Refusing Deficit Ideology: A “Cultural Funds” Approach to Class Equity in Schools

• In Event: Inclusive Leadership Promoting Social Justice Praxis

Abstract

Even in the face of savage inequities (e.g., in access to licensed teachers, to higher-level pedagogies) and despite deficit chatter painting them as incapable (Sepe & Roza, 2010), low-income families demonstrate incredible resilience (Pogrow, 2009). Still, popular approaches to class equity in schools focus on remedying perceived deficiencies in poor communities rather than on drawing from the rich experiences—the “cultural funds”—of low-income communities. In this paper I report on an analysis of three decades of research on the education of low-income students in the U.S.—a project that led me to argue for a shift from a “deficit” approach to a “resiliency” approach to equitable education.

A resilience paradigm draws on research demonstrating positive adaption despite the adversity with which low-income families contend (Rockwell, 2006). Cooter (2006) found that low-income students’ success is tied directly to teachers’ focus on their and their families’ assets rather than perceived deficits. In order to optimize the resilience approach, teachers and administrators must be willing to recognize students’ home cultures as complex and worthy of respect (Sato & Lensmire, 2009)—a competence that contrasts with deficit ideologies that dominate perceptions of poor people.

Although the last several decades of scholarship on poverty and education includes syntheses of decontextualized “best practices” in high-poverty schools (e.g., Barr & Parrett, 2007), far less attention has been expended examining the assumptions that underlie them. I have attempted to address that void by examining research, not just by vetting best leadership or instructional practices, but also by considering philosophical assumptions underlying them.

I examined more than 150 studies from a several disciplines, ranging from education to medicine, published between 1980 and 2010, focusing on the intersections of poverty and K-12 education. I found that many of the most common assumptions about effective strategies for teaching low-income students (e.g., a focus on direct instruction) actually have proven ineffective in high-poverty schools (Huang, 2009; Luke, 2010); they have little or no effect on intellectual development or likelihood of graduation. I also found that many of the strategies which do bolster these outcomes contradict the “common sense” about poverty and schooling. Those in the purview of school leaders include (a) strong relationships with community resources such as health clinics (Freeman, 2010), (b) willingness to challenge deficit ideology among staff (Ramalho et al, 2010), (c) understanding the realities of poor families outside of school (Li, 2010), (d) access to higher-order curricula (Bottoms & Anthony, 2005), and (e) protection of physical education (Mendoza et al, 2009). Most importantly, these strategies must be implemented with a resilience ideology.

Unfortunately, many efforts by leaders to facilitate class equity remains focused on ineffective strategies, often because they are based on biased assumptions rather than complex understanding. The popular discourse, still driven largely by deficit ideology rather than resilience ideology, despite a supposed commitment to “data-driven decision-making,” generally reflects a lack of awareness of what decades of data and analyses tell us about creating equitable schools.

Author

• Paul Cameron Gorski, George Mason University