Does Culturally Responsive Teaching Inherently Operationalize Critical Race Theory?

• In Event: Dispatches From the Field: Five Models of Collaborations for Teacher Agency and Social Justice

Abstract

I analyzed culturally responsive teaching through the lens of CRT because of CRT’s focus on structured inequalities that exist within the U.S. educational system (Burkholder, 2011; Gay, 2010; Ladson-Billings, 1994, 2013; Nieto, 2004; Villegas & Lucas, 2002). As Hayes and Juarez (2012) wrote, “Adopting CRT as a framework for educational equity means that our aim is to expose racism in education and propose radical solutions for addressing it” (p. 6).

The context of this study presented four overlapping layers: 1. The demographics of teachers (White and middle class) has remained stagnant (Fasching-Varner & Seriki, 2012); 2. Students of color comprise the majority of students in the U.S. (NCES, 2017); 3. School curriculum reflects White, middle class culture (Nykiel-Herbert, 2010); and 4. Historically, U.S. public schools have inequitably served the needs of students of color. Culturally responsive teaching has attempted to address these four issues but it is not enough.

I employed narrative inquiry as a means of revealing my lived stories, uncovering how to best tell the stories of my participants, and providing an avenue for their voices to be heard (Atkinson, 2007). Narrative inquiry was a useful methodology to examine CRT as it highlights the fluid and dynamic nature of the work, while aiming to evoke truth and justice.

Three teachers were already identified as culturally responsive by their administrators. Data collection consisted of two interviews with each teacher, one focus group interview, text messages, email exchanges, lesson plans, lesson reflections, anonymous student work, and video recording by the participants. I also collected data through field notes/reflexivity journals, informal conversations before and after recorded interviews, and researcher observation (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000; Kim, 2015).

As a result of their life histories, both personal and professional, all three teachers made conscious decisions to teach in culturally responsive ways. Each teacher’s life history directly informed who they are as teachers. They also demonstrated different culturally responsive classroom practices. Finally, varied experiences with race and racism were embedded within the teachers’ identities.

I drew the following conclusions: 1. Culturally responsive teaching involves making connections to build relationships and extend bridges to the school curriculum; 2. A sociocultural consciousness is necessary to be culturally responsive; 3. Culturally responsive teaching includes an ethic of care; and 4. Culturally responsive teaching incorporates challenging the status quo through curriculum. In addition, interesting tensions arose using a CRT lens which included: 1. Teachers setting boundaries around anti-racist education because of fear; 2. Teachers feeling they lack support for this work in schools; and 3. Recognizing the absence of an explicit focus on race and racism in culturally responsive teaching. Being a culturally responsive teacher and being an anti-racist teacher are not synonymous. Lastly, many teachers are not comfortable talking about race and racism in the classroom because they feel ill-prepared to do so (Abril, 2006; Boyd et al., 2011; Clarkson & Johnstone, 2011; Conrad et al., 2004; Copenhaver, 2001; Kleyn, 2008).

Author

• Graziela Lobato-Creekmur, Education Mosaic LLC