not to look at it one-sided
either, it is no matter what race you are. Look at that and that is where the
piece of equity truly comes in and you work on that. So from the equity
teams we built care teams and the care teams were actually the
ones at each school site.

The Board Member further adds:

And the CARE teams probably had the toughest time because they even had
to go out on their own and, yes, be courageous and when they saw anything
that looked like what we’re working on they had to bring it up and …address
it. That was hard because it wasn’t welcomed by all teachers. How does one
teacher tell another teacher, you know, could this possibly be, you know
part of the work I’m doing with equity. Teachers don’t want to hear that, you
know, and that’s hard to accept. And so, you know, we worked on that. I
think we contracted with Mr. Singleton for God I want to say definitely four
years. And what happened though it didn’t come…it didn’t have an impact
in the classroom because when it then became an individual choice per
classroom by each teacher. That’s a lot of work. And now you’re saying
work on this, too. You know it’s…I’m going to keep working and teaching
the way I always have, you know, and I’m going to teach my own style, my
own way and you know? It’s not my fault if kids don’t achieve or learn.

But you know the sad thing is when we look at all of our test scores who are
the ones underachieving? The same group of kids so even if we brought in
Mr. Singleton, beyond diversity, equity teams, care teams, did we truly
change what we set out to change? No. And, you know, we…I had long
discussions with her then, the superintendent who was not going let go of the
team of hiring Mr. Singleton. Of course we had a new, change of
administrators, to believe, you know, there had not been enough change. So
why are we going put money in the same place? And I have to tell you I was
the stand alone one who said, no, we cannot undo this. We cannot. We
cannot. It hasn’t worked. We have to. We’re not going spend money here
anymore. I don’t believe we gave it a chance. The next level was to
implement into the classroom, exactly what you said culturally responsive
pedagogy. We didn’t get to that point. Make adjustments…too long

66
It is important to acknowledge the perceptions of how race is often
referenced as an indicator of Culturally Responsive Pedagogy. The district-wide
initiatives with Pacific Education Group helped to define CRP in Lemon Grove. In
addition, race is often affiliated with the achievement gap and the need to analyze
standardized data and classroom practices as a way to determine whether or not CRP
was or is being implemented. Teachers, administrators and central office personnel
consistently defined CRP as a method to improve achievement and meet and/or
exceed accountability standards by increasing an awareness of race. However,
according to theories supporting CRP, defining CRP in isolation to race and/or
ethnicity can be problematic. According to Little (1999), in order for an educational
system to provide the political and physical structure necessary to effectively
institutionalize and become culturally responsive, there must be reform in the
following areas: Culturally Responsive Pedagogy is comprised of three dimensions:
institutional, personal, and instructional. The institutional dimension reflects the
administration and it’s policies and values. The personal dimension refers to the
cognitive and emotional process teachers must engage in to become culturally
responsive. The instructional dimension includes materials, strategies, and activities
that form the basis instruction (NCCREST, 2006).
As another seasoned teacher stated:
Well, one of the things that I have found over the years, and I don’t think it’s
necessarily just African American students…one of the questions I’ve
listened and I asked the CARE people that I never got an answer to is what is
happening in the community and the families and the culture to help…to
help support the schools? You don’t have to agree with me, but you need to
support the needs an education. So work with me. Let’s work together. We

67
can disagree on things. But I always wanted to know what the culture itself
was doing to help get their African American boys out of prison. How are
you preventing some of the things that you’re doing. That’s a piece. But I
also said every parent – I don’t know – what are doing so your kid can be the
best it can be? And… So that was a question I never got answered. And I
still would like the answer to that. But that’s – you know, I…people say to
me “I work full time.” I work full time. And your kids are worth it and that
should be the priority, and help me be the better teacher. Don’t scream and
yell and take your kid out of my class if you’re not going to help them get
better.

This teacher highlights how CRP can be defined through involving the communities,
families, and cultures of students. However, she presents inquiries specific to
African Americans by stating for example; “I always wanted to know what the
culture itself was doing to help get their African American boys out of prison.”
Using only race to define CRP perhaps affected her perception of CRP. She also
questioned how the CARE team engaged parents in improving their children’s
achievement.
The Assistant Superintendent also provided an analysis of how race was the
basis for addressing achievement and the way it was defined under the auspice of
CRP. Like the current Superintendent, a perception is offered as to how CRP was
defined historically in LGSD and the emphasis of the implementation process
maintaining a focus of race:
I’m not sure the district had a history of culturally responsive pedagogy, the
only history that I have seen is that they become, became more aware that
they had different cultures here. That they became more sensitive to the
needs of kids, through dialog. But whether they were responsive, I don’t
think so. I have to tell you, they had a handful of teachers that really
embraced it, and I’m saying a handful that really wanted something to
happen. But the approach went about in such a way that it also turned away a
lot of the teachers we could have had, embrace it. It was too much based on
racism. And after a while, you get battered with it too much, it turns people

68
away because it is no longer about children. It is then about an issue. And
the issue is racism. And you know what, you can’t ignore it. But where do
you make, where do you draw that line to say okay, here’s the information,
here’s what some teachers have felt. Here’s what the community feels. But
now where do you move them from racism to start bridging that gap?

In sum, the educators’ definition of CRP was primarily anchored in the
systemic introduction and implementation of the programs identified through the
Pacific Education Group. These perceptions lead into the next theme that surfaced,
which was the educators’ understanding of how CRP meets/exceeds policy-based
standards, including No Child Left Behind (NCLB) expectations when serving
African American students.

Practitioners’ Understanding of How CRP Meets and/or Exceeds Policy-Based
Accountability Standards When Serving African-American Students
According to the U. S Department of Education (2008), NCLB holds public
schools accountable for their students' performance as measured against the
expectations of student learning which is defined by state content and performance
standards. State content and performance standards define what students should
know and be able to do, and how they can demonstrate proficiency in that set of
skills and knowledge. Standards vary in number and level of detail from state to
state.
NCLB requires the reporting of achievement by subgroup and include the
goal of eliminating the achievement gap between minority students and their peers
(U.S. Department of Education, 2007). It is assumed that NCLB will provide the

69
motivation necessary to increase accountability at the site level to the degree that by
2014, every student in every public school will perform at the proficiency level.
Along with stated goals and expectations of standards-based accountability, this
legislation builds on the premise of equity in public education that should be
accessible to all students.
It was evident that many teachers believed that CRP was needed to engage
students and create a bridge to meeting and/or exceeding the standards. One teacher
explains:
The state standards are very rigid, they’re very strict, and most students don’t
understand them. Most teachers barely understand them, and so we have to
take a class, you know, during our teaching credential, on how to unpack or
actually understand the teaching standards. So through the use of CRP, we’re
actually able to make it accessible, make the standards so that the students
aren’t afraid of them, they aren’t just a bunch of big, scary words. They say,
“oh okay, I understand this,” and that leads to the standards. So now, the
standard is something accessible, something understandable, and the students
really are more open to learning, because the use of CRP.

This teacher acknowledges the reality that some teachers themselves are not aware of
the standards and empathetically conveys the difficulty that some students must have
in accessing and understanding the requirements necessary to meet and/or exceed
proficiency. Another teacher adds:
State standards are the stepping stones for the subject matter that we teach.
CRP is bringing in culture to those stepping stones, because students, in their
homes, in their countries, in their grandparents, in what things that they bring
individually, have different stories to tell and different perceptions of school
and of subject matter. And it isn’t just about books and standards. It’s
standards through various methods. Standards through their eyes. I’m not
sure how to put that, but if I’m a child from a different culture, I may have
value, or I may not have value. It’s the teacher’s leadership and pedagogy
that puts value to the lesson. And incorporating the understanding of a
culture or how children view something is asking their opinions. How do

70
you perceive this, or how do you look at this, or how was this done in your
country or culture?

This teacher recognizes that “the teacher’s leadership and pedagogy” offers
strategies for incorporating the students’ experiences into the teaching of state
standards. In general, almost all of the teachers interviewed offered ways of how
they were able to synthesize CRP with standards. However, they also indicated that
the difficulties involved in doing this included time and other district-mandated
expectations. Also, most of the teachers indicated that a lack of consistency within
their classrooms and across the district made bridging standards and CRP an arduous
and often impossible task. Lastly, most of the teachers presented an awareness of the
instructional needs of African American students, while acknowledging the benefits
of CRP for this population.
The administrators also believed that CRP might provide a vehicle for
meeting the state standards on a school-wide level. At the same time, administrators
at both sites were concerned that CRP was not consistently implemented and
practiced in every classroom at their school sites. One administrator stated:
Well, we’re not doing a very good job on meeting state standards. So, sorry.
And we’re not doing a very good job with CRP. Do the two coincide?
Perhaps, I don’t know. I believe that they do, simply because I think that the
more ownership and accountability I can take for the learning, the more it's
mine. The more I actually own. The more I’m not just memorizing a bunch
of facts or looking at something you have. The more engaged I am, the more
checked in I am, you know? It doesn’t happen here as much as we’d like at
all.

71
There was recognition, however, that if CRP was defined cohesively district-
wide, practiced, implemented, and monitored with consistency in each classroom,
then meeting and/or exceeding state standards could potentially be the result. This
administrator also offers a perspective that calls attention to race and its place in the
shifting demographics within the school district:
If you ask me personally, CRP should not get in the way at all. In fact it
should make standards more accessible to kids, and should be able to spell
out what learning objectives there are. It’s not the standards that change. It’s
the objectives of how to get to the standards. The standards are the standards.
What needs to change is how kids are going to get there. And that’s the only
way…if we…if our school is…what did I mention? It’s 70% kids of color,
or even 75% kids of color, then…it’s imperative that we find instructional
strategies that are best for these kids. We cannot teach like we did in 1980
for example, when the school was primarily white?

In addition, district administrators and board members explained how CRP
intersects with standards as well as accountability expectations. The following
District administrator states:
The promise of CRP would be that we can actually get more kids to meet
state standards, because we’re speaking to them, we’re engaging them better
and meeting them where they are. So the logical answer is yes. To the
degree that our district doesn’t have enough practitioners doing it yet, or if
they’ve been taught things that might be worthwhile doing that with fidelity
or incorporating it, then no it hasn’t helped us get there yet. I mean, we’re,
part of my conversation with you has to do with the fact that I feel we’re not
doing a good job yet, and you gave me an invitation to have a dialogue that
might lead us both to do a better job with this. Do you know what I’m
saying? I mean that’s the real, I’m, you’re probably not going to hear
anyone, I don’t know what anyone else has said. I can’t imagine that
anyone’s going to be satisfied here that you talk with. I’m not satisfied by a
long shot, in terms of what we’re doing so far. On the other hand, I think that
we have a lot of elements in place that mean we’re poised for greatness one
of these days for kids. You know, I mean, I think that’s it, but I’m, we have
a ways to go. The perfect example is whether any of this stuff’s playing out,

72
off, supporting NCLB, the answer is, we’re not doing it yet. Well, or we’re
just barely doing it. So we won’t know yet.

The challenging reality recognized here is that although there were efforts--fiscal
resources, time, and targeted expectations—to institutionalize as a district, the results
of improved district-wide achievement are not evident as indicated by district-wide
achievement data. Another central office staff member offers constructive criticism
for the historical process of institutionalizing CRP that did not culminate into
concrete results and/or outcomes:
This central office staff member noted the following:
CRP could really help us, but let’s define it again, redefine CRP for those
people who might now be defining it, totally different. And right now in this
district it's being defined as race. And that’s because that’s how it was
defined for 5 years. And then it backfires on you? That didn’t happen but I
felt sometimes okay, let’s change the page of what we’re talking about here.
Talking cultural relevancy, define that word, cultural. And what you’re
going to find out, that the key word is not racism. And relevancy, are we
really doing something that’s relevant, to the needs of the community?
Population you’re serving? That’s what it means. And how are we doing it?
There are practices now happening, but now they’re, they feel more
comfortable with the umbrella of the word differentiation. Why? Because
it's taking them away from that word, racism.

In other words, in the mind of this administrator, the repetitive inclusion of
race could have had an impact on the benefits of using CRP to meet NCLB
mandates. In sum, teachers, administrators, and central office personnel, including
board members acknowledge the value of CRP, while also recognizing how the
process of implementation had several deficits and required change in order lead to
have district-wide improvement. According to Senge (1990), learning organizations
are organizations where people continually expand their capacity to create the results

73
they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where
collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning to see the
whole together. Although there are varied perceptions of how the district attempted
to institutionalize CRP in order to achieve their goals of improved equity and
achievement, there currently is an interest in redefining CRP in order to systemically
move the district forward and produce achievement results required by NCLB.
Practitioners’ Current Perceptions of CRP
Practitioners in LGSD currently have multiple interpretations of CRP and its
influence on policy-based accountability, equity, and student achievement. Several
of the novice teachers indicated that although they had not received formal training
in CRP, there was a basic understanding that CRP meant serving the needs of a
diverse student body, meeting the needs of all students, and finding creative ways to
engage students.
One new teacher said:
More students are able to display their knowledge, show me their
comprehension of the subject, because if I have a student that’s not
interested, then they shut down, and they don’t bother to turn in assignments,
they don’t bother to do any of the work at all. They’ll just stare at the wall or
put their head down and take a nap. But with CRP, if they’re interested, then
they’re able to show me their comprehension and understanding, so that
makes it a lot easier to assess if they are willing to show me, rather than me
having to drag it out of them.

Another teacher adds:

I’m not too familiar with the terminology, but we have been encouraged to
incorporate various different cultural backgrounds and make sure that we
make, especially from the content standpoint, make the information more
real and applied to the students’ lives. Through the use of CRP, I got a lot
more engagement, a lot more interest, and as I said, it was something that had

74
been unheard of up until that point, which was; the students actually went
outside the classroom and brought more information in.

These two teachers were fairly new to the district and indicated that they had not had
any formal training in CRP and were not familiar with any district-sponsored
initiatives to support district-wide implementation of CRP.
More experienced teachers who had been involved in the district-wide
initiative to institutionalize CRP often referenced their previous experience in the
Beyond Diversity Trainings and CARE Teams. This veteran teacher who was also a
member of the CARE Team reflects the general response from those teachers who
had been with LGSD for over five years:
CRP has to be there. And I notice a difference when it’s not there, in the staff
and in the students and in the culture of the campus. So I feel like it’s
something that we implemented, we worked on, and we were starting to
maybe see the benefits, whether it was test scores, or just culture on the
campus, but then other things came in, in place of CRP, and unfortunately, it
kind of was dropped, and I definitely feel like something’s missing now, and
we’re wondering, gee what happened. And I feel like I believe what
happened is we stopped caring about our students, in terms of their cultural
backgrounds, who they are, what they bring to the table, and stopped valuing
those, and instead, their test scores determine their schedule, their test scores
determine their placement, and that’s really what they’re viewed on, is those
test scores, and we’re not looking at the whole person, the family, the
background, and how it mixes here on campus.

Clearly this teacher believed that the emphasis on improving test scores detracted
from the goals of CRP.
Whereas this teacher saw CRP and NCLB as working as competing
priorities, district and school administrators believed that equity and achievement
could be achieved through implementing CRP effectively. However, as noted earlier,

75
there was a disconnect between practitioners’ understanding of CRP and whether or
not it was consistently being used in the classrooms. This district administrator
provides an overview for understanding CRP:
Culturally responsive teaching should really be the key to getting that
work done. And I think where we stumble as educators, all of us, is our
inability to, or maybe, I don’t know if its reluctance or whatever it is. It’s
like anything. I think it has more to do with people become
comfortable with doing things a certain way, particularly teachers.
But I think that we become, all of us, teachers, administrators,
everyone, you develop patterns which seem to work or perhaps
work even better in our past histories, and I think that the thing we have to
deal with, whether it’s about culturally responsive pedagogy, whether
it’s about using new technology, or whether it’s about anything, has to do
with confronting successfully the change process, and making changes.
So, it’s two issues here. It’s knowing what those pedagogies would
encompass, being trained to actually use them with integrity,
the way they’re meant to be applied or used or addressed or
incorporated, and three, actually being able to make a change in the
first place. So, it’s tied into the change process.

Several board members provided unique commentary with regards to CRP, equity
and addressing achievement specific to African American students:
Board Member Number One states:
Oh, we’re not. We’re not. We’re not doing CRP. We need to do it. We need
to put a lot of effort into a lot of other programs. And I know that one way
that I have started looking at this as when we look at strategies and
methodology for addressing English Language Learners, and I have always
said this and I will, when we have all our teachers trained in that, then maybe
our African American students will achieve but almost by default which is
sad but very true because those teachers will now have the skills to teach all
children all learning styles and so maybe then. But to say that we go out and
target African American students, that we go and look for programs or
pedagogy that address just strictly the learning, for teaching of African
American children, no we don’t. We have these events to highlight black
students. That doesn’t get it.

76
Board Member Number Two states:

CRP’s alignment would be fulfilled if there’s actual CRP going on it the
classrooms.

Board Member Number Three states:

Equity is something we…we’re striving for, not just in how we’re teaching
but the resources that all the students have and CRP is making sure that
everything is balanced. We’re bringing in people that are sensitive to…to
CRP that understand it and know how to…how to utilize it. You can
understand but if you’re not able to teach it…to me there’s something that’s
not equitable in that. There’s just something that we need to do to make sure
that people…everyone has an opportunity to achieve their best, you know.

The discussion of the historical and current perceptions of CRP provides the
foundation for understanding how the LGSD began the process of institutionalizing
CRP in an effort to address the achievement gap. The varied perceptions and
understandings of CRP are intricately woven into the individual and collective
experiences of the staff and administrators in this district. This foundation creates the
framework necessary to understand how, according to practitioners, CRP specifically
influences instruction and relationships with African American students.

The Influence of CRP on Instruction and Relationships
Practitioners’ Perception of the Influence of CRP on Instruction
The second research sub-question, inquires about the critical role of the
teacher in the classroom and how CRP influences instructional practices and
relationships with African American students. Marzano (2003) emphasizes that a
significant teacher-level factor that affects students’ achievement is instructional

77
strategies. He further adds that effective teachers have an increased number of
instructional strategies at their disposal.
One of the components of CRP includes an approach that focuses primarily
on instructional and classroom practices, rather than school or district policies.
Several characteristics of Culturally Responsive Pedagogy with regards to
instructional practices (Ladson-Billings, 1994) include the following characteristics:
positive perspectives on parents and families, communication of high expectations,
learning with the context of culture, student-centered instruction, culturally mediated
instruction, reshaping the curriculum, and the teacher as the facilitator.
The first section focuses on the practice of the teacher as facilitator as well
as culturally mediated instruction, both of which provide the framework required to
interpret how the teachers of both schools believed that CRP influenced their
instructional practices with African American students. The second section will
highlight how CRP influences the relational interaction between teachers and
African American students with an emphasis on the characteristic, positive
perspectives on parents and families. However, I wish to first provide a definition of
each practice as described by The New England Equity Assistance Center
(http://knowledgeloom.org/practices, 2008), the following information has been
provided:
THE PRACTICE: Teacher as Facilitator - Within an active teaching
environment, the teacher's role is one of guide, mediator, and knowledgeable
consultant, as well as instructor.

THE PRACTICE: Culturally Mediated Instruction - Instruction is
characterized by the use of culturally mediated cognition, culturally

78
appropriate social situations for learning, and culturally valued knowledge in
curriculum content.
THE PRACTICE: Positive Perspectives on Parents and Families of
Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students - There is an ongoing
participation in dialogue with students, parents, and community members on
issues important to them, along with the inclusion of these individuals and
issues in classroom curriculum and activities.
THE PRACTICE: Communication of High Expectations - There are
consistent messages, from both the teacher and the whole school, that
students will succeed, based upon genuine respect for students and belief in
student capability. High expectations influence teacher-student relations and
affect student performance, motivation, and self-concept. Positive measures
on the part of teachers and schools reflect the attitudinal prerequisites for
effective teaching in a multicultural society.
At both middles schools, most of the teachers indicated that CRP is a valid
instructional strategy and was often used in the classroom. They were also able to
discern between the instructional advantages, disadvantages, and challenges of using
CRP. This teacher indicates:
So I think it’s very valid that we would use this culturally responsive
pedagogy in the classroom. An instructional advantage would be ideally that
students would feel more connected to the concepts and to whatever it is
you’re teaching them at that time. I think it’s definitely very valid because I
know when I grew up I saw a lot of authors and I saw a lot of textbooks and
things that had white people and white authors. But growing up as a white
person, that’s maybe what I thought was normal. So I think having authors
and having ideas and concepts that draw on people’s backgrounds and
different cultures definitely I would want to feel as though my culture is
being represented and talked about in a classroom. I think that students are
going to feel more connected, their behaviors hopefully will reflect that, and
it makes it more interesting and more of a reality, more of a real look at the
world. You know, the world isn’t just made up of white men, so I think it
offers students a chance to see that they’re going to have to be able to roll
with the punches in many regards when they get out there in the real world,
and you’re going to have to work with people who are different from you,
and you work for someone who’s different than you, and if you don’t know a
little bit at least about what they come from and what they value, then you’ll
be at a disadvantage. So I think seeing the students interact with each other.

79
But students here, black students, white students, Mexican students – they all
kind of intermingle. So maybe that is a reflection of what we’re doing in the
classroom and how we’re teaching our lessons. I don’t know.

Another teacher provides specific strategies where students have a variety of
opportunities to demonstrate what they have learned from instruction:
They were allowed to choose a whole number of different ways of showing
to me that they’ve learned, what I need them to learn whether it’s a play, a
skit or whatever and it gives a lot more of the range of opportunities for them
to demonstrate knowledge rather than a formal paper, pencil test. Then again
I sometimes have to remember that ultimately they’re not going to get
assessed like that in ways that will affect their future so I have to mix that in
and try to, you know, teach them to…I’m not a good test taker. I never was
and so I don’t like tests but that seems to be a lot, so…so, you know I try to
mix in. So as far as your question goes when it comes to like, you know,
state level testing and stuff I don’t…I try to teach them how to take the tests a
little better but that’s…I don’t think that’s culture though. I think that’s just
feeding that one special group that does well on tests and pressure and time.
My own stuff… think I’m much better with that.

CRP has some level of influence on this teachers’ style of instruction. The teacher
indicates that the process of standardized assessment often interferes with the process
of learning and therefore can sometimes impact how CRP plays a role in instruction.
In addition, considering that assessment expectations are not always in alignment
with what is being taught, how it is being taught, or how it will be tested could also
have an impact on how CRP influences instruction.
The following veteran teacher offers a more global inclusion of how CRP
should be utilized. This teacher states:
I think good teaching should embrace all children and all culture, in all of the
different areas of, you know, religions and ethnic backgrounds. I think good
teaching and good strategies for teaching touches all children, concentrating
on one, just one culture would, I think, could cause a problem.

80
This teacher seems to assume that CRP is specific to only one culture when in fact,
theorists who support CRP argue that this type of assumption is not in alignment
with the instructional tenets of CRP and that good teaching alone is not considered
CRP (Ladson-Billings, 1992; Mitchell, 1998; Takahashi-Breines, 2002; Monkman &
MacGillivray, 2003; Parsons, 2005; Howard, 2000; Lipman, 1996; Senesac, 2002;
Morris, 2004; Foster & Peele, 1999; Powers, 2006; Arce, 2004; Senesac, 2002;
Jesse, 2004). Gay (2000) explicitly defines culturally responsive teaching in the
context of Culturally Responsive Pedagogy as using the cultural knowledge, prior
experiences, and performance styles of diverse students to make learning more
appropriate and effective for them; it teaches to and through the strengths of these
students. It means respecting the cultures and experiences of various groups and then
uses these as resources for teaching and learning.
There were a myriad of perceptions provided regarding how CRP influences
instruction. The following veteran teacher highlights the value of CRP and how it
can influence instruction; however, there is a definitive recognition of how time
affects the way in which CRP is utilized. In addition, there is also an
acknowledgement that the students in the classroom can also have an impact on
CRP. She states:
You know, I think it’s the time you need to make that effort as the teacher. So
it takes a little more creativity, a little more thought…you can’t just open it to
the textbook and follow the pre-determined lesson plan that the textbook is
going to give you. And so it doesn’t necessarily fit into a nice mold. And
you have to change it based on your classroom. And depending on who your
students are, then you adjust it that way. And so, for the teacher, it definitely
is more time consuming, it definitely, and I feel like it’s something that you
need interaction with other teachers to dialogue with. And without that, you

81
feel a little alone and lost in it, so I think your attempts to incorporate it
become fewer, because you’re feeling like, oh wait, okay, I’ll just do this.
And so, without it being valued in terms of time to discuss and plan, it
becomes ineffective.

Finally, this teacher explains that CRP is not only a “valid” instructional
strategy, but that it is “indispensable” and relates its value to a requirement that
teachers must have in order to serve a designated community. She explains:
To me it’s not only a valid teaching strategy, CRP is indispensable. In this
type of a community I would think a teacher would go into teaching here and
not do culturally responsive teaching at their peril. And I think it’s one of the
main reasons we have such a high attrition rate among educators, especially
in this type of an environment.
According to Hollins (1996), the relationship between culture and classroom
instruction is derived from evidence that culture shapes thinking, and thinking serves
as tools for learning within and outside of school. Nieto (2000) supports this position
by adding that culturally responsive education recognizes, respects, and uses
students’ identities and backgrounds as a meaning source for creating optimal
learning environments. The data reflected in the middle school teacher interviews
consistently indicate that CRP does influence instruction and that there is intent to
provide effective instruction that meets the educational need of African American
students, all students. However, factors such as time, testing mandates and a
definitive understanding of what CRP is and how to effectively implement it
amounts to obstacles that affected the level of influence that CRP had on their
instructional practices.

82
Practitioners’ Perceptions of the Influence of CRP on Relationships
In the context of the classroom, culturally appropriate social situations are
intertwined with the relationships among students and between teachers and students.
These relationships are influenced by the culture of each student (McCarty, Lynch,
Wallace, & Benally, 1991).
A report by the ACT (2002) indicates that in the schools African American
students attended: fewer students were on a college preparatory track; fewer students
took advanced placement courses; and the college-going rates were lower that those
in high schools predominately attended by white students. However, the report also
indicates that among African American students, there are three of five school
relational characteristics that had a positive effect on their educational expectations
and post-secondary options: School Personnel Expectations. These three
characteristics exemplify how African American students can benefit from school
relationships.
The teachers of LGSD discussed the relationships they had with African
American students and the students’ relationships with each other. They sometimes
referred to African American students specifically, and other times discussed
teacher-student and student-student relations more generally.
One teacher recalls a specific interaction with students:
CRP creates the relationship with African American students. I remember
having a conversation with my students a long time ago, and this was in the
context of what was called courageous conversation – it was a new group that
was leading us down this path. And I asked them, I remember saying, if I’m
walking down the road, what do you see? And they just said, “A guy.”

83
Some students said a guy. Some students said “a white guy” and I thought
well that’s interesting, because when I view myself and in the way I grew up
race is not a component in my identity. And then I asked an African
American male – a very tall kid. I said, “When you walk down the street,
what do you think people see?” And he goes, “black guy.” And I said,
“Exactly.” I go, “so there’s a racial component there that’s got to be there”
and as soon as the students noticed that I noticed that, it broke down barriers
that were impenetrable before. So then I was able to see the students for a
component of who they are that is – that many white people try to ignore
and say color blindness is the best. And I think the students at that particular
time did not want that. They wanted to know, yes, this is me. This is me
black kid. This is me brown kid.
This teacher points to how this discussion with students afforded the opportunity to
have explicit dialogue about the experiences that students have that affected the
teachers’ perspective.
Another teacher recounts an experience that was currently occurring as a
result of an activity that is taking place during Black History Month. There is not a
direct response pertaining to African American students; however, there is an
acknowledgment indirectly of how this activity lends itself to benefit African
American students as well as all students. This teacher explains:
It’s just so important for us to reach all of our kids, and to make them all feel
valuable, and to give them all a voice within our classroom, and CRP is one
way to do it. For instance in today’s activity, they’re kind of seeing me as
interested in them. And I don’t like to make a lot of separations like that, but
it's the real world and we just do. They may think of me as a white teacher,
and what do I care? And in doing, and engaging in a situation such as today,
researching strictly one group of people even though there’s a mix of people
in the classroom, those particular people in that group, the African
Americans, the black kids may feel a little bit more positive towards the
teaching because hey, I’m addressing them particularly. Tomorrow I may
address somebody else, but by addressing all these different areas, and in
specific African Americans, it just allows one to interact on their basis. It's
their culture we’re talking about learning about, reading about and talking
about, rather than my culture for lack of a better phrase. And I just think it
helps in the interaction and they feel more a part of what I’m doing. And

84
they feel I’m more part of what they’re doing. I think it affects my
relationship with all my students, because that’s how I teach. I would hope
that I’m always, as I said before, involving them, and looking for their
insights and things like that. I have a very good relationship with all of my
students, and I’m hoping that I’m doing that. I think CRP has a positive
effect, just to be more aware.

Wimberly (2002) indicates that it is important for teachers and school
personnel to recognize differences between the school culture and students’ own
ethnic and cultural identities. Students develop trust and respect for their teachers
when their cultural identity is supported in the classroom. Another teacher
emphasizes the influence of CRP on the relation dynamics with African American
students:
I think I have a great relationship with all my students first of all, and I think
that communicating to African American students in particular that I
appreciate where they come from, I appreciate their culture, I appreciate
many of the speeches that African Americans have given, many of the stories
they’ve written, many of the contributions they’ve given to not just English,
but our society as a whole. I think that’s first and foremost that helps with
my relationship with the African American students. And I think that using
CRP in my classroom is something that would come somewhat naturally to
me. I would want to incorporate as much culture as I could in the classroom.

Another middle school teacher also includes gender as a component of
identity:
I think it greatly improves it, and being, I don’t know if this is okay to say,
but being a white female, I feel like that time that was taken to let our
students speak about who they are, share about who they are, incorporate it
into my classroom made it more powerful, and our relationships more power,
because they saw me, not as just a white woman teaching their class, but a
person, and a white woman, who’s listening and involving their lives into
the classroom, and incorporating them into the classroom. So for me, I felt
like, relationships were strengthened and developed because of it.

85
The following teacher also highlights gender and relates it to a direct
comparative relationship of that between African American students and their
mothers:
I’ve gathered from African-American children, their mothers are strong
ladies, and I’m a strong lady, so I have a very good rapport with my children.
They come in really thinking I’m an old witch, but they end up not wanting
to divorce me at the end of the year, and come back many years after and
share their new families and where they’re going in life, and their, they’ve
excelled and exceeded my expectations for them, and I’m so very proud of
them. I work very hard to understand the likes and differences of all kids, but
African-American kids, especially. I have a special little soft place for. And,
we move into a pretty good rapport, pretty easily.

In contrast, some teachers spoke from a more historical perspective. One
teacher acknowledged how CRP influenced the relationship with African American
students and parents that were shaped by their own prior experiences with schooling.
This veteran teacher noted:
I think I don’t have too much problem with African American students, but it
has helped me understand historically… Well historically I always knew
history. Part of-not necessarily the cultural history and the cultural
expectations, not expectations but cultural – the negativity of school, their
negative feelings towards school. So it helps me understand a little bit when
a child has anger, and that maybe isn’t a personal attack. It’s a frustration.
It’s helped me a lot, looking at perspective and saying to myself, sometimes,
when I knew I was going to have a confrontation, let’s look at what their
view might be coming to the meeting. So that helped me a lot of just kind of
looking at the other side and say well you know, this could be a perception or
not. So that – you know, maybe just clarify things.

This veteran teacher explains how the influence of culture potentially impacts
her relationship with students. She indicates that interpreting cultural expectations,
which may include prior negative experiences in the school setting, requires a deeper

86
level of empathy and a willingness to better understanding the students’ point of
view.
Another teacher states:
Specifically I think the more culturally aware you are of the culture you are,
the more you can step outside of your own preconceived idea of what success
means and …it just makes you a little bit more aware of what success looks
like and…and the more I got to know the kids and a little bit about the culture
and relate to them the much…I’m much more flexible with that. It still
drives me nuts in an internal setting, going…because it’s outside of what I’m
comfortable with but I don’t…I think that my letting go of that piece is a
lot…a sizeable, gives kids more chance to be successful because
they’re…you know they’re loud but they’re on track and they’re talking
about what they’re supposed to doing and learning and experiencing and I’m
not trying to force them into a pattern of learning that’s outside of what
they’re comfortable with and I think that because I’m kind of like that, I don’t
know. It’s like the kids, by and large at this school, tend to really get along
with me because they know I’m not cranking on them about behaviors that,
or things that…I’m not picking on them because of they’re not meeting my
ideas. I mean I don’t know if that makes sense. And I think that’s because
they hear me talk about my life that I know…that they know that I’m
interested in what they’re doing and they’ll share their lives with me. I mean
if you look around my room, I mean, one of the things I do is I…the starting
of the year, I mean, I’m all about the things in life that are important to them
and these little things are building blocks, you know, facets of their life that
matter to them, that make them who they are and that’s what I do.

This teacher identifies the relational interactions with students who appear to
benefit from the relationship. However, she also presents concern that the
relationship is helpful for improving behaviors and may or may not have an impact
on academic performance. The teacher explains:
I love the diversity in the classroom and I do a lot to learn about the kids’
backgrounds whether it’s African American or what, and they know that, I
mean, and I don’t necessarily know if it’s because of the institutionalized
approach of CRP or just my own kind of…my own desire to connect. There
are kids in my class honestly that they may not be succeeding academically,
but I’m pretty sure they know that they belong in here. One of the things, I
don’t get the behavior problems from a lot of kids because of that. There are

87
a lot of kids that I know are getting referrals and things like that in other
classes. It’s hard for some teachers to separate academic success from the
person. And I can separate that out and then try to work at just channeling
the academic success. I don’t have to take a kid and say, you don’t know this
so you’re automatically an F. I get to know them and maybe they’re not
turning in homework. Maybe he’s failing but they know that…that they were
going to give learning experiences and opportunities and I try my best to get
them to succeed.

Many teachers discussed (albeit indirectly) how CRP influenced relationships
with students. For example, the following teacher speaks of positive regard for all
students and how caring for students can influence relationships when diversity is
taken into consideration. The teacher states:
I think, generally speaking, that the key thing that teachers have to remember
to be successful with the kids and to reach all students. They have to think
that you like them and that you have regard for them, and that you care about
them, and that you care about them doing well. And I know that works for
any child. If your students think that you’re cold or that you don’t care about
them, or maybe you only care about certain kids but not other kids, then
you’re going to lose them, and they’re going to have a wasted year. I guess
you could teach at this school and maybe not care about kids, but I don’t
think you’d last too long here. We have a really diverse group of students
here. I think that’s just the key, because they’ll work, if they think you care
about them, they’re much more likely to work for you.

On the other hand, another teacher offers an opinion that doesn’t directly
relate CRP to a connection with students. This veteran teacher indicates:
So I…overall I don’t know how CRP helps me to connect with students but I
have a rewarding relationship with…I’d say, generally, with all groups at the
school. And it…just in terms of…all…that relationship is what allows me to
continue working here. Otherwise it would be really hard and I doubt that I’d
be working here.

Rist (1982) suggest that teachers unconsciously favor those students
perceived to be most like themselves (or some ideal) in race, class, and values.
Culturally relevant teaching (Ladson-Billings, 1994) and CRP means consciously

88
working to develop commonalities with all students. For teachers of African
American students, aligning instruction and relationships that correspond with CRP
while attending to state and federal accountability policies could be useful approach.
However, it is imperative to also have organizational structures and resources that
support, promote, and sustain the use of CRP. The next section will address the
organizational structures and resources required to meet and/or exceed policy-based
accountability standards, while utilizing CRP.

Organizational Structures and Resources
With respect to the findings on organizational structures and resources, the
results will be discussed according to teacher perceptions, school administrator
perceptions and central office administrators (including board member) perceptions.
This has been done to stratify the diversity apparent in the perceptions of how the
districts’ organizational structures exist and how resources are allocated.
Teacher’s Perception of Organizational Structures and Resources
Bolman and Deal (2003) suggest that an organization’s structure represents
its effort to align internal processes with the external environment, while
simultaneously resolving an enduring set of organizational dilemmas. In addition, the
variables that could be considered to be part of external environment were described
as student achievement, equity, closing the achievement gap, teacher/classroom
practices, and parent involvement. However, budgetary constraints were identified as
consistent factor that affected organizational structures and resources.

89
When asked if the LGSD provided structural and fiscal resources to support
CRP, 92% of the respondents indicated “no,” or “I don’t think so.” Although the
teachers provided these responses, several of the veteran teachers who participated in
the Pacific Education Group programs and/or activities indicated that the district
“used to” to provide fiscal resources and structural support for professional
development and training opportunities. One teacher recalls:
No. We used to, but that was again, four or five years ago. I have not see
anything towards it, and now the budget’s like, nothing. I mean, we keep, we
don’t have the resources for even construction paper now, if we wanted to do
something not allowed. So, I don’t feel like our budget is focused in that
direction at all.

Another teacher adds how previous resources were targeted towards the
CARE Program and professional development opportunities while current resources
are geared towards technology. This middle school teacher states:
Currently? I’m afraid that it doesn’t. I feel like our focus, honestly, is
technology, technology and the standards, and like e-pads and technology are
our new little treat of the day. Like CARE seemed to be it for a few years,
for about four years. And then technology, and as soon as technology came
to the picture, plunk, everything else dropped.

There was, however, one teacher who believed that there was some district-
level effort that reflected the intent to provide structural and fiscal support. This
teacher shared:
I think that they try, I think it is an especially tough year to ask that question
because there is no money available for what I need much less for some extra
ideas that are being presented and trying to infuse in a very positive way. I
think they’re trying. I just don’t think the availability is there at the
moment to draw a whole lot of funds.

90
In addition to the inquiry regarding organizational structures and resources, there
was a specific question that asked teachers about district-level support for the
implementation of CRP. From a historical perspective, this veteran teacher offers
the following commentary:
I don’t see CRP, and that’s really a hard thing to say. I see us using
technology in the classroom as our way of bridging the gap. This is what the
district essentially is shooting for, and that we have so many different
backgrounds culturally, academically, financially, …the kids don’t have the
background knowledge and our computer/technological push is to try to close
the background gap. So that is definitely something that we’re doing. Each
one of the kids has their computer and so we’re able to design lessons and
activities on websites that will help all kids to understand a content topic.
And I think that’s really helpful but I think that it’s said more than done and
so those of us that can figure it out will do it and those that don’t won’t. So, I
mean the technology is kind of here, you figure out what to do with it. I think
we are trying to use technology for the digital divide. But there was also a
saying where our superintendent a few years ago said which I think kind of
seems to represent a lot of what happens. He said we’re in the “ready, fire,
aim” mode. And we’re in the “fire” mode, not the “aiming” mode. And I
think we’re doing things that aren’t targeted and that’s hard for me.

Although this teachers’ response indicates a shift from CRP to the current
emphasis on technology and district-level resources, there is recognition that the
purpose and outcome is still the same: addressing the needs of a diverse learning
community. This is further illustrated by the statement pertaining to “the digital
divide,” a term commonly associated with technology skills and abilities often
associated with the achievement gap.
Other than responses that were related to technology, other teachers provided
responses that recognized district-level support for improving writing through
instructional strategies, which could also address closing the achievement gap but

91
were not necessarily tenets of CRP. This middle school teacher references current
professional opportunities that are offered through the district:
The in-services we do are for writing and they’re not specifically addressing
culture though. They’re more general, generic, teaching methodology. I
mean, a lot of times those practices that are mentioned are going to work to
help bring up and close the gap but it’s like a panacea kind of thing. At the
beginning of the year we started with this big push for a big speaker was
somebody who’s an expert in methods that work for GATE. That was kind of
the tag line. That this strategy works for all of our other students. I don’t
think you can do that. It’s got to be targeted. It’s got to be more relevant.

The following teacher acknowledges that there is district-level support; however, it is
not related to CRP. She notes that the district supports collaboration:
Absolutely, absolutely, that’s one thing that our district really, really focuses
on, is making sure that we have set writing standards, you know, this is our
expectations, we have group meetings, you know, once a month, with, you
know, all the social science teachers get together, all the English teachers get
together, math, science, the whole deal, to make sure that our standards, our
expectations and where our students are, is all in the same level, so that we
can make sure that we are progressing together, that we have the same
expectations, that everything is moving forward, while we’re trying to
incorporate all the other standards for our class topics, too.

The teachers interviewed in this study offered perceptions based on previous
and current experiences with the district. According to their responses, there are
currently limited organizational structures and resources to sustain or institutionalize
CRP. However, there were indicators that policy-based accountability expectations
and certain standards-based instructional strategies were being utilized district-wide,
specifically regarding technology.

92
Administrator’s Perception of Organizational Structures and Resources
Educational administrators provide instructional leadership and manage day-
to-day operations in schools (U.S. Department of Labor, 2007). Site-level
administrators could also be considered middle managers. There is a responsibility of
leadership that is fostered at the site-level, while also being held accountable for
results by their immediate supervisor, the Superintendent in this case, as well as the
governing Board of Education. Decisions are often made at the district-level that
site-administrators are given a directive to execute.
The administrators that participated in this study had varying histories as
educators as well as time served in this specific district. The results of the data
analysis authenticated the reality that site administrators are often held
organizationally accountable to pre-existing district-level structures which include
policies and procedures, while fiscally held accountable to district and state level
expenditures and budgetary expectations.
As indicated by the brief responses, several of the interviewees indicated that
resources were allocated under the guise of an “equity budget” which could be used
at the administrator’s discretion. One administrator simply indicated “We’re given an
equity budget to work with.”
Another administrator added a more specific response, “Well yes, when we
talk about monies in furnishing the after school program to address cultural things.”
Other responses recognized the district’s previous commitment to CRP and
inferred that the organizational structures and resources that were provided during

93
that time were allocated to the Pacific Education Group, consultants, and
professional development aligned with the programs objectives. This administrator
noted:
I think from a fiscal perspective, historically the district has put a lot of
money into their efforts. I don’t think there was good evaluation along with
it. I think that’s part of it so that would be the structure piece. Was there
evaluation? Is it making a difference, getting feedback from teachers? Good
teaching is about teaching, assessment, re-teaching, re-assessing right? So I
think at this point we have a new superintendent who, I think, personally and
professionally is truly committed to culturally responsive pedagogy. I’ll say
that quite honestly. I think he truly, in his heart, knows that this is what’s
important and it’s the right thing to do for our kids and our parents and our
community. Do we fiscally now, with the budget crisis and all that kind of
thing have the fiscal means to do it? I think it’s getting tighter and tighter.
Do we have the structure in place to do it? I think we’re struggling to find
what that structure would be. But in terms of the message and the priorities
from our district I know that it is truly important to our superintendent and to
our board.

Another administrator acknowledges the investment made by the district to
support the district-wide initiative of implementing CRP; however, this administrator
adds a critique saying “there is a lot more that needs to be done.” This administrator
explained:
Well that gets back to what I was saying before which is I think the district
did a great job of getting folks some training, some “hello,” wake up, kind of
training. That provided an opportunity for there to be kind of a common
language amongst our staffs which I think is really important. There was the
whole piece of having an Equity Team, of having a Care Team, which was
staff members working together to speak at staff meetings and have
presentations and talk about lessons and demo lessons, and sharing book
clubs around quality readings, those kinds of things. But there’s just a lot
more that needs to be done.

94
Another perspective was provided by an administrator from the other site. In
the context of this specific historical response, the administrator expressed the
following:
When we were with Pacific Educational Group there were –funds were
allocated, so they were released once every two months to come together,
create what they called CARE lessons, and those lessons were critiqued and
then implemented and then assessments were given to see what the results
were. So there were monetary resources. Since we have left or we
discontinued our work with Pacific Educational Group, we haven’t had that
structure, but we do some of that in departments.

This administrator believed there was support for professional development:
Structural and fiscal? Yes and no. Yes we provide funding for teachers who
need to go to training. Yes we provide opportunities for them. Yes there is a
designated meeting for this group or that group to meet. No that doesn’t have
an impact on what’s going on. So it needs to be more and I don’t know, I
guess in my heart I feel like it really is lip service.

The opinions of the site administrators, in contrast to central office
management, which is discussed below, provide another perspective on what
organizational structures and resources are required to meet and/or exceed policy-
based accountability standards while utilizing CRP. The data analyses from the site
level administrators coupled with that of the teachers provide the foundation for the
following section which includes central office personnel and LGSD Board
Members.
Central Office Staff Perceptions of Organizational Structures and Resources
Northhouse (2004) conceptualizes leadership as adaptation and constructive
change which entail the following components: (a) Leadership is a process; (b)
leadership involves influence, (c) leadership occurs within a group context, and (d)

95
leadership involves goal attainment. Schawn and Spady (2002) suggest that Total
Leadership is about creating and sustaining productive change. The type of change
that involves more effective ways of operating and leads to consistently improved
outcomes.
Although site-administrators function in a leadership capacity, typically in
most traditional K-12 public educational institutions, the Superintendent and the
respective governing entity provide the central framework for leadership. The
policies and procedures, along with fiduciary responsibilities, are often made at what
is considered central office. For LGSD, leadership decisions made at central office
are often executed through the leadership of site-administrators. The perceptions that
central office personnel held about the organizational structures required to meet
and/or exceed policy-based accountability standards while utilizing CRP were often
related to historical decisions that provided support for the Pacific Education Group
or Title I funds allocated to the sites. One Board Member states:
Yeah, definitely. Definitely Title I. And that’s – look at the school site
plans. That’s –I think that the school site plans will show you more than
anything else how the different schools all spend money when they get the
choice. You know, because those are – there are a lot of different choices for
what you could do with that money, and every school’s different. But,
discretionary money tells a lot about a district, because everyone’s going to
do what the state tells them to do. It’s how you spend the discretionary
money that really tells you what you are like as a district. And getting people
of color on the school site council has been a priority for this district. And
something that we’ve pushed. I think that makes a difference, too. I’ll tell
you something funny. It’s easier to get non-white parents or community
members to serve on school site council than it is on PTA. And I can’t
explain that but it’s just an interesting fact.

96
The following Board Members acknowledged that Title I funding and grant
resources were being used at the site level for multiple expenditures. Each of them
believed that organizational resources are used to support activities and programs
that include after school programs and volunteer coordinator positions. They both
offer comparable interpretations:
Board Member Number One states:
We have grant money, the Title I money, there’s this after school, but I think
that’s a grant. We’re trying to be aware of preschool and so just if there’s
money and we can use it to enrich our programs we’re trying and so whatever
it is out there if you have some money that want to loan it, no, no, give us,
not loan, because we can’t pay it back, but yes, Title 1 funds, grants and
we’re constantly looking for whatever other funding we can get to enrich our
programs.

Board Member Number Two states:

I believe Title funds are used for like our volunteer coordinator program so,
yeah, I think these are involved in coordinator positions and that’s a
position that needs to be more proactive as far as reaching out. That’s a
person in each school that should reach out to find these volunteers to…to
help with our schools so yes they are being used for that.

There was one Board Member who indicated that funds were used specifically for
standards-based resources that addressed equity issues. However, specific to CRP,
this Board Member said the following:
As a board, we’re addressing equity. But at the same time when we talk about
CRP and actually doing something to provide resources to directly look at
culturally responsive pedagogy, no we don’t. It’s a conversation that happens
at the board when we meet. And here we are again. And one thing I noticed
this year is that last year we had raised the achievement level of some of our
African American students and so that was a wonderful thing. But then our
English language population, our Latino population fell. And so then I
looked at that and I said, we are playing teeter totter with the two groups. So
one year we lift African American students at the cost of the Latino. Next
year, we lift the Latino students and we already know who’s going to go

97
down. I mean just looking at that, something is so wrong. Something is so
wrong, something is terribly wrong.

This central office leader describes how resources are currently spent in
relation to instructional materials and training support for staff. In addition, the funds
that were reallocated at the conclusion of the work with The Pacific Education
Group, which is now considered the “Equity Budget,” are also highlighted here:
When things come up that have to do with culturally relevant materials,
books, or culturally relevant workshops, I want those teachers to go.
Training, that’s where the money is being spent, money to buy books. Funds
went to the schools to purchase materials. Materials, workshops, and training
that are relevant. Right now, what we did when we stopped our contract with
Pacific Ed. Group, just because it was a big chunk of money, and had been in
the budget, and rather than eliminate it, we didn’t, we certainly didn’t want to
say, this no longer has a money value. What we did was we took the money
and distributed to school sites based on their population, and we called the
account equity. So the individual schools can access that money to buy
collections for their libraries of more culturally relevant books, to send staff
to training, whether it’s on culturally relevant pedagogy or whatever.

Professional Development
Board Members also described historical and current support of teachers
through professional development, in-servicing, and site-level accountability for
addressing the achievement gap, equity, and policy-based accountability. For
example this Board Member provides an overview of how organizational structures
and resources for staff development over the last ten years have been inclusive of
technology and CRP:
Well we have them all go through training and some of them really didn’t
think that they needed to, but they did it. Just like computer training. They
all did it. We have them all go – it’s staff development for everything we’ve
done. There are two things that I would say are very innovative that we’ve
been pushing while I’ve been on the board. One of them is the technology.
The technology piece and staff development. The other one is culturally

98
responsive education. This whole focus on bridging the achievement gap.
And we, you know, we’ve been pushing. We’ve been bold. Really proud of
ourselves. And once again, staff development. Absolutely critical element
and you can see how both of those initiatives have progressed in the last 10
years.

This central office leader adds an account of how organizational structures and
resources are disbursed:
There are three types of resources that we probably use here. Number one,
indeed was the district has a history of contributing to the training or to the
knowledge base, and hopefully the awareness level of the teachers. The
district has invested a certain amount of money, you know, I mean, it was a
lot of money over five years by the time we got subs, because release time,
you know, some of the training is just expensive just because you’ve got to
release people to be trained. So I mean, there’s been a real fiscal
commitment to the work. And continuous with one of the budget lines,
although now we’re in a budget freeze. And finally, I think the, you know,
the assistant superintendent of instructional services is constantly speaking to
this issue in principal meetings, instructional team meetings, management
meetings, back to school events, to the entire staff, he did a beautiful
introduction back in August when the staff returned. There’s constant
attention to it, we brought in, as a district, Norma LeMoine, and had her
spend an entire day with the entire staff, including classified. We keep
making it one of the main things. Our big events are indeed easily described
by the culture they represent.

Thus far, the responses of central office personnel, Board Members, and site-
level administrators, indicate an attempt to align organizational structures and
resources to improve student achievement. There appears to be some level of
consistency amongst district-level personnel that existing organizational structures
and resources are in place to build capacity and support district-wide professional
development. Although these efforts are apparent, there is little evidence that
indicates that there are targeted strategies that link organizational structures and

99
resources to CRP. However, there was a moderate level of evidence that suggests a
collective emphasis on equity and addressing the achievement gap.
It was often expressed that providing training in this domain would address
the district’s attention to closing the achievement gap and promoting equity. This
veteran Board Member notes:
Well we, in the past have brought in trainers that have worked to broaden all
of our teachers and administrator’s understanding of cultural relations and
relative to…relativity to education so it’s a program that’s not as active as it
is right now but you know it’s, again, a goal this year that we want to utilize
what funds we have available to send people to seminars, to bring people in,
teachers, trainers, leaders to help us work through these processes.

In addition, resources were often defined through Title I funding and/or the “Equity
Budget” where decisions about how these funds were distributed are allocated was
decided by the site administrators and/or the Superintendent. The following Board
Member highlights the inclusion of the site administrators who receive direction
from the Superintendent. This Board Member indicates:
Well, again, our principals are part of the cabinet and they get their direction
from the superintendent and so the superintendent always makes sure that
culturally relevant teaching is part of the school goals and that is how the
teachers get their direction, that we are going to be mindful and every now
and then, you know, you’ll have a teacher say something, you know, and you
can see it’s on their mind and I’m like, okay. So they’ll say something and
they’re being aware of what’s going on, so that’s appreciated.

Another Board Member adds insight:

We do allocate the monies to each school site. I think it’s about seventy-five
hundred dollars, each school site, and that is the money that we once upon a
time used to hire Mr. Glen Singleton to provide the training. Since we don’t
contract with him any longer we give each school site money to address that.
But it is at the discretion of each administrator and that is never…that is
never looked at from the district or the board as to what did…how did you

100
use that money and what were the effects of that money in the classroom or
for the children who you…that money is targeted for.

Lastly, one of the Board Members provides a perception that is reflective of
an expectation of consistency. Although there were similarities as well as differences
in perceptions, the desire for consistency in site level practices was evident
throughout the data. The Board Member articulates how this expectation is supported
through site administrators:
That is – that’s handled a lot through on site administrators. This is
differentiated instruction in my eyes. You know? And it’s our job to make
sure that everybody’s doing the same thing. You know? It has to be
consistent, not just in each school site, but across the district. I want to be
able to walk into a 3
rd
grade class at Mt. Vernon and then go to a 3
rd
grade
class at San Miguel and see the same thing going on. And if not, then we’ll
have a conversation to find out what we can do to make that happen.

The importance of equity and addressing the achievement gap is apparent at the
district level. Central office personnel, Board Members, and site-level administrators
all offered varied perceptions about the organizational structures and resources that
are directly connected to addressing policy-based accountability expectations while
serving a diverse learning community.
Although there was some level of consistency about how these structures
function and how resources are allocated, no definitive organizational structures
aligned with resources existed primarily for addressing accountability expectations
while utilizing Culturally Responsive Pedagogy that could ensure achievement
specifically for African American students.

101
From a historical perspective, the data produced by central office personnel
demonstrated intent to address achievement disparities through organizational
structures and resources district-wide. However, organizational structures and
resources that were initially aligned with the five-year district-wide initiative to
implement CRP produced few concrete outcomes. Currently, the data produced from
this group indicates a need to reassess and explicitly define how organizational
structures and resources will be aligned with district initiatives to address equity and
student achievement.

Conclusion

Chapter 4 provides an analysis and interpretation of the data collected in this
study. This chapter represents an exploration and analysis of a district-wide initiative
to institutionalize Culturally Responsive Pedagogy as reported by teachers, site-
administrators, central office personnel administrators, and current school board
members of the Lemon Grove School District. The over-arching research questions
focused on how educators use Culturally Responsive Pedagogy to teach African-
American students, while still attending to state and federal accountability policies.
Through the process of data collection and analysis, categorical themes emerged,
were extrapolated and subsequently linked to the sub questions developed for this
study. These three sub questions included related to specifically to African American
students included the practitioners’ perceptions of Culturally Responsive Pedagogy,
the influence of CRP on the practitioners’ instruction and relationships and finally,

102
what organizational structures and resources are required to meet and/or exceed
policy-based accountability standards, while utilizing CRP. The thematic under-
pinnings within each sub question represented the data most relevant to the research
questions and were identified here in Chapter 4.
There were a myriad of perceptions about defining CRP, how it was
implemented, its’ level of effectiveness and how it is currently utilized as a strategy
district-wide. A distinct difference in perceptions was consistently among staff
members who were employed before or during the five-year district-wide initiative
and those who were employed afterwards. This discrepancy could also be
represented in the organizational changes that took place due to a change in district-
level leadership as well as changes on the school board. Although there was little
consistency amongst the educators about how to define CRP and how it meets and/or
exceeds policy-based accountability standards when serving African-American
students, there was a consistent recognition of achievement disparities within the
district and the intent to promote equity district-wide.
Through interpreting the data produced by the teachers and administrators at
both middle schools, as well as personnel from central office, to include the LGSD
Board Members, it became apparent that CRP when defined collectively could be a
useful approach when serving African American students The data indicated that
although the definition of CRP was not cohesive there did exist a common
understanding that “CRP” should influence the instruction of practitioners and
provide the understanding necessary to build and nourish relationships. The data

103
reflected in the middle school teacher interviews consistently indicate that
demonstrating care and concern for all students is beneficial and created the
opportunities for instruction of flourish. However, there were several perceptions
that indicated that CRP does influence instruction and relationships, but that this
approach on an individualized level does produce large scale results, school-wide,
nor district-wide. Also, the majority of teachers and site-administrators perceived
factors such as time, testing mandates and other site-level responsibilities often
created obstacles to implementing CRP effectively. Also, the data indicated that the
organizational structures and resources required to institutionalize CRP at one time
were in place, however, no longer existed.
According to data produced by the teacher interviews there are limited
organizational structures and resources where CRP has been institutionalized and/or
sustained. Veteran teachers indicated the Beyond Diversity/CARE Team professional
development as a valuable resource to address race-related matters through
Courageous Conversations and discussions geared towards eliminating the
achievement gap. However, most of the teachers present during this five-year period
perceived a lack of strategic planning and action that was often considered “the next
level” of professional development that would provide teachers with practical skills
to use in the classroom. Also, the newer teachers often indicated a lack of training
regarding CRP and that most organizational structures and resources were either
limited or non-existent.

104
While the data produced by the site-administrators emphasized the need to
address the African American student group, there was a global perception for
addressing equity and access through technology. In addition, several of the
administrators expressed a limited ability to target the use of CRP under the
assumption that there must be district-wide support in order for it to be effective at
the site-level. There was a pervasive concern about whether or not resources would
be available due to budget cuts and how the “pressures” of NCLB left little time to
implement CRP at the site level. Also, there were indicators that policy-based
accountability expectations and standards-based instructional strategies were the key
foci for each of the sites included in the study. To conclude, all of the administrators
consensually supported the district-wide initiative to focus on equity and eliminating
the achievement gap, while taking all students’ needs into consideration.
Finally, the data produced by central office personnel consistently identified
equity and eliminating the achievement disparities as the primary focus in the
district. Although organizational structures and resources were initially aligned with
the five-year district-wide initiative to implement CRP, current central office staff
personnel believed that there were few concrete outcomes as a result of this
initiative. Currently, the data produced from this group indicates a consistent need to
address student achievement data and reassess how organizational structures and
resources should be in alignment with what all students need. Although the district
aspired to use CRP for this purpose, they fell short of reaching their goal

105
In summation, how to use Culturally Responsive Pedagogical practices for
addressing the academic achievement of African-American students while still
attending to state and federal accountability policies is significant and offers far-
reaching implications for teachers, administrators, and district-level personnel.
Chapter 5 provides a summary of and implications for the findings outlined in this
study.

106
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS OF FINDINGS
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to identify, at the school level, those Culturally
Responsive Pedagogical practices for improving academic achievement of African-
American students. The findings presented in this study offer insight and valuable
information regarding practitioners’ perceptions of CRP and how it can be used to
teach African American students while still attending to state and federal
accountability policies.
The exploration of how practitioners from two schools implemented CRP in
an effort to execute a district-wide initiative to address performance disparities,
equity concerns, and close the achievement gap. The method of data collection
included site level interviews with teachers and administrators. In addition, central
office personnel members that also included Board Members were interviewed as
well.
One of the meaningful conclusions drawn from the study was that all the
practitioners acknowledged a need for accountability and presented an awareness of
the need to address the achievement gap. In addition, there were varied perspectives
as to how to address both of these areas due to the time required for each. Another
conclusion that emerged in the data was that the practitioners who received the
training perceived the training as useful, however, the progression towards an
instructional focus on achievement versus race-based “courageous conversations”

107
affected professional relationships and morale. Lastly, there were perceived
organizational discrepancies between and amongst practitioners as to how to define
CRP, the level in which is was implement, how it was evaluated before it was
eliminated, and what structures and finally, what supportive structures and resources
existed within the district to address the achievement gap. In conclusion, the
practitioners of LGSD indicated a desire to contribute to systemically addressing the
needs of their diverse learning community, whether through differentiated
instruction, CRP, or needs-based instruction, all within the context of meeting and/or
exceeding the requirements of policy-based accountability expectations.
Ultimately, this information from this study will be used to design a
promising Culturally Responsive Pedagogical framework, which can be used to
answer the presenting research question, “How do educators use Culturally
Responsive Pedagogy to teach African-American students, while still attending to
state and federal accountability policies?”

Connections to Prior Research
The findings from this study will be connected to the existing literature on
policy-based accountability and Culturally Responsive Pedagogy in relationship to
African American student achievement. The Literature Review detailed in Chapter
Two examined research in the following areas: An Analysis of School Reform and
Equity-Based Educational Policies and Laws, Defining Culturally Responsive
Pedagogy (CRP), Understanding the Impact of CRP on Instruction and

108
Relationships, and finally, the Organizational Structures and Resources required for
effective institutionalization. In summary, through a careful analysis, I will discuss
the relationships of these areas of research with that which emerged as the findings
from my study.
An Analysis of School Reform and Policy-Based Accountability
An Analysis of School Reform and Equity-Based Educational Policies
subsection of the literature review provided the historical origins of the school
reform movement in America and defined the fundamental accountability structure
that currently supports federal and state level educational policy. The research
presented in this section of the literature review provided the basis for how the
evolutionary dynamics of school reform created the foundation for current policy-
based accountability. The “performance gap” between federal and state policies and
the execution of local level implementation presents a difficult task for stakeholders
in public education as achievement disparities persist. The fundamental challenges
entailed in actualizing school reform and policy-based accountability to address
achievement disparities is consistent with those from this study, where a pervasive
theme was the challenges associated with transforming a policy into practice.
The previous Superintendent of the Lemon Grove School District (LGSD)
progressively approved a district-wide initiative to institutionalize CRP as a strategy
to support No Child Left Behind (NCLB) expectations, address the achievement gap
as identified by student group data, and promote equity in all schools within the
LGSD.

109
The findings in this study, revealed that, after five years of implementation
efforts, there were inconsistent definitions for CRP, a myriad of perceptions about
how it was implemented, its direct affect on students in the classroom and finally,
varied perceptions on the achievement results of attempting to institutionalize CRP.
The alignment of Culturally Responsive Pedagogy (CRP) with policy-based
accountability was considered a possible tactic that would offer solutions to
improving student achievement in LGSD. According to the practitioners of LGSD,
challenges associated with aligning policy and practice included a “perception and
performance gap” between those who design policy (central office staff), those who
direct the implementation of policy (site-administrators), and those who actually
implement the policy (teachers).
According to Elmore (2003), a fundamental design problem with current, and
perhaps even previous accountability systems, is the lack of correspondence between
the expectations for improvement and effectively improving schools. Examples of
landmark policies that have helped to shape public education include; Brown vs.
Board of Education, The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA),
Improving America’s School Act (Goals 2000), and No Child Left Behind (NCLB).
These legislative mandates, all of which are considered to be renowned policy
initiatives, reflect our nations’ continued attention and effort to improving public
education, considering the lingering achievement, equity and performance
disparities. However, the discrepancies identified by researchers and corroborated
by the findings from this study indicate the difficulties associated with the

110
implementation of mandated policies, which although intended, does not guarantee
equity-based access to public education or student achievement performance gains.
The issue of educational equity and the discrepancy of performance between
African-American students and their Caucasian counter-parts persist as a nation-wide
issue, despite these historical policy-based initiatives designed to address and
eliminate the achievement gap. CRP is a pedagogical approach that perhaps when
aligned with policy-based accountability expectations could potentially increase
student achievement, promote equity, and eliminate performance disparities.
Defining Culturally Responsive Pedagogy

As defined by the National Center for Culturally Responsive Educational
Systems (NCCREST, 2006), Culturally Responsive Pedagogy is comprised of three
dimensions: (a) institutional, (b) personal, (c) instructional. The institutional
dimension reflects the administration and its’ policies and values. The personal
dimension refers to the cognitive and emotional process teachers must engage in to
become culturally responsive. The instructional dimension includes materials,
strategies, and activities that form the basis instruction. In addition, CRP requires a
focus on multiple areas that must include the following in order to be effective; (a)
Curriculum, (b) Learning styles, (c) Discourse patterns, (d) Relationships, (e)
Examination of equity: the beliefs and practices of teachers, administration, schools,
districts, parents, and community (NCCREST, 2007).
Lastly, another key construct of CRP is that pedagogically, it is inclusive of
all factors considered to be “good teaching;” however, it also takes into consideration

111
the learner’s background while building on and affirming their cultural identity
(Ladson-Billings, 1992).
According to the research detailed in the literature, CRP entails three
fundamental dimensions which rely heavily upon a comprehensive approach in order
to be effective. The institutional dimension provides structural norms and practices
that are also reflected in the policies and organizational values. The personal
dimension warrants that there must be an active engagement in cognitive and
emotional processes that require willingness and perhaps even a paradigm shift in
values and beliefs which potentially affect behavioral outcomes. The instructional
dimension guides an institutions practice in the alignment of resources to acquire
materials, develop strategies and participate in activities. If the definition of CRP is
not consistent in each dimension, it becomes evident in practice and achievement
outcomes.
The practitioners of LGSD were proponents of institutionalizing CRP
district-wide and according to the findings, attempts were made to provide the
structural and organizational framework (institutional) as a district through
professional development (personal), and an array of curricular resources
(instructional) where for five years, fiscal allocations were geared towards this
process. The results of the data indicated that at each level, the practitioners, which
included teachers, administrators, and Central Office/Board Members, this initiative
to implement CRP was deliberate at every level in the district with the intent of
addressing equity, student performance, and closing the achievement gap. This to

112
implement CRP also included a focus on improving the achievement of African
American students.
The theoretical expectations of CRP as identified by the researchers require
that the leadership within the institutional setting define the policies and values that
support the effective implementation of CRP. Although practitioners in LGSD
shared similar generalized ideas about how to define CRP, according to the findings,
there was a consensual acknowledgement that there was a continuum of definitions
within the district of how to define CRP. In addition, practitioners who experienced
Beyond Diversity often presented concerns that this discrepancy in defining CRP
could have potentially affected the way in which CRP was implemented, played a
role in whether or not it was effective, and could be the cause for existing challenges
presented in the findings that aligned CRP in the context of addressing race and
racism.
In LGSD, another pervasive theme was the inconsistent perception of how to
define CRP. In the absence of a cohesive definition of CRP, which include the three
dimensions, the teachers of LGSD often expressed an understanding of how CRP
could be defined, however, there was a persistent concern that the “how to” practice
involved in implementing this pedagogical approach never took place, nor was
consistently defined.
Over the course of the five years that the Pacifica Educational Consultant
Group worked with the teachers of LGSD, all teachers who participated in the
Beyond Diversity Training or participated on the site-level CARE Team, expressed a

113
concern that the strategies required to make instructional changes never manifested
in a concrete way through the programs definition of CRP. The administrators who
were present during that time also expressed a concern that there was never an
organized structure presented district-wide to develop an understanding of how to
define CRP and/or how to translate that definition into action that would have a
direct affect upon instruction. The Board Members who voted to institutionalize CRP
district-wide also acknowledged a concern that after five years of implementation,
the expected results was not evident in recent achievement data. This was often
attributed to the way that CRP was defined through the context of race, which is
inconsistent with the myriad of definitions outlined by the researchers.
Gay states that (p. 13) that “good intentions and awareness are not enough to
bring about the changes needed in educational programs and procedures to prevent
academic inequities among diverse students.” As evidenced in the research,
Culturally Responsive Pedagogy requires a common definition within each of the
three dimensions. The research maintains that in order for CRP to have an effect on
student achievement and adhere to policy-based accountability expectations, there
must be a consistent institutional definition for CRP. This is considered necessary in
order to connect the personal and instructional dimensions so that there is continuity
with implementation and practice.
The findings from the study consistently link that which is evident in the
research where it is essential to utilize the three dimensions when defining CRP to
effectively implement it in order for there to be a direct impact on achievement. This

114
requires an explicit definition of CRP, how it will be implemented and a way where
outcomes are evaluated, reviewed, and measured. As evidenced by the research and
emphasized by the practitioners, aligning CRP with policy-based accountability
becomes more challenging when the definition of CRP is inconsistent amongst
practitioners.
Understanding the Impact of CRP on Instruction and Relationships
According to the way NCCRESTT (2006) defines the CRP all three
dimensions significantly interact with the teaching and learning process and are
become critical in the understanding of how CRP can be effective. However, the two
most relevant dimensions for teachers include the personal and instructional
dimensions. A consistent theme emerged in the findings that indicated that all of the
practitioners believed that demonstrating CRP in instruction and through
relationships was the way to address achievement and accountability expectations.
Further stated, the teachers specifically expressed the importance of differentiated
instruction and how it directly impacts student achievement. The findings presented
also indicated that the teachers believed that “good teaching” was effective for all
students. This approach was often considered a tenant of CRP and was perceived as a
pedagogical approach to address the needs of all students, not just African American
students.
In addition, most of the teachers conveyed that their relationship with all
students was important and that all students needed to feel as if the teacher(s) cared.
However, specific to African American students, there was an open acknowledgment

115
by several teachers who identified themselves as “white teachers” believed that
effective CRP (according to their definition) did in fact affect the way in which they
provided instruction, as well as how they related to their students (and parents).
The research (Brophy, 983), (Cooper & Tom,1984), (Cotton, 1989), (Good &
Brophy, 1984), (Marshall & Weinstein, 1984), (Patriarca, 1986), and (Woolfolk,
1985) indicates that there is a consistent emphasis on how to capitalize on the type of
knowledge that children arrive to school with and is theoretically characterized by a)
high teacher expectations, b) high teacher efficacy, c) and caring relationships that
are reciprocal between teacher and students and among students as well. In addition,
the teacher’s ability to be culturally competent and interpret the students’
experiences between home and school can affect the delivery of instruction as well
as the quality of relationship between student and teacher, both of which have an
impact on student achievement.
McLeod (1996) indicates that children who are exposed to one cultural
system at home and encounter another system at school face unique challenges. The
challenges occur when differences in beliefs, values and practices are handled with
respect, children can then benefit from learning the new cultural systems while
honoring their "home" system. But unfortunately, and quite often children encounter
situations that cause them to internalize the status differences between the home and
school cultures and that which is communicated by caregivers (home) and teachers
(school). According to the teachers who directly answered the question specific to
African American students, it was consistently expressed that if the culture and/or

116
language of students is not valued and connections between both cultures of home
and school are not emphasized and strengthened, students tend to disengage and lose
interest in their classes and with school.
Collectively, the administrators of LGSD emphasized the importance of
improving the quality of instruction with consistency, while building stronger
relationships with students and parents. The administrators also presented a
consistent concern that the parental involvement was lacking. Each of the five
administrators provided strategies that they were attempting to improve outreach
efforts to build parent engagement, while also providing school-wide culturally
specific activities with the hopes of strengthening relationships with students. All of
the administrators indicated that a strong home-school relationship that valued the
cultures of students was beneficial to the teaching and learning process.
Historically, some schools have often ignored or did not have the capacity to
invest in the strengths of diverse and multi-cultural students, and parents. However,
the research corroborated the influence that CRP can have on instruction and
relationships when there is a consistent and functional definition of what is and how
it is consistently practiced. The exclusion of cultural contributions and attributes
from alignment with accountability expectations can be a factor that affects
achievement and again leads to the greater question of how, if effectively
implemented, CRP could impact student achievement, more specifically, that of
African-American students.

117
According to the findings in this study, the influence of CRP does have an
affect instructional practices and relationships with students. Consequently, there are
still important questions that need to be answered as to how the influence of CRP can
be consistently demonstrated in the classroom through instruction and relationships
with all students by all teachers in the school-setting. In order to establish this level
of consistency, as evidenced by the literature, organizational structures and resources
must exist at the site and district level.
Organizational Structures and Resources
It was critical to gain further knowledge and information about the
organizational structures and resources utilized by LGSD to implement CRP. It was
also vital to gain understanding of how the practitioners of LGSD, viewed these
structures and resources and if a “perception and performance gap” existed between
those who are ultimately responsible for district-level operations and fiduciary
responsibilities (central office staff), those who are directed to lead site level
operations and fiduciary responsibilities (site-administrators), and those who actually
provide the services and programs deemed priorities for the district (teachers).
Sachdeva (1990) further indicates that the structure of an organization
includes institutional arrangements and mechanisms for mobilizing human, physical,
financial, and information resources at all levels of the system. Leavitt (1962) posits
that the concept of an organization is a particular pattern of structure, people, tasks
and techniques. Using these definitions as the context for interpreting the data
collected in LGSD, the organizational structure for implementing CRP, were not

118
explicitly defined, nor was a clearly established structure for implementation
developed in order to meet the intended outcome of improving student achievement.
Also, there was a consistent pattern in the responses of all participants that indicated
that when the institutionalization of CRP was being implemented, the primary
resource was the financial investment in the consultation services for “Beyond
Diversity.” In addition, there was also the collective perception that fiscal resources
had been exhausted on the implementation of CRP and that few resources currently
exist.
According to the responses of the teachers, including those who were present
during the implementation years, there appeared to be good intention and an
expectation for district-wide change; however, limited organizational structures
existed. to sustain or institutionalize CRP. In addition, teachers expressed frustration
with the shifting initiatives, which each teacher indicated, was a genuine effort to
address achievement disparities. Several of those district-wide initiatives included
increased technology, differential instruction, and improved writing strategies. The
teachers of LGSD also indicated that although fiscal resources were available during
the implementation phase for CRP and that currently there were little to no resources
that supported CRP.
The site administrators also shared similar perceptions of the organizational
structures where access to professional development and training were considered to
be organizational structures. Some of the administrators also believed that
historically, the work with the Pacific Educational Group was the primary structure

119
for implementing CRP and that fiscal resources were deliberately aligned for this
initiative. Lastly, the administrators of LGSD indicated that an “equity budget” of
$7,500.00 currently exists for implementing CRP related activities and is allocated at
the administrators’ discretion.
Central office administrators and Board Members consensually
acknowledged the responsibility of developing policies and procedures, while
aligning fiscal resources with intended district-wide objectives. For the central
office leaders of LGSD, organizational structures were often related to historical
decisions that provided fiscal support for the Pacific Education Group. And although
professional development and training were considered to be primary district
initiatives, little evidence was provided to identify organizational structures.
However, there was a persistent theme of effort and intent to identify and address
equity and achievement disparities.
The data produced from this group highlight the efforts initially aligned with
the five-year district-wide initiative to implement CRP, however, according to
central office administration district-wide few outcomes resulted from this
investment. There was no consistent evidence that explicitly defined organizational
structures for implementing CRP currently or historically in LGSD. Historically,
according to several artifacts, there are LGSD Board Meeting Minutes that simply
indicate the Board’s approval of securing the services of the Pacific Education
Group. Lastly, there was complete agreement that the primary resource for any

120
culturally related activities or events was to be afforded through the use of each sites
“equity budget.”

Implications for Future Research
Overall, when CRP is concretely defined within an institutional setting with
corresponding organizational structures, it creates a climate where the school
environment and the classrooms in it have institutionalized practices, beliefs, and
expectations, that affirm, recognize, and value the cultural experience, heritage,
background and reality of each and every student. In the absence of a collective
definition, desired outcomes and results are not often evident.
While this study presented valuable role specific insight, future research is
required to deepen the understanding of how to implement Culturally Responsive
Pedagogy in alignment with policy-based accountability to influence the
achievement of African-American students in urban schools. Currently, there is no
existing systemic framework that identifies a structure to bridge policy and the
practice of CRP. Listed below are several suggestions for future areas of research to
develop a comprehensive model of effective and intentional CRP tactics to ensure
achievement for African-American students in urban cultures while still attending to
state and federal accountability policies:
Analyzing the perceptions of role specific practitioners who were involved in
the district-wide initiative to institutionalize CRP.

121
Analyze the perceptions of parents who were/are involved in the PASS
Committee.
Analyze the perceptions of African American students who were enrolled in
LGSD during the time of district-wide implementation. Investigation of
student engagement, teacher-student relationships, student awareness of
achievement performance, and an assessment of what students believed they
learned could prove useful to this study.
A review of district-wide initiatives, expected outcomes and resources
utilized to implement initiatives. Are all policy-based initiatives meeting
expected outcomes or sustaining results?
Evaluate organizational and institutional definitions, norms, and practices.
Investigate how areas such as leadership, culture, professional development,
and CRP are defined and practiced.
Comparative data analysis of African American students who were enrolled
in LGSD during the time of implementation and those who are currently
enrolled, as measured by standardized assessment scores and district-
developed assessment instruments.

Implications for Policy and Strategic Practice
Based upon the findings of this study and it’s alignment with prior research
on policy-based accountability and Culturally Responsive Pedagogy districts and

122
schools who are attempting to bridge policy, practice and increase achievement with
African American students should consider the following:

Central Office Practitioners. All Central Office Practitioners are and should be
responsible for the deliberate and strategic planning of addressing student
achievement disparities. In order to promote institutional change, it is recommended
that Central Office Personnel begin with a modified version of the Diversity Score.
The Diversity Scorecard, which is primarily used in higher education, is a process to
identify and address institutionalized inequities with the supporting structures that is
intended to create institutionalized change. The Central Office Practitioners would
then be responsible for developing a district-wide action plan, to include all schools,
that was time-specific and included a comprehensive implementation plan that
included all stakeholders and was a reflection of sound budgetary decisions. In this
plan, targeted strategies would include and detailed objectives, an evaluative
component and a monitoring structure developed to assess district and site level
progress.

Administrative Practitioners. Based upon the results of the Central Office action
plan, site-administrators would identify schools that have similar demographics, have
established a model for institutionalizing CRP, and have success with proven
achievement results. With the districts’ support, the site administrators would be

123
responsible for collaborating and building relationships with these effective school
sites.
In addition, the site-administrator will assemble a Leadership Team that will
also be involved in working to develop professional relationships with practitioners
from effective schools. Ultimately, the site administrator and the site Leadership
Team will establish a site-specific action plan with the same components as the
district-level action plan with the intent of building capacity within the school
setting.

Teacher Practitioners. According to the results of the district and site level action
plans, teachers who are not participants on the Leadership Team will work in
collaboration with a team of consulting practitioners who have proven results with
students of the same demographic population to develop teacher specific action
plans. The plans will have non-evaluative teacher development objectives and or
aligned with strategies to improve teacher practice and cultivate cultural competence.
These practitioners should have historical experience and background knowledge in
Culturally Responsive Pedagogy, Policy-Based Accountability, Learning
Organizations, and Leadership Development.

Conclusion
Since the de-segregation of public schools, eliminating achievement
disparities and providing equity in public education has been a priority for well over
fifty years. Also, federal and state mandates have fiscally supported this intent

124
through the evolution of mandated policies, structures for accountability, and reform
initiatives. Although this study offers important information about how an urban
school district attempted to institutionalize CRP while attending to federal and state
accountability polices, with the intent to address achievement disparities, more
research is necessary to address strategies for improving achievement with African
American students.
Overall, the LGSD did not produce sustainable results. However as the only
district in the country to attempt to institutionalize CRP district-wide, commendation
is in order. Also, future district and schools who attempt to do the same could benefit
from understanding the challenges identified by LGSD. Finally, as evidenced by the
practitioners of LGSD, when CRP is concretely defined and practiced within a
fiscally supportive organizational structure, it offers a promising solution to
promoting a climate where the school environment and the classrooms in it have
institutionalized practices, beliefs, and expectations, that affirm, recognize, and value
the cultural experience, heritage, background and reality of every student, which
then, could potentially impact achievement.

125
REFERENCES

Arce, J. (2004). Latino Bilingual Teachers: The Struggle to Sustain an Emancipatory
Pedagogy in Public Schools. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in
Education, 17(2), 227-246.
Banks, J. A., Cookson, P., Gay, G., Hawley, W., Irvine, J.J., Nieto, S., Schofield.
J.W. & Stephan, W.G. (2000). Diversity within unity: Essential principals
for teaching in a multicultural society. Seattle, WA: Center for Multicultural
Education. College of Education, University of Washington.
Bazron, B., Osher, D., & Fleischman, S. (2005). Research Matters: Creating
Culturally Responsive Schools. Educational Leadership, 63(1), 83-84.

Bolman, L, & Deal, T. (2003). Third edition. Reframing Organizations: Artistry
Choice and Leadership. San Francisco.

Brophy, J. (1983). Classroom Organization and Management. The elementary school
journal (Chicago, IL), 83, 265-85.

California State Testing and Reporting Data: Retrieved February 5, 2007 from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/.

Casserly, M. (2006). Council of the Great City Report. Beating the Odds: A City-By-
City Analysis of Student Performance and Achievement Gaps on State
Assessments. Retrieved March 29, 2007
http://www.cgcs.org/pdfs/BTOVI%20Final%2054%20pages.pdf

Clark, R.E. & Estes, F. (2002). Turning Research into Results. Atlanta Georgia
CEP Press. Ch. 2-6.
Cole, R.W. (Ed.). (1995). Educating everybody’s children: Diverse strategies for
diverse learners: What research and practice say about improving
achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Cooper, H.M., & Good, T.L. (1983). Pygmalion Grows Up: Studies In The
Expectation Communication Process. New York: Longman Press, 1983.
Cooper, H.M. & Tom, D.Y.H. (1984)."Teacher Expectation Research: A Review
with Implications for Classroom Instruction." The Elementary School Journal
85, 77-89.

126
Cotton, K. (1989). Expectations and Student Outcomes. Portland, OR: Northwest
Regional Educational Laboratory.
Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed
Methods Approaches (2
nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage
Publications.

Cuban, L. (2007). The Blackboard and the Bottom Line: Why Schools Can’t be
Businesses. Harvard University Press.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2002). The right to learn (pp. 148-176). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Dorn, S. (1998). The Political Legacy of School Accountability Systems. Education
Policy Analysis Archives, 6(1).

Education Trust Report. Retrieved February 5, 2007
http://www2.edtrust.org/EdTrust/ETW/ca+data.htm.

Eldridge, B. & Orosco, M. (2007). Successful educators of culturally and
linguistically diverse students: An overview of the research on culturally
responsive pedagogy. University of Colorado-Boulder, NCCRESt. Retrieved
March 27, 2007 from
http://www.nccrest.org/eventsBeth_Eldridge.ppt.#2781.

Elmore, R.F. (2002). Bridging the Gap Between Standards and Achievement.
Washington, D.C.: Albert Shanker Institute.

Elmore, R. F. (2003). A plea for strong practice. Educational Leadership, 62(3), 6-
10.
Espinosa, P. (1986). The Lemon Grove Incident, National PBS Broadcast (San
Diego, Calif.: Espinosa Productions, September 16, 1986). Retrieved March
28, 2007 from
http://www.electriciti.com/~espinosa/productions/lemonpr.htm.
Foster, M. & Peele, T. (1999). Teaching and learning in the contexts of African
American English and culture. Education and Urban Society, 31(2), 177-189.
Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New
York: Teachers College Press.

127
Glatthorn, A., Boschee, F., & Whitehead, B. (2006). Curriculum Leadership:
Development and Implementation. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage
Publications.

Glickman, C., Gordon, S., & Ross, J. (2004). Supervision and Instructional
Leadership: A Developmental Approach, Sixth Edition. Pearson Education,
Inc.

Goertz, M., Duffy, M.C., & LeFloch, K.C. (2001). Assessment and accountability
systems in the 50 states: 1999-2000. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy Research and Education, Series Report
#37.
Good, T.L. & Brophy, J.E. (1984). "Teacher Expectations." Chapter 4 in Looking In
Classrooms. New York: Harper & Row, 93-121.
Hershowitz, E. & Esterbrooks, J. (2001). An Interview with Rudy Castriuita, County
Superintendent of Schools. Leaders on the Move: CA School Leadership
Center.
Hilliard, A.G. III. (1998). “Cultural Pluralism in Education.” In Creating the Future:
Perspectives on Educational Change. Dee Dickerson, Editor. Seattle: New
Horizons for Learning.
Hilliard, A.G. III. (1995). The maroon with us: Selected essays on African American
community socialization. Baltimore, MD: Black Classic Press.
Hollins, E.R. (1996). Culture in School Learning: Revealing the Deep Meaning.
Mahwah, N.J: Erlbaum.
Howard, M.F. (2000). Creating a Culturally Responsive Learning Environment for
African American Students. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 82,
45-53.
Irvine, J. J. & Armento, B. J. (2001). Culturally responsive teaching: Lesson
planning for elementary and middle grades. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Jesse, D., Davis, A., & Pokorny, N. (2004). High Achieving Middle Schools for
Latino Students in Poverty. Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk
(JESPAR), 17(1), 23-45.
King, J. (1990). Being the soul-freeing substance: A legacy of hope in Afro
humanity. Journal of Education, 172(2), 9-27.

128
Ladson-Billings, B. (1992). Reading between the lines and beyond the pages: A
culturally relevant approach to literacy teaching. Theory Into Practice, 31(4),
312-320.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1994a). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African
American children. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1994b). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy.
American Educational Research Journal, 35, 465-491.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995a). But that's just good teaching! The case for culturally
relevant pedagogy. Theory Into Practice, 34(3), 159-165.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995b). Multicultural teacher education: Research, practice,
and policy. In J.A. Banks & C.A.M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of Research on
Multicultural Education (pp. 747-759). New York: Macmillan.
Lemon Grove School District SARC Reports Retrieved February 28, 2007 from
http://www.lemongroveschools1.net/lgsd/site/default.asp.
Linn, R.L. (2001). “Validation of the uses and interpretations of results of state
assessment and accountability systems.” In J. Tindal & T. Haladyna (Eds.).
Large-scale assessment programs for all students: Development,
implementation, and analysis (pp. 27-48). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Lipman, P. (1996). Book Review: The Social Construction of Virtue: The Moral Life
of Schools. George W. Noblit and Van O. Dempsey. Albany: State
University of Press, 225 pp. From Anthropology and Education Quarterly
29:3, September 1998 book reviews.

Ludlow, L.H. & Haley, S.M. (1992). Polytomous Rasch models for behavioral
assessment: The Tufts Assessment of Motor Performance. In Wilson, M.
(ed). Objective Measurement: Theory into Practice. Volume 1. Norwood, NJ:
Ablex Publishing.
Madhubuti, H. (1990). Black Men: Obsolete, single, dangerous? Chicago: Third
World Press.
Marzano, R. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
(ASCD).

129
Massell, D., Kirst, M. & Hoppe, M. (1997). Persistence and Change: Standards-
based Reform in Nine States. Philadelphia Consortium for Research in
Education Policy. University of Pennsylvania.
McCarty, T. L., Lynch, R. H., Wallace, S., & Benally, A. (1991). Classroom inquiry
and Navajo learning styles: A call for reassessment. Anthropology and
Education Quarterly, 22, 42-59.
McKinley, J. (2003). Leveling the Playing Field and Raising African American
Students’Achievement in Twenty-Nine Urban Classrooms. New Horizons for
Learning.

McLaughlin, B. & McLeod, B. (1996). Educating All Our Students: Improving
Education for Children from Linguistically Diverse Backgrounds. National
Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning,
Volume I. University of California, Santa Cruz, June 1996. National
Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition: Washington, D.C.

Meiner, K.J., Stewart, J., & England, R. (1989). Race, Class and Education: The
Politics of Second Generation Discrimination. Madison: University of
Wisconsin Press.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in
education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mitchell, A. (1998). African American Teachers: Unique Roles and Universal
Lessons. Education and Urban Society, 31(1), 104-122.

Monkman, K. & MacGillivray, L. (2003). Literacy on Three Plans: Infusing Social
Justice and Culture into Classroom Instruction. Bilingual Research Journal,
27, 2.

Morris, J.E. (2004). Can Anything Good Come From Nazareth> Race, Class, and
African American Schooling in the Urban South and Midwest. American
Educational Research Journal, 41(1), 69-112.

National Association of Elementary School Principals. (2001). Standards for What
Principals Should Know and Be Able To Do. Alexandria: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.

National Association of State Boards of Education. (1998). Retrieved January 28,
2007 from http://wwwnasbe.org/.

130
National Center for Culturally Responsive Educational Systems. (2007). Briefing
Book: Technical Report. Retrieved March 24, 2007 from
http://www.nccrest.org/federal_reports/briefi.NCCREST.2007

National Center for Culturally Responsive Educational Systems. (2006). Briefing
Book: Technical Report. Retrieved March 24, 2007 from
http://www.nccrest.org/federal_reports/briefi.NCCREST.2004-2006

National Center for Culturally Responsive Educational Systems. (2004). Briefing
Book: Technical Report. Retrieved March 24, 2007 from
http://www.nccrest.org/federal_reports/briefi.NCCREST.2002-2004

National Education Association. (2002). Retrieved February 4, 2007 from
http://www.nea.org/index.html.

Nieto, S. (5th ed., 2008; 4th ed. 2004; 3rd ed., 2000; 2nd ed., 1996, 1st ed., 1992).
An Affirming Diversity: The Sociopolitical Context of Multicultural
Education, New York: Allyn & Bacon Publishers, 4
th
& 5
th
eds.; Longman
Publishers, 1
st
through 3
rd
eds.

Nobles, W. (1985). Afrocentricity and the Black Family: The development of a
theoretical model. Oakland, CA: The Institute for the Advanced Study of
Black Family Life and Culture.

Northouse, P. G. (2004). Leadership: Theory and Practice, 3
rd
ed. Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications, Inc.

Northwest Regional Education Laboratory. (2005). Culturally-Based Education in
Native Communities Report. Center for Research, Evaluation, and
Assessment.

Parsons, E.C., Travis, C., & Simpson, J. (2005). The Black Cultural Ethos, Students’
Instructional Context Preferences, and Student Achievement: An
Examination of Culturally Congruent Science Instruction in the Eighth Grade
Classes of One African American Teacher. The Negro Educational Review.
56(2-3), 183-203.

Patriarca, L.A. (1986). Teacher Expectations and Student Achievement: The Ghost
of Christmas Future. Curriculum Review, 25(5-6), 48-50.

Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods (3
rd
ed., Rev.)
Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

131
Powers, K.M. (2006). An Exploratory Study of Cultural Identity and Culture-Based
Educational Programs for Urban American Indian Students. Urban
Education, 41(1), 20-49. Sage Publications.

Regional Educational Laboratory Program Report. (2002). Northeast and Islands Lab
at Brown University.

Rist, R. (1982). Policy Studies: Review Annual 1982. New Brunswick, New Jersey
Transaction Publishers.

Robinson, J.J., Paccione, A., & Rodriguez, F. (2003). A Place Where People Care: A
Case Study of Recruitment and Retention of Minority-Group Teachers.
Equity and Excellence in Education, 36(3), 202-212.

Rosenthal, R. & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the Classroom. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.

Rueda, R., Manzo, L.D., & Higareda, I. (2004). Appropriating the Socio-culture
Resources of Latino Para-educators for Effective Instruction with Latino
Students: Promise and Problems. Urban Education, 39(1), 52-90.

San Diego City Schools Standards, Assessment and Accountability Reports:
Retrieved February 5, 2007 from http:www.sandi.net/indices/schools.htm.
Schugurensky, D. The Eight Curricula of Multicultural Citizenship Education.
Multicultural Education, 10(1), 2-6, 2002.
Schugurensky, D. (2002). Transformative learning and transformative politics: The
pedagogical dimension of participatory democracy. In Edmund O'Sullivan,
Amish Morrell and Mary Ann O'Connor (Eds.), Expanding the boundaries of
transformative learning: Essays on theory and praxis. New York: Palgrave,
pp. 59-76.
Schwahn, C.J., & Spady, W.G. (2001). Total leaders: Applying the best future-
focused change strategies to education. Lanham, MD: The Scarecrow Press,
Inc.
Senesac, B.K. (2002, Spring). Two-Way Bilingual Immersion: A Portrait of Quality
Schooling. Bilingual Research Journal, 26(1), 85-101.
Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The art and practice of the learning
organization. Doubleday, New York.

132
Shade, B. J., Kelly, C., & Oberg, M. (1997). Creating culturally responsive
classrooms. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Stotsky, S. (1999, Dec.). Is it Really Multicultural Illiteracy? The Education Digest,
65(4), 17-21.
Takahashi-Breines, H. (2002). The Role of Teacher-Talk in a Dual Language
Immersion Third Grade Classroom. Bilingual Research Journal, 26(2), 213-
235.
U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Education in the United States. Federal
Spending Retrieved January 29, 2007 from Report on the ESEA Act for K-12
Education. http://www.us/edu.gov.

U.S. Department of Education. (2003). Institute of Education Services, National
Center for Education Statistics. National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP). Trial Urban Math and Reading Assessment. Retrieved January 28,
2007 from http://www.us/edu.gov.

U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
Retrieved January 28, 2007 from http://www.us/edu.gov.

U.S. Department of Education. (2005). Education in the United States. Retrieved
January 28, 2007 from http://www.us/edu.gov.

U.S. Department of Education. (2005). Institute of Education Services, National
Center for Education Statistics. National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP). Trial Urban Math and Reading Assessment. Retrieved January 28,
2007 from http://www.us/edu.gov.

U.S. Department of Education. (2007). NCLB Report Retrieved December 14, 2007
from http://www.us/edu.gov

U.S. Department of Education. (2008). NCLB Report Retrieved March 1, 2008 from
http://www.us/edu.gov.

U.S. Department of Education Goals. (2000). State and Local Education Systemic
Improvement Report (2001). Retrieved February 2, 2007 from
http://www.us/edu.gov.

U.S. Department of Education Goals. (2000). State and Local Education Systemic
Improvement Report (2001). Retrieved February 2, 2007 from
http://www.ed.gov/G2K/index.html.

133
U.S. Department of Education Report: No Child Left Behind. (2002). Retrieved
February 3, 2007 from http://www.us/edu.gov.

U.S. Department of Education Report: No Child Left Behind. (2007).
Reauthorization Report. Retrieved December 31, 2007 from
http://www.us/edu.gov.

U.S. Department of Education Report: No Child Left Behind. (2007). Retrieved
December 31, 2007 from http://www.us/edu.gov.

U.S. Department of Labor. (2007). Report Retrieved December 3, 2007 from
http://www.us/edu.gov.

U.S. Metric Association Report. (2003). Retrieved January 28, 2007 from
http://www.us/edu.gov.

Walters, R.W. (2003). White Nationalism, Black Interest. Conservative Public
Policy and the Black Community. Detroit: Wayne State Press.
Wang, M. & Walberg, H. (1991). Teaching and educational effectiveness: Research
synthesis and consensus from the field. In K. J. Rehage (Series Ed.) & H. C.
Waxman & H. J. Walberg (Vol. Ed.), Effective teaching: Current research
(pp. 63-80). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing.
Webster’s New World Dictionary, 2
nd
Edition. (1997). New York, NY: Macmillan,
USA.

Weinstein, R.S., Gregory, A. & Strambler, M. (2004). Intractable Self-Fulfilling
Prophecies: Fifty Years after Brown v. Board of Education. American
Psychologist, 59, 511-520.
Weinstein, R.S., & Marshall, H.H. (1984). Ecology of Student Achievement
Expectations. Executive Summary. Berkeley, CA: California University;
Washington, DC: National Institute of Education, 1984.
West Ed Report. (2005). Retrieved January 29, 2007 from
http://www.schoolsmovingup.net/.

Wimberly, G. L. & Noeth, R. J. (2002). Creating seamless educational
Transitions for urban African American and Hispanic students. Iowa City,
IA: ACT.

Woolfolk, A.E. (1985). Research perspectives on classroom communication. Theory
Into Practice, 24, 3-7.

134
Zeichner, K. M. (1996). Educating teachers to close the achievement gap: Issues of
pedagogy, knowledge, and teacher preparation. In B. Williams, (Ed.),
Closing the achievement gap: A vision for changing beliefs and practices
(pp.56-77). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.

135
APPENDIX A
Interview Protocol for Teachers

Research Question:
How do educators use Culturally Responsive Pedagogy to teach African-American
students, while still attending to state and federal accountability policies?
Background Question:

How long have you been a teacher? How long at this school? What
grades/classes do you teach?

Research Sub-Questions 1:

What are practitioners’ perceptions of Culturally Responsive Pedagogy and how it
meets and/or exceeds policy-based accountability standards when serving African-
American students?
Q1 Guiding Questions: Perceptions of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy (CRP)

1. Are you familiar with CRP? What does it mean here?

2. Were you involved in the developing curriculum that has the evidence of
CRP? Did your being involved influence whether you valued the curriculum
or not?

3. Do you use it in your classroom?

4. How do you feel about the concept of using CRP?

PROBE

*What are your impressions of the concept?

* Is it a valid strategy in the classroom? Why or why not?

* Could you share with me details regarding the influence of CRP in your
instruction (if used)? If it has an impact, explain. If it does not, explain.

136
* What are the instructional advantages of using CRP? What are the
disadvantages?

Research Sub-Question 2:
How does Culturally Responsive Pedagogy influence practitioners’ instruction and
relationship with African-American students?
Q2 Guiding Questions: Instructional and Relational affects of CRP with AA students
5. How does the use of CRP affect your ability to teach state standards? Why is
it useful or why not?
PROBE

* Do you view it useful for assessment purposes?

*Are you willing to try the use of CRP in other ways? *If so how?

6. Does CRP help you address the accountability demands of NCLB?

7. How does CRP affect your relationship with African-American students?

Research Sub-Question 3:
What organizational structures and resources are required to meet and/or exceed
policy-based accountability standards, while utilizing Culturally Responsive
Pedagogy that ensures achievement for African American students?
Q3 Guiding Questions: Organizational Structures and Resources for CRP

8. If your superintendent were sitting here with us, what would you tell him/her
regarding the use of CRP in the creation and delivery of curriculum?

9. Does the LGSD provide structural and fiscal resources to support CRP? Are
Title I funds used to support CRP? Are there other funding resources?

10. Have you had training for CRP? Describe.

137
11. How does the district support the use of or implementation of CRP by
teachers?

12. How does the site principal provide resources to implement CRP?
Department Chairs, Grade-Level Leaders? How are they supporting this
instructional strategy?

Final Question: What else could or should be done to improve the achievement
of AA students?

138
APPENDIX B

Interview Protocol for Administrators

Research Question:
How do educators use Culturally Responsive Pedagogy to teach African-American
students, while still attending to state and federal accountability policies?
Background Question:

How long have you been an administrator? How long have you been at this
school? Please describe the history of the school.

Research Sub-Questions 1:

What are practitioners’ perceptions of Culturally Responsive Pedagogy and how it
meets and/or exceeds policy-based accountability standards when serving African-
American students?
Q1 Guiding Questions: Perceptions of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy (CRP)

1. Are you familiar with CRP? Please briefly describe the history of CRP in
LGSD.

2. How is CRP at this site aligned with the district’s overall equity agenda?

3. Please describe the school’s journey in implementing CRP.

4. How do you feel about the concept of using CRP?

PROBE

*What are your impressions of the concept?

* Is it a valid strategy in the classroom? Why or why not?

* Could you share with me details regarding the influence of CRP in your
instructional leadership? If it has an impact, explain. If it does not, explain.

139
* What are the instructional advantages of using CRP? What are the
disadvantages?

Research Sub-Question 2:
How does Culturally Responsive Pedagogy influence practitioners’ instruction and
relationship with African-American students?
Q2 Guiding Questions: Instructional and Relational affects of CRP with AA students
5. How does the use of CRP affect your schools ability to teach and meet state
standards? Why is it useful or why not?
PROBE

* Do you view it useful for assessment purposes?

*Are you willing to try the use of CRP in other ways? * If so how?

6. Does CRP help your school to address the accountability demands of NCLB?

7. How does CRP affect your relationship with African-American students?

Research Sub-Question 3:
What organizational structures and resources are required to meet and/or exceed
policy-based accountability standards, while utilizing Culturally Responsive
Pedagogy that ensures achievement for African American students?
Q3 Guiding Questions: Organizational Structures and Resources for CRP

8. If your superintendent were sitting here with us, what would you tell him/her
regarding the use of CRP in the creation and delivery of curriculum?

9. Does the LGSD provide structural and fiscal resources to support CRP? Are
Title I funds used to support CRP? Are there other funding resources?

10. Have you had training for CRP? Describe.

140
11. How does the district support the use of or implementation of CRP by
teachers?

12. How do you, the site principal provide resources to implement CRP?

Final Question: What else could or should be done to improve the achievement
of AA students?

141
APPENDIX C

Interview Protocol for the Superintendent(s) and Board Member(s)

Central Office Administration

Research Question:
How do educators use Culturally Responsive Pedagogy to teach African-American
students, while still attending to state and federal accountability policies?
Background Question:

How long have you been the Superintendent/Board Member? Please describe the
history of the school district

Research Sub-Questions 1:

What are practitioners’ perceptions of Culturally Responsive Pedagogy and how it
meets and/or exceeds policy-based accountability standards when serving African-
American students?
Q1 Guiding Questions: Perceptions of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy (CRP)

1. Are you familiar with CRP? Please briefly describe the history of CRP in
LGSD.

2. How is CRP aligned with the district’s overall equity agenda?

3. Please describe the school districts’ journey in implementing CRP.

4. How do you feel about the concept of using CRP?

PROBE

*What are your impressions of the concept?

* Is it a valid strategy district-wide? Why or why not?

* Could you share with me details regarding the influence of CRP district-
wide? If it has an impact, explain. If it does not, explain.

142

* What are the instructional advantages of using CRP? What are the
disadvantages?

Research Sub-Question 2:
How does Culturally Responsive Pedagogy influence practitioners’ instruction and
relationship with African-American students?
Q2 Guiding Questions: Instructional and Relational affects of CRP with AA students
5. How does the use of CRP affect the district’s ability to teach and meet state
standards? Why is it useful or why not?
PROBE

* Do you view it useful for assessment purposes?

*Are you willing to try the use of CRP in other ways? *If so how?

6. Does CRP help your district address the accountability demands of NCLB?

7. How does CRP affect the district’s relationship with African-American
students?

Research Sub-Question 3:
What organizational structures and resources are required to meet and/or exceed
policy-based accountability standards, while utilizing Culturally Responsive
Pedagogy that ensures achievement for African American students?
Q3 Guiding Questions: Organizational Structures and Resources for CRP

8. If the superintendent/Board Member (interchange) were sitting here with us,
what would you tell him/her regarding the use of CRP in the creation and
delivery of curriculum?

9. Does the LGSD provide structural and fiscal resources to support CRP? Are
Title I funds used to support CRP? Are there other funding resources?

143

10. Have you had training for CRP? Describe.

11. How does the district support the use of or implementation of CRP by
teachers?

12. How do you, at the district level provide resources to implement CRP?

Final Question: What else could or should be done to improve the achievement
of AA students?

144
APPENDIX D

Lemon Grove School District

Artifact Research Framework

Documented Information Foci
(1998-2005)

Provided

Not
Available
Section A
Fundamental District Level Legislation

1.) Roberto Alvarez vs. Lemon Grove School District (1931)
Section B
District Level Student Data

1.) Student Referral Data
2.) Suspension Data
3.) Special Education: Assessment Referral and Placement Data
Section C
District Level Culturally Specific Information

1.) Culturally Responsive Teaching
2.) Culturally Responsive Pedagogy
3.) Culturally Responsive Instruction
4.) Culturally Relevant Pedagogy
5.) Culturally Relevant Instruction
Section D
District/Site Level Parent/Staff Committees

1.) PASS
2.) ELAC/DLAC
3.) Parents United
Section E
Collaborative Action Research for Equity (CARE)

Implementation Structure: Timeframe
Purpose, Goals, Objectives
Agendas/Minutes
Measurable Outcomes
Documented Results
Assessment Benchmarks
Annual Reports: Monitoring Accountability Expectations
Fiscal/Policy Decisions

Section F
District Equity Committee

Implementation Structure: Timeframe
Purpose, Goals, Objectives
Agendas/Minutes
Measurable Outcomes
Documented Results
Assessment Benchmarks
Annual Reports: Monitoring Accountability Expectations
Fiscal/Policy Decisions

145
Section G
Education for Equity

Implementation Structure: Timeframe
Purpose, Goals, Objectives
Agendas/Minutes
Measurable Outcomes
Documented Results
Assessment Benchmarks
Annual Reports: Monitoring Accountability Expectations
Fiscal/Policy Decisions

Section H
S.D. County Office of Education (CSLA)
Diversity Training

Implementation Structure: Timeframe
Purpose, Goals, Objectives
Measurable Outcomes
Documented Results
Assessment Benchmarks
Annual Reports: Monitoring Accountability Expectations
Fiscal/Policy Decisions

Section I
S.D. County Office of Education (SLC):
Diversity Training

Implementation Structure: Timeframe
Purpose, Goals, Objectives
Agendas/Minutes
Measurable Outcomes
Documented Results
Assessment Benchmarks
Annual Reports: Monitoring Accountability Expectations
Fiscal/Policy Decisions

Section J
Summer Institute: Beyond Diversity Trainings

Implementation Structure: Timeframe
Purpose, Goals, Objectives
Agendas/Minutes
Measurable Outcomes
Documented Results
Assessment Benchmarks
Annual Reports: Monitoring Accountability Expectations
Fiscal/Policy Decisions

Section K
Pacifica (Pacific) Education Group

Implementation Structure: Timeframe
Purpose, Goals, Objectives
Agendas/Minutes
Measurable Outcomes
Documented Results
Assessment Benchmarks
Annual Reports: Monitoring Accountability Expectations
Fiscal/Policy Decisions

146
Section L
Beyond Diversity Consultants
Implementation Structure: Timeframe
Purpose, Goals, Objectives
Agendas/Minutes
Measurable Outcomes
Documented Results
Assessment Benchmarks
Annual Reports: Monitoring Accountability Expectations
Fiscal/Policy Decisions

Section M
Courageous Conversations Training

Implementation Structure: Timeframe
Purpose, Goals, Objectives
Agendas/Minutes
Measurable Outcomes
Documented Results
Assessment Benchmarks
Annual Reports: Monitoring Accountability Expectations
Fiscal/Policy Decisions

Abstract (if available)

Abstract While legislative action and fiscal resources have been utilized to address Equity in public education through policy action nation-wide, school reform, primarily in urban settings continues to produce dismal large-scale results for African American students. Systemically addressing the achievement of African American students continues to persist as a challenging and complex matter. It has become a critical debate as to whether or not the implementation of standards-based reform and/or policy-based accountability in isolation is the appropriate method to improve the achievement of African American students. There is sufficient evidence that indicates that mandated accountability initiatives are not enough to bridge the widening gap of educational access and achievement opportunities for African American students.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The effects of culturally responsive standards based instruction on African American student achievement

PDF

In the implementation of standards-based reform: what is the leadership role of the principal in building school capacity and accountability to sustain student academic growth?

PDF

High school math reform and the role of policy, practice and instructional leadership on math achievement: a case study of White Oak Tree High School

PDF

School accountability and reform in Oregon: effecting system change with Achievement Compacts

PDF

Systemic change and the system leader: a case study of superintendent action to improve student achievement in a large urban school district

PDF

The superintendent and reform: a case study of action by the system leader to improve student achievement in a large urban school district

PDF

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

PDF

Factors including student engagement impacting student achievement in a high performing urban high school district: a case study

PDF

Secondary math reform and the role of policy, practice, and instructional leadership on math achievement

PDF

The reallocation of human resources to improve student achievement in a time of fiscal constraints

PDF

The continuous failure of Continuous Improvement: the challenge of implementing Continuous Improvement in low income schools

PDF

Factors that may lead to an urban high school‘s outperforming status: a case study of an institution‘s achievement in the age of accountability

PDF

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

PDF

Exploring the effects of media on the self-concepts and achievement of African American high school students

PDF

Cross-case analysis of the use of student performance data to increase student achievement in California public schools on the elementary level

PDF

Initiatives implemented by urban high school principals that increase and sustain achievement in algebra for African American students

PDF

The effective implementation of reform strategies, instructional conditions, and best practices to improve student achievement in math: a case study of practices at Land High School

PDF

Equity and access: the under-identification of African American students in gifted programs

PDF

Equitable schooling for African American students: an evaluation study

PDF

The plight of African American males in urban schools: a case study

Asset Metadata

Creator McGlawn, Tameka L. (author)

Core Title Reframing school reform with effective tactics: institutionalizing culturally responsive pedagogy in alignment with policy-based accountability to ensure the achievement of African aAmerican stud...

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 07/15/2008

Defense Date 05/01/2008

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

Tag African American students,culturally responsive instruction,educational policy and practice,effective culturally responsive pedagogical tactics,engaging African American students in public education,equity-based education and policy-based accountability,equity-based leadership and accountability,OAI-PMH Harvest,standards-based reform,student achievement,Urban Education

Language English

Advisor Datnow, Amanda (committee chair), Rousseau, Sylvia G. (committee member), Weber, Shirley (committee member)

Creator Email teekiglawn@yahoo.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m1347

Unique identifier UC1440252

Identifier etd-McGlawn-20080715 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-85453 (legacy record id),usctheses-m1347 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-McGlawn-20080715.pdf

Dmrecord 85453

Document Type Dissertation

Rights McGlawn, Tameka L.

Type texts

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

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu