1

Running head: CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE TEACHING

Decreasing the Racial Achievement Gap through Culturally Responsive Teaching:

A Policy Proposal

Sharon Hopkins

Central Michigan University

 2

Abstract

Given the decades long debate about how to close the racial achievement gap that exists

between racially and ethnically diverse students and their white counterparts, this policy proposal

examined three solutions to closing that gap: early childhood education, school choice, and

Culturally Responsive Teaching (CRT). An analysis of the major actors involved in each policy

and a literature review was conducted on the effectiveness on all three policies in increasing

student achievement over time. CRT was chosen as most effective. A policy proposal was

recommended that will require school districts to create a plan to ensure the implementation of

Culturally Responsive Teaching practices in all classrooms. Recommendations are made for what

policy instruments should be used when implementing the policy, steps to implementation, and

how to evaluate the effectiveness of the policy.

 3

Statement of the Problem

For decades, the education community and society at large has wrestled with how to close

the racial achievement gap. This gap refers to the large disparity in minority educational

achievement when compared with their white counterparts. This includes standardized test scores,

high school graduation rates, placement in advanced courses, suspension rates, college

matriculation, and post-secondary degrees earned. According to the National Center for

Education Statistics, in 2014, for the first time, the number of minority students (50.5%) educated

in public schools surpassed white students (49.5%). By 2026 it is projected that 55% of all public

school students will be non-white. Despite the changing student demographics in America’s public

schools, a 2014 survey of teachers found that 82% of teachers identify as white. With the growing

number of minority students in America’s schools, it is becoming imperative that more stringent

measures be taken to ensure that all students succeed. This paper will examine several policy

solutions that both political and educational advocates have proposed for closing the achievement

gap. The researcher will weigh the options and provide a policy recommendation.

Policy Research and Politics

History of the Racial Achievement Gap

There has been a disparity in the quality of schools between black and white children long

before the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision. Boozer (1992), explains that

between 1890 and 1910 the quality of schools attended by black students declined relative to

those attended by white students, as judged by expenditures per student, average class size, and

the length of the school term. Fifty years later, Congress commissioned the Equality of

Educational Opportunity Study (EEOS), known as the Coleman Report after its lead author,

sociologist James S. Coleman, as part of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The report found that in both

math and reading, 87 percent of white students in grade 12 scored higher than the average black
 4

student who only scored in the 13th percentile. One would think that after de jure segregation was

ended after the 1960s, that all students in American schools would be achieving at relatively

similar levels. Unfortunately, this is not the case. According to Hill (2017), The National

Assessment of Education Progress regularly reports that white students’ proficiency rates on

mathematics and reading exams are double or even triple those of African American and Hispanic

students, and the size of gaps is similar when comparing students based on family income and

parental education. Whites also lead in high school completion and college attendance rates, and

they average double-digit advantages in four-year college completion.

It is important to note that this issue is one of equity beyond the classroom. According to

Boozer (1992), evidence suggests that disparities in school quality that historically existed

between black and white students are responsible for a portion of the gap in earnings between

black and white workers. Similarly, O’Sullivan (2013) asserts that surveys of adolescents and

young adults with criminal records show that about half have reading difficulties as well as half of

youth with a history of substance abuse problems. America was founded on the principles of life,

liberty, and the pursuit of happiness which all are linked to one’s ability to provide the basic

necessities of life for themselves and their families and be free to pursue their dreams. The racial

achievement gap then highlights the fact that the American Dream is not accessible to all. Horace

Mann, founder of the Common Schools movement which resulted in our current traditional public

schools, proclaimed that education is the “great equalizer.” What then should be done about the

fact that the current educational system directly contributes to inequality in society? While many

agree that closing the racial achievement gap is the goal of equality based educational reform,

various political actors and educational advocates have proposed different solutions in recent

years. This paper will examine early childhood education, school choice, and Culturally

Responsive Teaching.
 5

Politics: Approaches to Solving the Problem

Early Childhood Education

One proposed policy for closing the racial achievement gap has been to offer free early

childhood education, especially to those students who will feed in to underperforming school

districts. In 2014 President Obama announced $750 million in federal funding for early learning

programs through the Preschool Development Grants and Early Head Start-Child Care

Partnerships totaling more than $1 billion. According to the National Association for Elementary

School Principals (2011) institutionalized preschool education is found to increase school-

appropriate behavior and cognitive abilities, both of which contribute to increased test scores.

One claim that advocates of early childhood education make is that minority student’s

parents are less involved in their education as such their preschool children are exposed to far less

vocabulary words than their counterparts. The problem with this assertion is that it places the

onus of failure to educate public school children on the parents. This pathologizing of minority

families shifts the blame away from educational institutions. There was a time in this country

where farmers and domestic workers were unable to read to their children and it was still the

responsibility of the school to educate children. The idea that learners themselves contribute to the

racial achievement gap from birth to age five does not explain the achievement gap that continues

to persist even for those minority children that do attend Head Start programs.

For example, research shows that the benefits of early childhood education fade over time.

In 2014 professors Greg J. Duncan of the University of California and Aaron Sojourner of the

University of Minnesota published a study on the long-term impact of early childhood education.

They used statistical controls to use the random sample of infants that received the program to

project its effects for low-income children across the United States. They found that the program

boosted the cognitive ability of low-income children much more than the cognitive ability of
 6

higher-income children. In fact, they projected that the program could if made widely available to

low-income families in the United States eliminate income-based gaps in IQ at age three. Their

results suggested that these effects would fade somewhat over time, but would remain substantial

in later years: were the program universal, the high/low-income IQ and achievement gap at age

eight would be one-third to three-quarters erased. Even the National Association of Elementary

School Principals admits that closing the achievement gap through early childhood education

would be easier to do for simple literacy skills but much more difficult for broad domains like

language, mathematics, and social skills.

Furthermore, O’Sullivan (2013) explains that as of 2010 forty states provided some form

of state funded pre-school, only 4% of three-year-olds and 27% of four-year-olds had access to

early childhood programs. A major reason for this is that opponents of public early childhood

education argue that the tax burden would be too great on already struggling tax-payers. While it

is evident that early childhood education is one piece that could help decrease the racial

achievement gap, effective policies must be more far-reaching to address the deficits that students

of color continue to have well into their secondary educational experiences.

School Choice

Yet another proposed solution to decrease the racial achievement gap has been school

choice. School choice refers to a student’s ability to leave their failing public school district for a

more high-performing public school district or private school through voucher programming or to

attend a public charter school that is privately managed. In support of Secretary of Education,

Betsy Devos’ budget proposed in February 2018, President Trump stated, “So many of America’s

poorest children especially African American and Hispanic children attend failing public schools

that afford them little hope of fulfilling their great potential. That is why families should be free to

choose the public, private, charter, magnet, religious or home school option that is right for them.
 7

The budget empowers parents, especially of our disadvantaged youth, to choose the very best

school for their children.” According to the Foundation for Economic Education (2015), allowing

students to use vouchers to attend private schools would increase educational performance and

attainment, using a voucher to attend private school increased the overall college enrollment rate

among African Americans, and that choice forces traditional public schools forces to increase their

educational achievement due to the competition. In fact, Jeynes (2014) asserts that research

indicates that the achievement gap in faith-based schools is generally 25% narrower than one finds

in public schools. Despite this assertion, in the 200-2006 period, 1,162 inner city faith-based

schools were closed losing nearly 425,000 students. These schools were closed due to insufficient

funding.

Although data shows some positive trends for students of color attending faith-based

private schools, much of the school choice movement has centered around charter schools.

Advocates of charter schools declare that schools that are free from bureaucracy and union

obligations are able to operate more efficiently, have more innovative able to make allowing them

to have a greater impact on student achievement. A major difference between public and charter

schools is the presence of teachers unions. It’s no wonder then that the largest teacher’s unions,

the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers oppose the school

choice movement. President Lily Eskelsen García argued in the NEA’s new policy on charter

schools that “Handing over students’ education to privately managed, unaccountable charters

jeopardizes student success, undermines public education and harms communities. This policy

draws a clear line between charters that serve to improve public education and those that do not.

Too frequently charters are operated expressly for profit, or are nominally non-profit but managed

or operated by for-profit entities. Most importantly, the growth of charters has undermined local

public schools and communities, without producing any overall increase in student learning and
 8

growth.” The NEA’s new position acknowledges that there are some good charter schools that

have managed to sufficiently educate students. It may also be noted that the pivot on charter

schools comes since several charter schools across the country have had successful union drives

and are now members of the NEA.

One problem with the choice rhetoric in education is that it provides a false sense of

choice, meaning the failing school district that a minority student attends does not even become an

option due to its failing status. “Choice” implies that every school has a chance at being chosen.

Parents could only be said to have truly preferred a choice school if they had access to a quality

neighborhood school to begin with. According to James (2014) choice policies amplify cultural-

deficit theories which suggest that community schools in minority areas will never be capable of

providing a quality education. It encourages those with economic and social capital to remove

their children from neighborhood schools, placing them in private schools, charter schools, or

more privileged districts even if they would otherwise be inclined to remain in their home district

to work with district administrators to improve it. This leaves behind those children and families

who have less social and economic capital. James also contends that school choice plans only

compound the de facto segregation that makes America’s public schools more segregated now

than they were at the time of Brown v. Board of Education and undermine democracy. He asserts

that public schools are about the public, a community invested in educational learning outcomes

for children of that community. School choice policies and rhetoric however, promote

competition, individualism, and subordination. None of those things has resulted in increased

accountability or achievement. The narrative around charter schools are that they are better than

traditional public schools, however, the majority of charter schools are attended by minority

students of low socio-economic status. Again, white students and minority families with social and

economic mobility when given the choice, opt for traditional public schools.
 9

Furthermore, those who leave, go to charter schools without a demonstrated history of

increased student achievement. According to the Michigan Association of Public School

Academies (2016), over the past twenty-two years, 100 charter schools have been closed in

Michigan by their authorizers for academic reasons. According to the Center for Public Education

(2018), on average nationally, students in 17 percent of charter schools performed significantly

better than if they had attended their neighborhood traditional public school. On the flip side,

students in 37 percent of charter schools performed significantly worse, and students in the

remaining 46 percent of charter schools did not perform significantly better or worse than if they

had attended their neighborhood traditional public school. Overall, the majority of charter schools

do no better or worse than traditional public schools.

Additionally, just as conservatives resist funding early childhood education, the same has

been true for school choice programming. Klein (2018) notes that a Republican Congress

rejected the administration’s budget proposals on choice, including $250 million private

school voucher program, and a push to allow school districts to use some of their federal

funding for public school choice.

Culturally Responsive Teaching

Another policy that has been operating more at the grassroots level within individual

districts has been Culturally Responsive Teaching. According to Gay (2000), one of the causes of

a lack of achievement amongst minority students is that they are taught through a Eurocentric

framework whereby their teachers believe that education has nothing do with culture and

heritages. Instead, it is about teaching intellectual, vocational, and civic skills. This colorblind

approach is problematic because it devalues their own cultures that may be very important to

them, is unrealistic as it is impossible to “not see color”, promotes the belief that good teaching is

identical for all students under all circumstances, and leads to the effective assimilation of minority
 10

students into the dominant culture. The impact of the aforementioned beliefs has led to decades of

underachievement for students of color.

It is evident that societal factors such as poverty, lack of parental education, and family

support contribute to student achievement outcomes, however, research shows that schooling

practices have the greatest impact on student achievement. When a child’s teacher engages in

practices that sets high academic expectations for all students, has a complex understanding of

their own racial identity, an understanding of how culture is framed and understood in the context

of students’ lives, re-shapes the curriculum in a way that posits learning within the context of

culture, and delivers student-centered instruction, then student achievement increases. This is the

premise for Culturally Responsive Teaching also sometimes referred to as Culturally Responsive

Pedagogy, or Culturally Relevant Teaching. All of the terms are interchangeable and hereafter will

be referred to as CRT.

Beginning in the mid 1990s with the publication of Gloria Ladson-Billings’ book, The

Dream-keepers, educational think-tanks, departments of education, and school districts across the

country began investigating Culturally Responsive Teaching practices to serve the ever increasing

minority population in their school districts. Most recently, California and Oregon have proposed

legislation requiring their departments of education to post Culturally Responsive Teaching

professional development opportunities on their websites. In 2017, New York State proposed a

more comprehensive bill that not only requires CRT professional development but also requires

districts to create a plan for how CRT will be implemented. The bill is still active and presently sits

in the education committee. At a local level, many districts across the country have adopted their

own policies voluntarily with varying levels of accountability and success. Several intermediate

school districts in the state of Michigan offer professional development series on CRT.
 11

Additionally, one local suburban district has developed a three year plan to train teachers on CRT

and monitor its implementation in the classroom.

Culturally Responsive Teaching Theory

The theory behind CRT is that there are certain assumptions about student achievement.

According to Gay (2018), the first premise is that culture is at the heart of all we do in the name

of education, whether that is curriculum, instruction, administration, or performance assessment.

She notes the connection between literacy and culture by declaring that the relationship between

the two is bidirectional. Not only will cultural diversity mediate the acquisition and expression of

literacy, but literacy education will also influence and mold an individual’s cultural identity.

Another assumption that Gay makes is that the current proposals for “at-risk” students are

doomed to fail absent a focus on culture. This is largely due to those proposals operating on a

deficit model concentrating on what racially and culturally diverse students don’t have and can’t

do. These proposals only emphasize the technical and academic dimensions of learning. The result

of this approach is the racial achievement gap remaining stagnant or growing in some areas.

Lastly, another assumption is that lack of achievement on standardized tests and classroom tasks

is a symptom, not the cause of the problem. Unless teachers understand what is interfering with a

student’s performance, they cannot intervene appropriately. Blaming the student’s socio-economic

background, home life, or motivation does not help drive student achievement. CRT proposes that

instead of focusing on what is wrong with racially and culturally diverse students, that teachers try

to find what is “right” with them and leverage that knowledge to teach them.

In addition to the assumptions that CRT makes about student achievement, there are a core set of

themes as well as curricular and instructional practices that are seminal to it. The very first tenet is

communicating high expectations. Teachers must let students know that they are expected to

engage and perform at a high level. Another key feature is to anchor the curriculum in the
 12

everyday lives of the students as well as to ensure that they learn about diverse peoples

consistently. Students making a personal connection to the material that they are learning

increases the likelihood that they will retain the knowledge. It is also important for teachers

engaging in CRT to acknowledge their own privilege, while making a concerted effort to visit the

communities of their students, learn about their families, and learn about the history and

experiences of their students.

Policy Report and Recommendation

According to Aceves (2014), in a report funded by the U.S Department of Education

Office of Special Education Programs, there are some emerging evidence-based teaching practices

associated with CRT. These include collaborative teaching and learning, responsive feedback,

problem-solving, and child-centered instruction. With collaborative teaching and learning, teachers

collectively organize students into heterogeneous learning teams by grouping based on learning

abilities. After students have read and identified the assignment, they discuss the topic with their

groups, share their knowledge, and complete the lesson as a whole group. This strategy builds on

the interpersonal nature of learning and allows for students to share their background and

experiences with the content. With responsive feedback, teachers offer critical, ongoing, and

immediate feedback regarding students' responses and participation. Through culturally

responsive feedback, teachers supply individualized support regarding performance in a manner

sensitive to students’ individual and cultural preferences. The report further mentions that another

key component includes problem solving. This requires teachers to create opportunities for

students to investigate real, open-ended problems; formulate questions; and develop solutions to

genuine challenging situations. Engaging students in solving meaningful problems allows for

complex and higher order thinking while increasing students’ motivation to learn and resolve

authentic issues in their daily lives. Teachers create opportunities for students to critique,
 13

challenge, and transform examples of injustice or inequity in their daily lives and communities.

Lastly, in a student-centered classroom, students’ contributions drive the teaching and learning

process. Teachers develop learning opportunities and outcomes focused on student-generated

ideas, background knowledge, values, communication styles, and preferences. In culturally

responsive classrooms, teachers provide opportunity for student choice in classroom activities,

facilitate Instructional conversations that allow students to dialogue academic content while

establishing connections to personal, cultural, family, and community knowledge.

CRT Evidence of Effectiveness

Some critics of CRT argue that there is not enough data available to determine its

effectiveness or impact on traditional student achievement. Aronson and Laughter (2016)

compiled a report in which they evaluated forty-two studies examining the impact of CRT on

student outcomes. In eight studies of the effectiveness of CRT in mathematic classrooms, they

found that teachers who used community issues as a framework improved students’ math

proficiency and engagement in the classroom. The researchers found students able to engage in

“math talk” and make connections that became “personal and meaningful”. For example, one

student was able to explain clearly the difference between perimeter and area when referring to

the classroom garden; she appropriately switched terminology when using descriptors such as

centimeters or square feet, indicating her understanding of measurement. They also found that

data from a National Educational Longitudinal Study using questionnaires obtained from students

compared with performance on state standardized tests. Black and Latino students whose

mathematics teachers’ emphasized awareness about the importance of math in their everyday lives

and encouraged students had higher scores on standardized tests. Likewise, in a quantitative study

done with fifth graders, a group using CRT methods in reading instruction, the group was able to

move students from a frustration level to above instructional level in overall reading. Similar
 14

studies exist examining CRT in Science and Social Studies classrooms as well with increased

student engagement and motivation being the common outcome. Outside of the quantitative data

on CRT, there are qualitative aspects of CRT that point to increased student engagement and

better teacher-student relationships. Despite this, there has been no federal legislation or policy

that mandates the development of teachers in Culturally Responsive Teaching.

CRT within the ESSA Framework

With the passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act in 2015, pressure has been put on

districts to improve student outcomes with evidence-based instructional practices. Not only does

CRT meet the threshold for effective under ESSA but there are other provisions of the Act that

directly support its implementation. For example, Jackson (2016), highlights that the ESSA calls

for increased funding and support for indigenous languages and cultures, culturally responsive

education, and supports to improve academic outcomes for Native American and indigenous

students. Several provisions also focus on engaging families, particularly for minority students.

Additionally, state plans must indicate how low-income and minority students in Title I schools

are “not served at disproportionate rates by ineffective, out-of-field, or inexperienced teachers.”

CRT would be a critical component in preparing educators to meet the needs of all learners in

Title I schools. ESSA also calls for increased Title III funding for states and schools to implement

and maintain high-quality instruction to ensure English learners develop English language

proficiency as well as content proficiency. Ultimately ESSA supports CRT as an evidence-based

instructional practice that will meet the needs of the diverse learners in America’s schools.

Culturally Responsive Teaching as an Educational Policy

CRT In New York State

Culturally Responsive Teaching as an educational policy in K-12 schools has been

proposed for all New York State’s public schools and successfully implemented in a large
 15

suburban public school district in Michigan. In 2017, the New York State Assembly proposed a

bill that would require all school districts to develop a three year CRT plan for professional

development that would be evaluated through teacher and student surveys. In an interview with a

public policy fellow for New America, a think-tank in Washington, D.C, the fellow stated that

New York Bill 4710-A could serve as a model for other districts across the country that are

considering leveraging legislation to require district-level professional development relevant to

CRT. Among the most promising parts of the bill is its clear definition of what constitutes CRT

training—this helps elude muddy interpretations of CRT that are common. She further stated that

the bill is also promising because of its commitment to evaluation. Since districts are required to

develop three year plans, there is an ongoing commitment to the practice. When asked if she was

aware of any local barriers to the bill, she stated that there is a timely and visible groundswell of

community interest in the approach which could ensure it garners enough support from

legislators. She did caution however that upon passing, the next challenge will be to ensure

sufficient funding to enact this mandate.

I also interviewed a program manager for a non-profit organization in New York City that

teaches middle and high school students to research and debate public policy. He worried that the

initiative might be placed on the backburner in place of any education policy that would ensure

higher test scores. There may be a greater focus on using curriculum materials that policymakers

would presume are effective for getting students ready for examination while ignoring that the

material prepared does not culturally connect to particular populations.

CRT in Michigan

There are some districts across the country that have implemented CRT policies through

their own volition. A K-12 district in a suburb outside of the city of Detroit created a four year

strategic plan to address diversity in 2013. Included in the plan is a Culturally Responsive
 16

Teaching Professional Learning Plan. Their student body consists of a little over 8,000 students of

which, 79% is white, 12% African-American, 4% Hispanic, 4% multi-racial, and 1% Asian. In

year 1 of the plan, Culturally Responsive Teaching (CRT) Liaisons were identified to serve as

teacher-leaders and trainers for each school. They participated in a year-long training learning

series on CRT practices to prepare professional learning activities for the following school year. In

year 2, all teachers and support staff participated in on-going professional learning that included

self-reflection and awareness regarding cultural responsiveness. CRT liaisons lead professional

learning at the school level throughout the school year. One year ahead of teachers, liaisons

participated in on-going professional learning around developing and maintaining culturally

responsive relationships between adults and students. In year 3, all teachers and support staff

participated in on-going professional learning that focused on developing and maintaining

culturally responsive relationships between adults and students. One-year ahead of teachers,

liaisons participated in on-going professional learning around the implementation of culturally

responsive instruction. In year 4, all teachers and support staff participate in on-going professional

learning to implement culturally responsive instruction in each classroom and school community.

The Director of Character Education, Diversity, and Equity for the district and one of the

authors of the CRT policy, explained how the policy was conceived as well as noted some

successes and failures of implementation. She indicated that the Cultural Responsiveness Plan was

developed to ensure that “all learners will continually excel in a learning environment that is

engaging, global, and free of achievement gaps.” She indicated that the strategic plan action team

was co-chaired by a building principal and central office administrator. The team included

teachers, parents, building, and district administrators. Through the work of the action team, one

of the strategies to achieve their goal was to implement Culturally Responsive practices. When

asked about the successes so far in year 3 of the 4 year plan, she explained that (1) all teachers
 17

and principals have been receiving ongoing training through a train-the-trainer model, which

includes a minimum of 8-10 professional development hours per year (2) there are CRT liaisons

(staff members) who serve as trainers in all schools throughout the district (3) this four-year plan

has sustained over a series of years and no longer consists of small groups of teachers being

trained on an inconsistent basis.

She was also very transparent in noting the struggles of implementation. The director

asserted that although there has not been a formal program assessment to date, there has been

some anecdotal feedback consisting of (1) desire to go deeper within topics that include

race/white privilege (2) additional practical strategies are needed (3) some staff members do not

understand the need/urgency about these topics (4) some school leaders are more supportive of

the CRT work than others (5) inability to grasp how CRT connects in a larger picture of district

initiatives. She also made sure to highlight that apart of their strategic plan includes aligning their

teacher evaluation framework to CRT practices as well as making a commitment to hiring a

diverse workforce.

CRT in Teacher Education Preparation Programs

One key component to ensuring that educators are prepared to implement best practices

for an increasingly diverse student population is to require that pre-service teachers receive CRT

training in their pedagogy courses. In an interview with an associate professor in the Department

of Teacher Education and Detroit Area Pre-service Teaching Internship Coordinator at a

university, the professor stated that her university has been maintained its number 1 ranking by

World News and Report for it elementary, secondary, and higher education programs. They

currently offer several graduate and undergraduate courses that speak specifically to CRT. She

personally teaches several of those courses. They also have a summer urban immersion program

that places pre-service teachers in various classrooms in Detroit for seven weeks while their
 18

cultural competency is explored. When asked what recommendation she has for getting more

culturally responsive curriculum implemented in schools, she gives the following suggestions:

Individuals (i.e. educators, parents, students, community members, etc.) who deeply care about

the culturally relevant instruction and achievement of students could do a few things: attend

school board meetings, create what a CRT curriculum looks like for them and attempt to meet

with school officials to discuss ways to implement the work, and offer to host community/working

meetings where individuals can brainstorm and write ideas. Later, the chosen curriculum can be

taught to students in a summer or after school format to see how students and teachers connect

with the material. The goal here is for it to be successful, in an effort for the curriculum to used

school or statewide. She also recommended that leaders conduct weekly and monthly classroom

visits, and for teachers to complete written and video reflections. Additionally, focus groups with

students, teachers, and parents could assist with everyone learning from each other and how the

concepts and themes are being taught and learned from.

Recommendation

Given the extensive research that supports CRT as an evidence-based strategy for decreasing

the racial achievement gap, increasing student engagement, and fostering teacher-student

relationships, it is the recommendation of this researcher that the State Department of Education

adopt a policy in which:

1. All district superintendents will initially develop a three year Culturally Responsive

Teaching Accountability Plan that includes ongoing professional development and

coaching for all teachers in culturally responsive evidence-based teaching practices.

Districts will collect quantitative data on student achievement pre-training and post

training to include classroom and state standardized assessments. They will also collect

qualitative data including teacher survey responses that evaluate the effectiveness of the
 19

professional development instruction by measuring their confidence in implementing the

CRT practices. Schools will also collect student survey responses which measures the

cultural responsiveness of their teachers.

2. In the plan, districts must indicate how the teacher evaluation instrument that will be used

evaluates Culturally Responsive Teaching Practices.

3. After the three year plan has been implemented, district superintendents must have a

Culturally Responsive Teaching goal in their school improvement plans yearly.

4. All state teacher preparation programs must have a course or embedded within a course

that instructs pre-service teachers on culturally responsive evidence-based teaching

practices. A syllabus for the course that has been designated to meet this requirement must

be submitted to the State Department of Education for approval.

Districts who fail to comply risk sanctions from the MDE that may include fines and the

appointment of a state monitor to bring the district into compliance. Colleges and University

who fail to meet their obligation, will have their teacher education programs lose their

approval for state certification.

Policy Instruments

A key component to drafting a policy is to identify the structure of the policy as there are

several options available. Theodore Lowi asserted in 1964 that there are three types of policies or

techniques of control. At the meta-level, the aforementioned CRT policy is regulatory. It is a

formalized rule expressed in general terms that would be applied to all schools in the state and

would be enforced by the State Department of Education. Some might contend however that the

CRT policy is redistributive in that the end result would be a shift of resources and power away

from the dominant group in society similar to some of the redistributive policies of the 1960s and
 20

1970s such as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Education for All

Handicapped Children Act, or the Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. That is, after

successful implementation, the racial achievement gap would close making education a true

equalizer for all people. Fowler (2013) contends that regulatory policies create regulatory politics.

She explains that several social groups usually with competing interests usually oppose regulatory

policies for different reasons. In redistributive politics, conflicts generally arise along class lines,

however, because the CRT policy is not redistributive in terms of money, it may not face as much

opposition from different groups.

In addition to understanding the types of policies, a policy maker must determine what

instrument they will use in order to translate substantive policy goals into concrete action.

Because all schools in the state will be required to adopt and monitor a CRT plan, it is categorized

as a mandate. Fowler asserts that mandates consist of two components: (1) language that spells

out required behavior for all people in a specified social group, and (2) a prescribed penalty for

those who fail to comply. Another policy instrument that will be used in this policy is hortatory.

Fowler describes the instrument as one that sends a signal that particular goals and actions are

considered a high priority by government. The ideal result of a hortatory policy is successfully

persuading the targeted population to act differently. In order to get school leaders, teachers, and

communities to buy into the idea that Culturally Responsive Teaching is a priority for the State

Department of Education and that the policy will close the racial achievement gap, a press release

and other educational materials would need to be disseminated to the public. The State

Superintendent would also need to meet with the professional organization for district leaders in

order to rally them around the shared goal. Ultimately the public relations campaign promoting

the new CRT policy would be similar to that of Horace Mann’s Common School Movement at a

state level. The State Department of Education would have to ensure through persuasion that
 21

educators understood the value of CRT as a tool to finally provide equity in education and

increase academic achievement for all.

Implementation

Facilitating Change

In order to facilitate the transformative change not only in educator’s pedagogy but also to

implement the new policy, it is necessary to consult change models. Kurt Lewin, a German

philosopher, conducted research on the factors that influence people to change and the three

stages needed to make change successful. Lewin (1947) explains that there are three steps to

change, the first being “unfreezing.” This stage is about getting ready to change. It involves

getting to a point of understanding that change is necessary, and getting ready to move away from

our current comfort zone. Another change guru, John Kotter, in his change model calls this stage

“creating a sense of urgency.” This first stage is about preparing ourselves, or others, before the

change (and ideally creating a situation in which we want the change). Unfreezing involves

weighing the pros and the cons of change. Lewin calls this “force field analysis.” In other words,

there are lots of different forces for and against making change that we need to be aware of

(analysis). Change makers must be convinced the factors for change outweigh the factors against

in order to make the change. This stage works in concert with the hortatory policy instrument.

There must be a significant mindset shift that must occur amongst educators where they realize

that the current model of educating racially diverse students will not lead to a closing of the racial

achievement gap. Those educators will have to confront their privilege, examine structural

inequities in society, assess their own teaching practices, and really get to know their students in a

way they have not before. It is important to note the struggles of the Harbortown Public School

teachers to grasp how the CRT policy relates to larger district initiatives. Moving forward, the
 22

district may want to create materials, and have in-person sessions that makes that connection

abundantly clear.

The second stage that Lewin identifies is “change or transition.” Change is a process not

an event. In this stage, people are unfrozen and are often unsure of themselves which is why

leaders must provide extra layers of support. Lewin asserts that support can be in the form of

training, coaching, and expecting mistakes as part of the process. Using role models and allowing

people to develop their own solutions will help the change process. It's really useful to keep

communicating a clear picture of the desired change - and the benefits - so people don't lose sight

of where they are heading. In this stage of the CRT policy implementation it is important the State

Department of Education provide district and school leaders with consultants who specialize in

CRT but also educational consultants experienced in facilitating change. Teaching staff should be

provided with instructional coaches to help observe their practice and give them timely feedback.

Frequent check-ins should be done with leaders and staffs to remind them of the desired change

and the benefits of CRT.

The third stage of change is “freezing or (refreezing).” Lewin explains this stage is about

establishing stability once the changes have been made where the changes are accepted and

become the new norm. People form new relationships and become comfortable with their

routines. This stage is about reinforcing the change and ensuring that it is maintained into the

future. It is important to realize that with any major change, it will not become the norm in a few

days or weeks but will take time. Kotter refers to this stage as “anchoring the change in the

organizational culture”. When implementing CRT, it must be clear that schools expect all of their

teachers to use the evidence-based strategies associated with CRT in their classrooms daily,

curriculum be culturally responsive, and teachers make positive meaningful relationships with their
 23

students acknowledging their cultures and heritages. CRT must be interwoven within the fabric of

the school culture.

Policy Evaluation

Fowler (2013) explains that policy evaluation can be difficult due to it being political,

however, programs or policies cannot be made better unless they are evaluated. Educators may

not like to be evaluated, as public servants we must show our constituents evidence that have

produced beneficial results. The criteria for judging evaluations is that it must have utility,

feasibility, propriety, and accuracy. This means that findings should be related to practical

situations, all important stakeholders should be involved in the process, the evaluation should be

ethical and conform to the accepted norms for research, and conclusions should be reached using

data that is collected systematically. Polices should be evaluated both formatively and

summatively. Waiting to summatively assess a policy doesn’t allow for mid-course adjustments to

strengthen policy implementation. Evaluation should be built in early, communication about the

evaluation be done with all stakeholders, clear indicators be selected, data collection be built in at

various intervals, and ethical evaluators be chosen. Lastly, action should be taken based on the

outcome of the evaluation.

Given the above information, the CRT policy must be evaluated at the State Department

of Education as well as at the school level. The SDE must evaluate its own implementation of the

policy. A team of ethical evaluators should be assembled to determine the effectiveness of the

support it provides to local school districts. They also should be clear on which standardized test

results will be used for quantitative data as well as carefully crafting the survey to be disseminated

to staff and students about their perception of CRT. There should be an additional survey given to

district and school leaders to determine how supported they felt by the SDE with implementing

the policy. Data on how many school districts submitted their CRT plans on time, the quality of
 24

the plans should be reviewed. The same should be done for syllabi submitted by colleges and

universities for the pre-service teaching component of the policy.

At the district and school level the CRT should be evaluated using the pre-determined

criteria given from the SDE but also there should be some internal evaluation. School leaders

should assemble a team of ethical evaluators which may include outside consultants to evaluate

the process with which the policy is implemented. Questions to be answered would be were

timelines met, how well were staff, parents, and students involved in the process, what

incremental gains were accomplished, and what year end goals were accomplished? District

leaders should compile all sources of data in a palatable way for all community stakeholders and

then make an action plan based on the analysis of the data.

Considerations

When implementing a new policy it is important to consider practical barriers that may

hinder implementation. One barrier to implementation of the CRT policy would be the initial

upfront cost of providing districts with CRT consultants as well as schools providing training for

their building-level CRT coaches. It is recommended that districts follow the model of the

Harbortown School District in which they select a small group of coaches to be trained first and

then those coaches would be responsible for training and supporting teachers. Colleges and

universities may have to similarly train their pre-service teaching faculty to become well versed in

evidence based CRT practices. Purchasing new more culturally responsive curriculum may also be

a cost that districts will incur in order to be in compliance with the policy. The initial added

expense to districts may be one cause for dissent. Furthermore, the SDE and school leaders may

have to contend with resistance in implementing the new practices from those educators with

fixed mindsets. The SDE should offer districts guidance on how to use existing curriculum

budgets to purchase culturally responsive curriculum and for Title I districts, how to use existing
 25

Title I funds to pay for instructional coaching. To address the resistance to implement the policy,

leaders should refer back to the hortatory policy instrument to ensure a clear vision that is clearly

aligned to student achievement metrics.

Conclusion

There are many societal factors that one can point to as to why racially diverse students

don’t achieve at the level of the dominant culture. Despite these societal factors, schooling

practices have the greatest impact on student achievement. Ultimately the hard work of ensuring

that all students are exposed to culturally relevant curriculum grounded in high expectations, build

strong relationships with their teachers, are exposed to engaging instruction, and connect their

content knowledge to the real-world, cannot be legislated. All of these components come together

when educators receive the proper training not only to implement those instructional practices,

but to also engage in the interpersonal practices that create culturally responsive classrooms. It is

the hope that this educational policy will be one piece of many that will result in a decrease in the

ever elusive racial achievement gap.

References

Aceves, T. C., & Orosco, M. (2014). Culturally responsive teaching (Document No. IC-2).

Retrieved from University of Florida, Collaboration for Effective Educator, Development,

Accountability, and Reform Center website:

http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/tools/innovation-configurations/

Aaronson, B. and Laughter, J. (2016). The theory and practice of culturally relevant education:
 26

A synthesis of research across content areas. Review of Educational Research 86 (1), 163-

206.

Associate Professor of Teacher Education. (2018, April 13). Personal interview.

Bifulco, R. and Ladd, H. F. (2007), School choice, racial segregation, and test‐score gaps:

Evidence from North Carolina's charter school program. Journal of Policy Analysis and

Management, 26. 31-56.

Bodovski, Katerina, & Farkas, George. (2007). Do Instructional Practices Contribute to

Inequality in Achievement?: The Case of Mathematics Instruction in

Kindergarten. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 5(3), 301-322.

Boozer, M., Krueger, A., & Wolkon, S. (1992). Race and school quality since Brown v.

Board of Education. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 269-338.

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

CA A2353. (2016-2017). General Assembly. (2018, January 03). LegiScan. Retrieved

from https://legiscan.com/CA/bill/AB2353/2017

Camera, L. (2016, January 13). Achievement Gap Between White and Black Students Still

Gaping. U.S News and World Report. Retrieved from

https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2016/01/13/achievement-gap-between-

white-and-black-students-still-gaping

Connelly, Mark. (2016). The Kurt Lewin change model. Retrieved from https://www.change-

management-coach.com/kurt_lewin.html
 27

Frede, E., & Barnett, W.S, (2011). Why Pre-K is critical to closing the achievement gap.

Principal. National Association of Elementary School Principals. 90(5) 8-11.

Fowler, F. (2013). Policy studies for educational leaders: an introduction. Upper Saddle River,

New Jersey: Pearson.

Gay, G. (2018). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York, New

York: Teachers College Press.

Hill, Heather C. (2017). The Coleman Report, 50 years on: What do we know about the

role of schools in academic inequality? The Annals of the American Academy of

Political and Social Science, 674(1), 9-26.

Hull, Jim. (2018) How do charter schools compare to traditional public schools in student performance?

Center for Public Education. Retrieved from http://www.data-first.org/questions/how-do-

charter-schools-compare-to-regular-public-schools-in-student-performance/

Humphries-Bailey, M. and Millines Dziko, T. (2008). A plan to close the achievement gap for

African-American students. Olympia, Washington: Washington Office of Superintendent

of Public Instruction.

Iacono, C. (2015). Three reasons to support school choice. Foundation for Economic Education.

Retrieved from https://fee.org/articles/3-reasons-to-support-school-choice/

Jackson, D. and McCray, E. (2016). Culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students: What

educator preparation programs need to do to support teacher learning. State Policy and

Practice Portrait. Ceedar Center. Retrieved from http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/wp-

content/uploads/2016/11/CLD-Students-and-EPPs.pdf

James, O. (2014). Opt-out education: School choice as racial subordination. (p. 1109-

1135). Iowa Law Review, 99(3), 1083-1135.

 28

Jeynes, W. (2014). School choice and the achievement gap. Education and Urban Society. 46(2)

163-180.

Jordan Irvine, J. (2001). Culturally responsive teaching: Lesson planning for elementary and

middle grades. New York, New York: McGraw-Hill.

Klein, A. (2018). Betsy DeVos, Lawmakers, Students Make School Choice Sales Pitch on

Capital Hill. Education Week. Retrieved from http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-

k-12/2018/01/betsy_devos_school_choice_rally_week_capitol_hill_.html

Ladner, M. and Burke, L. (2010). Closing the racial achievement gap: Learning from Florida’s

reforms. Washington, D.C. The Heritage Foundation.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2009). The dream-keepers. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Leadership Hub. (No Date). John Kotter’s 8 step change process: A fast guide from the

leadership hub. Retrieved from www.theleadershiphub.com

Moorehouse, Buddy. (2016). Why do charter schools close? Michigan Association of Public

School Academies. Retrieved from http://www.charterschools.org/blog/2016/09/13/why-

do-charter-schools-close

O'Sullivan, Mary Therese. (2013). Early childhood education: An ignored solution to the

achievement gap in the United States. Journal of Law in Society, 14(1), 107.

New America Public Policy Fellow. (2018, April 18). Personal interview.

NY A04710. 2017-2018. General Assembly. (2018, January 03). LegiScan. Retrieved from

https://legiscan.com/NY/bill/A04710/2017

Preschool closes achievement gap. (2013, February 21). USA Today, p. 08A. Retrieved from

http://link.galegroup.com.cmich.idm.oclc.org/apps/doc/A319855689/BIC?u=lom_cmichu

&sid=BIC&xid=33e3db1b

Program Manager, New York Public Schools (2018, April 15). Personal interview.
 29

Strauss, V., Douglas-Gabriel, D., & Blingit, M. (2018). DeVos seeks cuts from Education

Department to support school choice. The Washington Post. Retrieved from

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/education/wp/2018/02/12/devos-seeks-massive-

cuts-from-education-department-to-support-school-choice/?utm_term=.177156d06e29

Warner, D., & Hayward, M. (2006). Early-Life Origins of the Race Gap in Men's

Mortality. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 47(3), 209-226.

Williams, C. (2014). New Research: Early education’s influence on the achievement gap. New

America. Retrieved from https://www.newamerica.org/education-

policy/edcentral/research-early-education-influence-achievement-gap/

Williams, D. (2015). An RTI guide to improving performance of African-American students.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Zane, L. M. (2009). The impact of early childhood education upon the black -white achievement

gap. Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (304882041). Retrieved

from http://cmich.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-

com.cmich.idm.oclc.org/docview/304882041?accountid=10181