Abstract
As demographic shifts change the student population in districts across the nation and pressure from state accountability systems mounts, educational leaders are increasingly adopting school reform models with the hope of raising student achievement, especially for students from culturally, linguistically, and economically diverse backgrounds. However, 30 years of school reform research suggests that while teachers and principals will likely work hard to improve schools and close the achievement gap, their chances of doing so are small (Comprehensive School Reform Quality Center [CSRQ], 2006a, 2006b; Cuban, 2007; Good & McCaslin, 2008). Dozens of school improvement models aimed at addressing disparities in student achievement have been developed since the early 1980s, yet there is little evidence to suggest these models have produced the intended effect (CSRQ, 2006a, 2006b; Good & McCaslin, 2008).
The 1983 landmark report, A Nation at Risk, triggered an avalanche of school improvement efforts by declaring that U.S. schools were “awash in mediocrity.” Initially, school improvement efforts focused on specific problems within schools (e.g., mathematics achievement, dropout rates, student discipline). By the 1990s, the focus shifted to school-wide improvement and was tied specifically to Title I funding. These school-wide initiatives, known as Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) models, garnered widespread support from policymakers and researchers alike (Murphy & Datnow, 2003). In 1998, the U.S. Congress provided funding to encourage Title I schools to adopt school-wide improvement models and to provide incentives for researchers to evaluate the most popular models (U.S. Department of Education [USDOE] Physical Education Services). At the onset of the initiative, the USDOE endorsed 17 models, although schools were free to adopt other models. Dozens more CSR models have been developed and approved by the USDOE since that time. While most CSR models have been shown to increase student achievement at least somewhat, none have lived up to the promise of substantially improving learning over the long term, especially for culturally, linguistically, and economically diverse students (CSRQ, 2006a, 2006b; Cuban, 2007; Good & McCaslin, 2008).
Why CSR models have failed to change educational outcomes for the very students they were designed to serve has been debated among researchers. Some suggest the entire notion of CSR is flawed because societal factors have as much to do with the achievement gap as what happens in schools (e.g., Cuban, 2008; Rothstein, 2006). Some say the models have not been implemented as intended (CSRQ, 2006a; 2006b; Cuban, 2007). Others suggest the models may actually work, but their success has not been adequately documented (Borman, Hewes, Overman, & Brown, 2003; CSRQ, 2006a, 2006b; Good & McCaslin, 2008). While we agree that multiple internal and external factors contribute to the achievement gap, we also believe the typical approach to school reform is part of the problem. In particular, the tendency to focus on improving the technical aspects of schooling, while ignoring educator beliefs and cultural knowledge limits the effectiveness of school improvement efforts (García & Guerra, 2004; Henze & Arriaza, 2006; Valencia, Valenzuela, Sloan, & Foley, 2001).
A meta-analysis of school reform models (Borman et al., 2003) illustrates the technical focus of CSR models. Of the 29 most commonly utilized reform models, 26 suggest a particular curricular, instructional, or assessment approach is needed in order to increase student success. Each of these models also suggests other technical fixes such as allocating more time for certain subjects, lengthening the time students spend in school, creating programs to encourage families to be more active in the educational process, providing social services on campus, and using inclusive decision-making and governance structures. None of the 29 models were described as having an explicit focus on educator beliefs or cultural knowledge. While aspects such as a rigorous curriculum, high-quality instruction, and active parent engagement are characteristics of successful schools, focusing on these areas alone will not lead to schools that serve all students well (Henze & Arriaza, 2006). To create the kind of schools where each student learns at high levels, a focus on educator beliefs and cultural knowledge must be added to current reform models and other school improvement initiatives.
Why Beliefs Matter
Beginning with Rokeach’s (1968) seminal work describing the connection between values and beliefs, scholars have built a strong research base regarding the relationship of personal beliefs to professional practice. In more recent years, this body of research has been applied to the work of teachers and school leaders to illustrate the role personal beliefs play in maintaining inequitable educational practices.
Beliefs are the deeply personal, individual truths one holds about physical and social reality and about self (Rokeach, 1968). As such, personal beliefs are powerful filters that shape how an individual sees the world, sees other people, and sees oneself. Unlike cognitive knowledge, which is subject to external validation, belief systems are evaluated purely internally and do not require internal consistency (Nespor, 1987). In spite of what might be characterized as a lack of a logical, reasoned foundation, beliefs have a stronger influence on behavior than cognitive knowledge (Bandura, 1982; Nespor, 1987; Rokeach, 1968). Moreover, beliefs are incredibly resistant to change (Bandura, 1986; Bruner, 1996; Pajares, 1992). Personal beliefs have such a strong effect that even in professional practice, personal beliefs are a greater predictor of a person’s behavior than professional knowledge. In other words, when personal beliefs and professional knowledge conflict, personal beliefs override professional knowledge (Pajares, 1992; Pohan, 1996; Pohan & Aguilar, 2001).
Deficit Thinking
Reliance on personal beliefs over professional knowledge is problematic, especially when looking at the research on beliefs related to educating diverse learners. Negative beliefs and stereotypes about certain groups of people, namely people of color and people living in poverty, are well documented in U.S. history. These negative views resulted in discriminatory behavior that was supported by law. In recent decades, progress has been made through outlawing the most blatant forms of discrimination and attempting to dispel stereotypes. Nonetheless, recent reports of discrimination in housing (e.g., National Fair Housing Alliance, 2010), employment (e.g., Pager & Shepherd, 2008), educational opportunity (e.g., Ninth Session of Universal Periodic Working Group Human Rights Council, 2010), and treatment by law enforcement personnel (Warren, 2011) strongly suggest that inequitable beliefs and practices remain part of U.S. society. Not surprisingly then, numerous researchers have found that teachers often hold negative beliefs about culturally, linguistically, and economically diverse students and their families (Daniel-White, 2002; García & Guerra, 2004; Love & Kruger, 2005; Quiocho & Daoud, 2006; Souto-Manning & Swick, 2006; Zarate, 2007). Even educators who themselves are from culturally, linguistically and economically diverse backgrounds often hold deficit beliefs because they have assimilated and adopted mainstream perspectives (Weisman & Garza, 2002).
Negative beliefs about diverse students and their families lead to lower educational expectations and blame. Educators frequently cite inadequacies within culturally, linguistically, and economically diverse students and their families as the source of educational failure. In particular, educators often suggest the achievement gap is the result of students entering school without prerequisite knowledge, skills, and experiences and parents who do not value education (Flessa, 2009; Valencia, 2010; Valencia, Valenzuela, Sloan, & Foley, 2001). This inclination to view certain groups of students as inherently deficient is known as deficit thinking (Padilla, 1981; Valencia, 1997, 2010) and has been well documented in academic literature (e.g., Brown, 2011; Castagno, 2008; Menchaca, 1997; McIntyre, Hulan, & Maher, 2010; Watson, Charner-Laird, & Kirkpatrick, 2006). Deficit thinking stems from the ethnocentric notion that the beliefs and standards of the dominant group are inherently correct. This way of thinking results in viewing students who do not adhere to the dominant norms as genetically inferior or socially depraved (Padilla, 1981). In this way, schools construe cultural, social, and linguistic differences as problems that originate in the home and over which educators have little influence. Educators who believe children and families are inherently deficient are reluctant to assume responsibility for students’ low achievement and failure (Berman & Chambliss, 2000). When educators do not view themselves as part of the problem, they have little willingness to look for solutions within the educational system itself (García & Guerra, 2004) and deficit beliefs create a disincentive for educators to engage in school reform efforts (García & Guerra, 2004). Even when reform efforts are mandated, educators who hold deficit beliefs resist modifying their own practice (García & Guerra, 2004; Pohan & Aguilar, 2001; Valencia et al., 2001) because they believe students and families are the source of the problem.
Why Cultural Knowledge Matters
Culture is the lens through which people see and understand the world (García & Dominguez, 1997). Cultural norms, which are learned through socialization, guide a person’s behavior and help the person interpret the behavior of others. A primary function of schooling is to socialize children and youth to act in accordance with cultural norms (Cushner, 2006). These cultural values are reflected in every aspect of schooling, including curriculum, books, class schedules, instructional methods, behavior management, and grading systems (García & Guerra, 2004). Yet cultures vary from one another in important ways including communication styles, power distribution, and identity development (Hall, 1977; Hofstede, 1997). For students who come from homes that share similar cultural norms to those taught in school, school is about learning academic content and reinforcing familiar cultural norms. For students who are socialized with a different set of cultural norms from those taught at school, school is about learning both academic content and cultural norms. Moreover, because culture is taught implicitly in schools, students must infer cultural norms, often through trial and error. Teachers who lack cultural understanding often assume students who do not adhere to expected norms are unintelligent or ill behaved. In this way, lack of cultural knowledge leads to or reinforces deficit thinking (García & Guerra, 2004).
The Study
In spite of the documented prevalence of deficit thinking and importance of cultural understanding, few educator preparation programs adequately address the issue of deficit beliefs and cultural knowledge among pre-service educators. While many preparation programs have a multicultural education course requirement, few have truly transformed the program content to reflect a multicultural perspective. A single course is insufficient to shift personal beliefs (Weisman & Garza, 2002) or develop deep cultural knowledge. As a result, many educators enter the field with deficit beliefs about diverse students and families. These beliefs are strongly held, even by those educators who see themselves as equity-oriented (García & Guerra, 2004). Because many educators also lack sufficient cultural knowledge to understand intercultural dynamics in classroom settings and typically do not have access to professional development that helps them develop this knowledge, deficit beliefs are often reinforced through professional practice.
This article adds to the body of literature related to educator beliefs by reporting the findings from a qualitative study of the beliefs and cultural knowledge of practicing teachers and school leaders. This work is significant for two reasons. First, the majority of recent research on educator beliefs has focused on pre-service teachers. There is a dearth of current literature on the beliefs of practicing educators and, in particular, educational leaders. Secondly, while a small number of studies have examined educators’ cultural knowledge, almost none have assessed application of this knowledge in practice. Therefore, this study is of considerable importance because it focuses on educators in the field, the majority of whom are school leaders, and because it examines cultural knowledge and its application in educational practice.
The purpose of this study was threefold: (1) to identify the beliefs practicing educators hold about culturally, linguistically, and economically diverse students and families; (2) to assess educator knowledge of culture; and (3) to understand how educators apply cultural knowledge in practice. Data were gathered from 111 educators who were asked to respond to a series of scenarios relating to the education of students from culturally, linguistically, and economically diverse backgrounds. The data-gathering instrument was developed through fieldwork, which examined the interactions of educators with diverse student populations and documented the educators’ explanations for the interactions.
Sample
The sample of 111 educators consisted of 73 educational leaders and 38 teachers from two suburban school districts, one located in Texas and the other in Michigan. While the Texas district is considerably larger (39,000 students) than the one in Michigan (2,521 students), both are located immediately outside of large urban centers and are experiencing demographic changes in the community and schools. The Texas district has experienced rapid growth in the last 10 years and is shifting from serving a predominantly White student body to one that is more ethnically and economically diverse. Presently, approximately 58% of the student population is White, 23% Hispanic, 10% African American, and 10% other ethnic backgrounds that were not specifically identified. Once predominantly White, the Michigan district is undergoing a similar transition with a current population of approximately 72% White students, 18% African American, 2% each of Asian and Hispanic Americans, 1% American Indian, and 5% multiracial. In contrast, approximately 90% of the teaching staff and administration in both districts is White.
Principals, central office staff, and members of the executive team from both districts comprised the educational leader group. Eighty-one percent (59) of the 73 educational leaders work in Texas and the remaining 19% (14) in Michigan. Out of 59 Texas educational leaders, 85% (50) identified their ethnicity/race as White, 8% (5) Hispanic, 5% (3) Black, and 2% (1) White and American Indian. All 14 of the Michigan educational leaders indicated they are White.
The teacher group included elementary, middle, and high school teachers, all of whom work in the Texas district. Out of this group of 38 teachers, 61% (23) reported their ethnicity/race as White, 16% (6) as African American, 13% (5) as Hispanic, 3% (1) as Asian American, 5% (2) as White and American Indian, and 3% (1) as White and Asian American. Data for teachers in the Michigan were collected, but due to the political circumstances in the district, we have excluded the Michigan teacher data from this study.
The Instrument
The instrument developed for this study consisted of scenarios centering on components of schooling such as instruction, curriculum, and building relationships with students and families. Six of the nine scenarios focused on classroom practice, while the other three addressed leadership. Each scenario depicted a culture clash and was designed to generate data related to educator beliefs about diverse students, educator knowledge of culture, and application of cultural knowledge in practice. All scenarios were based on actual events experienced by educators and shared with researchers during their work in the field. A qualitative approach was selected for the purpose of eliciting a “deeper and more accurate” understanding of educator beliefs than is possible through quantitative belief inventories (Pajares, 1992, p. 327). Brief descriptions of the scenarios are provided here to guide understanding of the results (see Figure 1).
Brief scenario descriptions
The instrument was administered prior to the onset of a diversity-training program that spanned an academic year (fall-spring). Participants were asked to read each scenario and answer two questions: (1) What is happening in the scenario? (2) If you were the educator in the scenario, how would you have responded and why? At the end of the 45-minute administration period, the completed instruments were collected.
Data Analysis
The instruments were analyzed by two researchers with extensive knowledge of culture and its influence on teaching, learning, and leadership. Using a constructivist grounded theory approach (Charmaz, 2006) and constant comparative analysis (Glaser, 1965), a sample of instruments were read and coded independently by each of the researchers to establish interrater reliability (Neuendorf, 2002). In a few instances where differences in coding occurred, the differences were discussed and resolved. Marques and McCall (2005) report using independent interraters in the analysis of data to “substantiate the instrument and significantly reduce the chance of bias influencing the outcome” (p. 440). To be clear, this step was not an attempt to norm or eliminate the researchers’ perspectives in the analysis process. To the contrary, this step was intended to bring the varied perspectives of each researcher to the interpretation of the responses. As researchers with differing identities and experiences, we hold varied worldviews. The diversity of our perspectives helped us consider the data from multiple angles. In creating interrater reliability, our goal was to expand our individual views to be more inclusive of our collective perspectives while recognizing the limitations of this strategy. We do not claim to be objective in this process. However, we were intentionally systematic in our analysis to ensure credibility (Merriam, 2009).
Once interrater reliability was established, all instruments were coded to identify examples of educator beliefs, knowledge of culture, and application of cultural knowledge in practice. The nature of examples was assessed in three ways. First, beliefs were coded as either deficit or pluralistic. Specifically, responses attributing the culture clash in the scenarios to diverse students or parents’ lack of qualities, knowledge, and abilities were coded as deficit (Padilla, 1981; Valencia, 1997, 2010). Responses attributing the clash to cultural distinctions or multiple realities were coded pluralistic (Gollnick & Chinn, 2008). In those rare cases when a response was too brief to make a determination, the response was not coded and was not included in the data set.
Second, knowledge of culture was assessed on a scale from no awareness to a deep understanding of invisible culture (Hollins, 2008). When responses did not mention any aspect of culture (i.e., visible, hidden, invisible) to explain clashes in the scenarios, they were coded culturally unaware. Responses using generalizations such as “culture” or “insensitive” without additional clarification were coded little awareness of culture. Responses focusing on visible culture, the cultural aspects we see and hear (Schein, 1984) such as food, clothing, and language, were coded as general awareness of culture. Responses discussing hidden culture or aspects not easily observed such as values, beliefs, attitudes, norms, communication style, and role expectations were coded as culturally aware. When invisible culture, the explanations for why we do things the way we do (Delgado-Gaitan, 2006; Hall, 1977; Hofstede, 1997), was used to explain culture clashes in the scenarios, the responses were coded as culturally responsive.
The final step in analyzing the responses was to assess application of cultural knowledge in practice. The solutions participants proposed to address the culture clashes were evaluated as subtractive or additive (Stritikus & García, 2003; Valenzuela, 1999). Responses suggesting diverse students and parents should assimilate to the culture of the school were coded as subtractive, while those advocating the use of students and parents’ funds of knowledge (González, Moll, & Amanti, 2005) were coded as additive. Drawing from the seminal work of Moll, Amanti, Neff, and González (1992), we defined funds of knowledge as the knowledge and skills that individuals learn through the experience of living within a household or community. Funds of knowledge, such as reading environmental text to learn sociopolitical history (Ordoñez-Jasis & Jasis, 2011) and learning a family trade, help the individual function within the household or community and are a source of knowledge that can be tapped to support academic learning (Ordoñez-Jasis & Jasis, 2011; Moll et al., 1992).
As a result of this coding process, categories of cultural awareness emerged and were placed on a continuum by degree (see Figure 2). Finally, all responses for an instrument were then examined holistically to determine where each educator fell along this continuum of cultural awareness.
Percentage of study participants identified at each level of the continuum of cultural awareness.
Results
Results from the teacher and educational leader groups were combined and are reported here as one set of findings. Where a significant difference exists between the two groups, the difference is noted. In the sections that follow, the word educator(s) is used to refer collectively to educational leaders and teachers. There are three important notes about how the data are reported. First, although the data are reported using both qualitative descriptors and numbers related to the frequency of responses, this is a qualitative study rather than a mixed-methods study. As Maxwell (2010) suggests, a study is not quantitative or mixed methods simply because numbers are used in the reporting of data. Rather, the distinction between qualitative and quantitative is in the interpretation of the data. For this study, we interpreted the data using a process theory with no attempt to incorporate variance theory (Maxwell, 2010). The number of respondents for each category is cited as evidence that we have accounted for all data, a measure of reliability (Becker, 1970; Sandelowski, Voils, & Knafl, 2009), and to illustrate the occurrence of the phenomena among this set of participants, a form of internal generalizability (Maxwell, 1992). We make note of this because the use of numbers in qualitative research is often misunderstood. As a result, there is an unnecessary reluctance by some qualitative researchers to use numbers when appropriate to their work. While we do not believe numbers are more powerful than words or make research more scientific, we do believe the use of numbers is appropriate in some instances of qualitative research, this study being one such instance.
A second note relates to the reporting of data by participants. While we collected demographic and other background data for each participant, our intent in doing so was to facilitate the identification of participants for future in-depth case study analysis. We made no attempt to analyze responses based on demographic or background data. As poststructural researchers, we reject the notion that people can be easily categorized by discreet demographic data. The participants in this study have multiple identities that influence the way they see the world. It would be inappropriate for us to prioritize particular identities in explaining individual participant views. Moreover, our focus is not on what individual educators know and believe. Rather, our focus is on preservice and in-service professional learning and how that system needs to change so that school improvement efforts are more effective.
Finally, it is important to note that because the data-gathering instrument was administered immediately prior to the onset of a diversity-training program, the participants were aware that their knowledge of culture and diversity was being assessed. Consequently, the participants were predisposed to discuss culture or some aspect of diversity when responding to the scenarios. Additionally, the participants were given extensive time to reflect and respond to the scenarios. In practice when educators encounter situations similar to those represented in the scenarios, they may be less likely to consider the influence of culture because they are not predisposed to look for these aspects and may have little time to critically reflect before acting. In this way, the instrument represents a best-case scenario for identifying the level of cultural responsiveness among educators.
Overall Results
Of the 111 educators who participated in this study, one (>1%) appears to be culturally responsive. Three (3%) were classified as culturally aware. Forty-nine (44%) seem to have general awareness of culture. Forty-three (39%) participants fell into the little awareness of culture category, while 15 (14%) appear to be culturally unaware. Eighty (72%) out of the 111 educators exhibited one or more deficit beliefs about students and families of diverse backgrounds.
Culturally responsive
One educator (>1%), who is a school leader, was the only participant identified as culturally responsive. In responding to the scenarios, this educator expressed pluralistic beliefs, demonstrated a high degree of knowledge about invisible culture, and provided a number of culturally responsive or additive solutions to the conflicts depicted in the scenarios. Specifically, this educator attributed the conflicts to culture clashes rather than to personality differences, ineffective instruction, or lack of student skills or experiences. Additionally this participant identified dimensions of culture (Hall, 1977; Hofstede, 1997) as an underlying factor in each of the scenarios, an indication she has a substantial understanding of invisible culture. In some scenarios, the educator actually named a specific dimension of culture (i.e., individualism–collectivism, high–low context communication) when explaining the culture clash. For example, in response to the scenario in which teachers discuss concerns related to Latino parents walking their children to their classrooms in the morning, this educator explained it was a “Clash of cultures—Hispanics tend to be more collectivistic. Anglos tend to be individualistic, schools generally reflect and value individualistic thinking.” In the scenario where culturally, linguistically, and economically diverse students diagrammed family relationships differently from their classmates, the participant stated, “Collectivism vs. Individualistic cultural differences. Low SES and kids of color see the group as more of a whole—individuals are part of the group, whereas other students believe in a more independent representation.”
Additionally, this educator was purposeful in using her cultural knowledge when proposing solutions to the culture clashes. Rather than offering generic best practices, she discussed solutions that directly linked to her understanding of culture. In the scenario related to Latino parents walking their children to their classrooms, she responded: I had a similar situation at our school. … Some teachers wanted a “zone” marked by a line of tape on the floor to discourage parents from entering classrooms. Mornings are a little like a Barnes and Noble atmosphere. What I found in reality is that by 8:00 parents are out of the rooms. [I] encouraged teachers to go about their normal routines—lunch count, announcements, etc.
This culturally responsive practice reflects an additive rather than a subtractive view of culture. Unlike many of the other educators in the study, this educator appeared to recognize that the action of parents accompanying their children to the classroom is a form of parent involvement. Rather than alienating parents by imposing strict rules to extinguish their behavior, this participant appeared to value the parents’ actions. In fact, in her response she added that a similar situation had occurred at her school and she had capitalized on this involvement “to establish a community of parents.”
Equally important, this educator promoted cultural competence among all students, not just the students of color, which reflected another additive practice. In her response to the scenario in which most of the diverse students created family diagrams depicting collectivistic relationships while many White, middle-class students depicted individualistic family connections, this educator stated, “I would ask the students to explain their thinking to the class … it’s an opportunity for all the students to learn about differing perspectives of their fellow classmates.” In her response to the scenario in which teachers debate the use of the book Huckleberry Finn, the participant explained, “[It] would be an opportunity to compare/contrast this work with other viewpoints of the time … not good to shelter kids from the reality of our past.” For this educator, culture clashes served as valuable teaching opportunities where diverse students’ funds of knowledge were shared and validated.
Finally, this educator appears to clearly understand the issue presented in one of the leadership scenarios. In this particular scenario, teachers are asked to identify barriers to student achievement. They indicate students and families are the greatest challenges. In responding to this scenario, the culturally responsive educator indicated teachers’ deficit thinking, not students and parents, was the issue. She recognized teachers were blaming students and families rather than considering the connection between school practices and student outcomes.
However, in spite of her insightful assessment of the situation, this educator’s response to how she would act suggests she does not always apply cultural responsiveness in practice. Her response, “Focus teachers on those things over which we have control … curriculum, assessment, intervention, engaging students. What’s within our circle of influence,” suggests the educator sees teachers’ deficit beliefs as outside her scope of her influence or is reluctant to address them. While addressing deficit beliefs is often difficult because it involves frank conversations related to race, class, gender, and other forms of diversity (Nelson & Guerra, 2008), creating culturally responsive schools requires that deficit beliefs be addressed. The fact that the educator in this case did not indicate she would address deficit beliefs although she recognized them suggests that even a culturally responsive educator may not enact culturally responsive practice at every opportunity and underscores the difficulty of consistently practicing cultural responsiveness.
Culturally aware
The three (3%) educators identified as culturally aware were educational leaders working in the Michigan district. In all but one of the scenarios they, too, identified the interactions in the scenarios as culture clashes and not a problem of ineffective instruction or a deficiency in students. Like the culturally responsive educator, this small group of individuals understood invisible aspects of culture were at odds in the classroom and in school. Although they did not use the dimensions of culture (Hall, 1977; Hofstede, 1997) in explaining the behaviors of individuals in the scenarios, this group did attribute the clashes to “multiple perspectives” or “different value systems” and could identify more blatant forms of deficit thinking. For example, in the scenario in which culturally, linguistically, and economically diverse students diagrammed family relationships differently from their White, middleclass classmates, this group of educators gave responses that suggest they understand the validity of differing perspectives: “Mr. Smith is looking at the situation through his own value filter. He expects the answer to reflect the mainstream, middle-class culture.” “Juan does not see his family as revolving around him but as an interconnected overlapping structure. The Anglo students seem to see their family members as separate people.” “Cultural unawareness on the part of the teacher. There would have not been a ‘correct’ or ‘incorrect’ response.”
Similarly, in the scenario with Hispanic parents walking their children to their classrooms, one of these culturally aware educators responded: Staff is still seeing the situation through their own eyes. They still want to attach a sense of “not caring” to the parents. They feel good because they have identified the issues parents deal with, but they still interpret their (parents) behavior as not caring.
In the scenario in which a teacher asks students whether they know how to keep from getting sick and then dismisses responses that represent non-Western views of health care, another culturally aware educator stated, “The teacher is not accepting of answers from all students. In many cultures, the power of herbal remedies, teas, etc. are highly respected for medicinal use. The assumption of financial reasons and setting the answer aside may build barriers.” While these responses reflect this group’s understanding of deeper aspects of culture, such as different sets of values clashing, they were not categorized as culturally responsive for two reasons. First, two of the three educators expressed a deficit belief in responding to one of the scenarios. Secondly, their solutions to the culture clashes in the scenarios appeared to be based more in best practice than in cultural responsiveness. They tended to suggest technical fixes that are generally considered effective for all students and families without regard to cultural differences. For example, in response to the question, “How would you have responded if you were the teacher?” in the health lesson scenario, one culturally aware educator answered, “Exactly as she [the teacher] had in the earlier examples: accept the answer, thank the child, and write it among the others—not aside.” This best practice of recognizing the child’s contribution is important, but not enough, because it fails to validate the child’s funds of knowledge. In contrast, solutions offered by the culturally responsive educator were purposively linked to cultural knowledge used in explaining clashes in the scenarios. Similar to the culturally aware educators, the culturally responsive educator recognized the child’s contribution in the health lesson. However, instead of just thanking the child and recording the answer on the board, she asked the child to elaborate on the home remedies her family used. This additive practice validated the child’s funds of knowledge and promoted cultural competence for all students.
In terms of deficit thinking, two of the three culturally aware educators affirmed the deficit belief expressed by educators in a scenario related to increasing parent involvement. Rather than acknowledging diverse parents may be involved in their child’s education in ways that are not commonly recognized by schools, two of the participants in this category appeared to accept the idea that diverse parents are not involved. As one of the educators responded, “What can we do to make this more inviting for our parents? Assume they do care and do want to be involved.” The other one reported, “The teachers who at least want to attempt to get parents involved have provided enough reasons to make themselves feel good about what they are doing without digging deeper to find ways to involve the parents/community.” Although subtle, the underlying belief in these statements is culturally, linguistically, and economically diverse parents are not involved in their child’s education as reflected by the suggestions that educators need to make the school “more inviting” or “[dig] deeper to find ways to involve” them. Interestingly, this same deficit belief was held by almost the entire sample of educators in this study. Even though a number of different studies (Diamond, 2004; Hughes, n.d.) have found that culturally, linguistically, and economically diverse parents are involved in their child’s education, albeit in different ways, it appears that if these ways are dissimilar to those expected by educators, parents are viewed as uninvolved and uncaring.
The third culturally aware educator did not appear to accept that parents in the scenario were uninvolved. On the contrary, this educator appeared to recognize the deficit thinking expressed in the scenario as illustrated by her solution to the clash: “By providing opportunities for the staff in cultural awareness and the dangers of assuming that any parent doesn’t care about their child, or doesn’t value education as I have never met such a parent.” Although this educator did not express deficit beliefs, she was not categorized as culturally responsive because she did not use cultural knowledge to provide specific solutions to the clashes in the scenarios. In fact, her solution to several of the scenarios was to provide cultural awareness training to the staff. Although an excellent idea, this response implied the participant had insufficient understanding of invisible culture to apply the concept in practice. This contrasted markedly with the solutions offered by the culturally responsive educator.
General awareness to little awareness of culture
Ninety-two (83%) of the educators fell into the general awareness and little awareness of culture categories. Although these are separate categories, there is considerable overlap between them, and therefore, they are discussed together.
The 49 (44%) educators with general awareness of culture were able to identify aspects of the clashes in the scenarios that focused on visible culture such as food, health care, and family membership, but their explanations for these differences were attributed to general interpretations such as “family dynamics” and “experiences” or to stereotypical and inaccurate information about diverse students and families. This was illustrated in responses to the scenario in which culturally, linguistically, and economically diverse students diagrammed family relationships differently from their White, middle-class classmates. In responding to this scenario, one educator suggested, “Mr. Smith should have recognized family dynamics and that the students bring personal references to the table. I would have modeled another relationship for the students and re-do in small groups.” Another participant explained: The students’ responses are based on their own cultural differences. The students of color, specifically those of Hispanic background, have a different view of the family relationship. The individuals/relatives listed would tend to be under the same roof, so the extended family is closer and better represented in a Venn diagram.
A third participant answered, “The students of color described how they perceived Juan’s relationship with the others based on their own experiences.” A few educators in this category mentioned that beliefs or values differed, though they did not specify how they differed. Instead they used phrases like “culture differences” or “cultures at odds” in an attempt to explain the interactions in the scenarios. One educator cited, “It is a culture issue. The students who got the answer wrong really do not see how relevant this is in their lives. They feel this assignment is not important to them.” Educators in this category tended to provide this type of general response to most scenarios, which indicates a limited understanding of culture. Furthermore, educators in the general awareness of culture category expressed deficit beliefs about students and families throughout their responses.
The 43 (39%) educators with little awareness of culture tended to attribute culture clashes in the scenarios to ineffective instruction or to a lack of knowledge, skills, or experiences on the part of students and families rather than to cultural differences. In the scenario on diagramming family relationships, one educator responded, “Students chose to use circles over lines vs. using both per the directions. Clarity [in] directions [need] to be more specific in including both circles and lines.” A second educator wrote: Mr. Smith seemed to have one idea in mind for the assignment and when it did not turn out that way he assumed it was due to some fault of his students. He failed to do more questioning with the students or be more open-minded to their responses.
Another participant explained, “Mr. Smith is favoring a certain group over another. He is making assumptions regarding students’ inability to follow directions.” These examples suggest that educators in this category have less cultural awareness than participants categorized as general awareness of culture. In many cases, participants categorized as little awareness of culture were only able to explain the most visible aspect of culture, such as dietary differences, and even then could make only a general connection rather than providing a specific explanation. One-word responses such as “culture” or “insensitive” were often given to explain differences without further elaboration. Additionally, the participants in this category expressed more deficit beliefs about students and families than educators with general awareness of culture.
When invisible aspects of culture were embedded in the scenarios, neither those with general awareness nor those with little cultural awareness identified the conflict as culturally based. Rather, they attributed the problem to a lack of effective instruction or to a deficiency in students or parents. In response to the scenario centering on two Latino students who approached the teacher in regard to completing a class assignment, one educator responded, “Students are unclear about the assignment—perhaps due to lack of language.” Another indicated: They could have a fear of a wrong answer. She is going to pick the “best” ones. Students assume there is a right and wrong answer. … She should have taken the time to understand why they are uncertain of their responses.
A third explained, “As the teacher I would continue to work with these students and do my best to meet their needs. Obviously they have a need for approval or additional explanation of directions for assignments.” Another participant replied, “I would have recognized the students were confused and not confident to do the assignment independently.”
Participants in both of these categories tended to cite technical solutions (e.g., “use a data inquiry process,” “put more rules in place,” “orient parents”) as a means to address the clashes occurring in the leadership scenarios. This tendency to use technical solutions suggests limited ability to apply cultural knowledge. For example, although 58 (63%) of the educators in these two groups found it problematic that teachers in one of the scenarios identified students and parents as the greatest challenges to improving achievement, only 16 of these 58 educators (28%) reported they would directly address teacher attitudes, a necessary step in creating culturally responsive classrooms and schools. Out of the 16 educators, 3 are teachers, while 13 are educational leaders.
The remaining 42 of the 58 educators who viewed the teacher perspective in the scenario as problematic stated they would implement a technical approach to deal with the “blame game,” or as one educational leader delineated, “Data analysis, failure is not an option, what do we have control over, what can we do to change results, short-term goals, long-term goals.” These may be necessary steps, but they fail to address the more significant problem of deficit beliefs, which stall or cease school improvement efforts (García & Guerra, 2004). Given these responses, it appears educators in this group may not have the cultural knowledge, skills, or comfort level to engage in the difficult work of addressing deficit beliefs and may actually hold some of the same beliefs. In most cases, educators with general or little cultural awareness did not appear to promote multicultural understanding for all students. To the contrary, many of them indicated that diverse students and their families should be the target of change.
For these two categories, we found a marked difference between educational leaders and teachers. Interestingly, 55% (21) of the teachers in this study fell into the general awareness of culture category, whereas only 38% (28) of educational leaders were included in this group. A higher percent of educational leaders, 44% (32), fell into the little awareness of culture category, while 29% (11) of teachers were in this same category. These data suggest that educational leaders in our sample have less cultural understanding than the teachers. Even when the one culturally responsive and three culturally aware leaders are included, a smaller portion of educational leaders than teachers falls into the top three categories (i.e., culturally responsive, culturally aware, general awareness), with 44% and 55%, respectively.
Culturally unaware
The 15 educators (14%) categorized as culturally unaware did not appear to consider culture as the basis for the clashes in the six scenarios. A few of the educators in this category did use the word insensitive or sensitivity when discussing whether they would teach the book Huckleberry Finn, but this use referred to racial tolerance rather than to cultural understanding. Moreover, the majority of the educators in this category seemed to believe the problems identified in the scenarios were a direct result of students or parents. They frequently indicated students or parents lacked the “proper” knowledge and skills or had attitudinal problems. As one educator stated, “The kids of low SES are, perhaps, diagramming based on their experiences—or have not been taught how to do a family tree when complexities arise.” A second educator responded, “Perhaps the kids see her [the teacher] as an expert or just need reassurance … in time they will grow more self-confident.” And another explained, “Many kids don’t have goals or understand why education is important. Kids need to be taught the rules and why to be professionally successful. Parents need to have help understanding them as well.” Solutions offered by educators in this category centered on “fixing” culturally, linguistically, and economically diverse students and families with the purpose of assimilating them into the culture of the school.
Deficit beliefs
In examining the deficit beliefs expressed by the participants, there was an obvious trend that factored into which category the educators were placed. In general, educators with greater cultural knowledge tended to express fewer and less severe deficit beliefs about the diverse students and families in the scenarios. For example, the culturally responsive educational leader expressed no deficit views, while two of the three culturally aware educational leaders each expressed a single deficit view. In contrast, educators in the general awareness, little awareness, and culturally unaware categories tended to express increasingly numerous and more negative deficit beliefs. One educator categorized as culturally unaware expressed deficit beliefs in five out of the six scenarios in the instrument, indicating this educator appears to hold significant biases relative to diverse students and families.
In most cases, the deficit beliefs expressed by educators centered on the idea that the culture clashes depicted in the scenarios were the resulted from lack of knowledge or intentional misconduct on the part of students and families. For example, in the scenario in which some students drew collectivist representations of family when the teacher was expecting individualistic representations, educators tended to suggest culturally, linguistically, and economically diverse students did not have either the background information or the skills to correctly complete the assignment. Similarly, in responding to the scenario in which two Latino students approached the teacher to discuss a classroom assignment, participants suggested that the students either “lacked ability to comprehend the assignment,” “needed validation” or “additional approval,” “did not have self-confidence,” or “were fearful of getting the assignment incorrect” rather than considering the influence of culture, which often affects student interaction with teachers.
In regard to deficit views of parents, participants frequently characterized the parents referenced in the scenarios as being uninvolved in their children’s education. Reasons given for their lack of involvement focused on the “difficulties they face outside of school,” the “need to work,” and “understanding of the homes the students live in … parents work two jobs and money, health issues are more pressing.” Furthermore, most educators did not recognize forms of parent involvement that did not adhere to traditional definitions of parent involvement. For example, “parents walking their children to class” was frequently viewed as a problem that needed to be immediately extinguished or phased out, and some participants even suggested this behavior was detrimental to children’s development.
One scenario more than any other seemed to elicit deficit views. In this scenario, a class of fourth-grade students is touring a history museum. The curator reports that a group of African American boys was running in the museum and informs the teacher the class must leave the museum. When questioned, the boys indicate they were simply looking for Black cowboys. In responding to this scenario, the majority of educators assumed the students had, in fact, engaged in inappropriate behavior. They failed to question the curator’s perception of the situation, accepting it as fact. As one educator wrote, “The boys appear to be horsing around in the museum. The curator is annoyed. The boys are causing a problem for the other visitors. The curator is doing what he/she feels is appropriate by asking them to leave.” Some educators attributed the boys’ behavior to lack of experience in museums: “The students were acting as if they had not experienced ‘museum culture’ before and did not realize the extent of the reserve expected.” A smaller number of educators appeared to recognize the appropriateness of the boys looking for Black cowboys. However, these educators also seemed to readily accept that the boys misbehaved when they did not find such a display as reflected in the following comment, “The children are looking for representation of their race/culture in Texas history. Finding none, they are acting out.”
Only 2 of the 111 educators seemed to consider the possibility that the curator’s perception of the situation could have been inaccurate. These educators indicated they would ask the students for their perspective of the situation and investigate further before deciding how to proceed. The willingness to consider that the boys were not misbehaving and were being unfairly singled out is important because the behavior of African American students is often perceived more negatively than the same behavior among White students. This phenomenon contributes to the overrepresentation of African American students in school discipline data. Almost none of the participants in this study considered an alternative explanation for what was happening in the scenario, suggesting the participants are prone to accept without question reports of misbehavior among African American students. Significantly, this is the only scenario on the data-collection instrument to focus explicitly on African American students and this scenario generated more deficit beliefs from participants than any other,
Discussion
The majority of educators in this study appear to have a general awareness of culture. At the same time, the majority of participants appear to hold deficit beliefs about diverse students and their families. Given that research on preservice teachers indicates that even at the end of their preparation programs most preservice teachers enter the field with “attitudes that are not conducive to working with children of color in low-socioeconomic communities” (Weisman & Garza, 2002, p. 33) and that a number of studies have found deficit beliefs among educators (e.g., Brown, 2011; Castagno, 2008; McIntyre et al., 2010; Skrla & Scheurich, 2001; Watson et al., 2006), perhaps it is no surprise this study also found that practicing educators tend to hold deficit beliefs about diverse students and families.
Interestingly, the teachers in this study seemingly have more cultural knowledge than the educational leaders. However, the teachers also expressed more numerous and more severe deficit beliefs than leaders. While our data do not allow us to determine why there is a difference among teachers and educational leaders in these areas, we surmise the greater cultural awareness among teachers may be due to the teachers having more recently gone through teacher preparation programs, many of which have begun to include courses on multiculturalism. The fact that educational leaders expressed fewer deficit beliefs while having less cultural knowledge is puzzling. Perhaps the educational leaders in this study expressed fewer deficit beliefs because they had more experience with diverse students and families and, therefore, had an opportunity to dispel their deficit beliefs. This is an area we intend to explore in future studies.
What this study adds to the literature is an analysis of how deficit beliefs interact with cultural knowledge to affect leadership and instructional practice. If our sample of participants is typical, and we have no reason to believe it is not, our findings suggest the vast majority of educators, including educational leaders, may hold deficit beliefs about culturally, linguistically, and economically diverse students and often have insufficient cultural knowledge to recognize and respond to culture clashes. Further, even when educators possess cultural knowledge, they do not seem to consistently apply it in practice. In cases when cultural knowledge is applied, it appears to be applied most frequently to address visible aspects culture, leaving the more common source of culture clashes, invisible culture, unaddressed.
That so many of our participants expressed deficit beliefs about students of culturally, linguistically, and economically diverse backgrounds is troubling because beliefs act as a filter through which all decisions about schooling are made (García & Guerra, 2004). Guided by this lens, educators attempt to close the achievement gap with technical fixes rather than question their own effectiveness in providing equitable, culturally responsive learning environments. This appears to be the case for the majority of educators in this study who tended to suggest generic best practices to resolve the culture clashes depicted in the scenarios. What is most problematic about this is that when technical solutions fail to close the gap, deficit thinking is likely to be reinforced and school improvement efforts stall (García & Guerra, 2004). In other words, students are blamed for their “lack of motivation and interest in education” and parents for their “failure to value education and support their children,” rather than the school being held responsible. This cycle of deficit thinking results in negative consequences for culturally, linguistically, and economically diverse students and families, including high failure and dropout rates, disproportionality in special education, overreferrals to discipline, fewer placements in gifted education and advanced classes, and exclusion of parents in schooling.
For this reason, addressing deficit thinking is an essential aspect of school improvement. However, the results of this study suggest that educational leaders may be ill equipped to lead this aspect of reform efforts. Almost all the educational leaders in this study expressed deficit views and most were seemingly unaware that deficit thinking may be at work in conflict situations. Even those leaders who indicated an awareness of the need to address deficit views gave no indication they would take up this challenge with their staff. These results suggest educational leaders must be supported in developing both awareness and skill related to challenging and reframing deficit beliefs if they are to effectively lead school improvement efforts.
The results of this study further suggest that while educators seem to have a general level of cultural knowledge, which presumably was developed at least in part through their preparation programs and subsequent professional development, educators need deeper knowledge of culture to develop cultural competence. In particular, educators need to have knowledge beyond the easily observable aspects of culture. They must understand invisible culture, the unobservable and often unconscious explanations for why we do things the way we do (Nelson, Guerra, & Henry, 2011). For example, one of the scenarios used in this study describes parents of young children remaining in the classroom at the start of the school day rather than leaving their children at the classroom door as the teachers preferred. This scenario depicts a possible clash of invisible culture in that the parents may be guided by the value of interdependence and may believe that remaining in the classroom conveys care and support for their children’s education. Conversely, educators may assume that developing independence among the children is an important principle and that the parents are interfering with this by remaining in the classroom.
These guiding principles of interdependence and independence are the kind of taken-for-granted assumptions that characterize invisible culture. Because invisible culture has a greater influence on behavior than any other aspect of culture (Hall, 1977), it is critical that educators, and in particular educational leaders, understand invisible culture and how it guides interactions and expectations about everything that happens in schools from behavioral expectations, to communication, to pedagogical processes (Hollins, 2008). However, because invisible culture is the most complex and least understood aspect of culture (Hall, 1977), it is not likely that educational leaders will develop knowledge of invisible culture and its role in schools and classrooms on their own. Preparation and professional development programs must provide this support.
Cultural competence requires both deep cultural knowledge and a process for surfacing, challenging, and reframing deficit thinking. Developing cultural competence is a sizeable challenge because deficit beliefs are not malleable (Bandura, 1986; Bruner, 1996; Pajares, 1992) and acquiring deep cultural knowledge takes sustained study. Nonetheless, there are reports of programs that have made cultural competence a central component of their work (e.g., Bodur, 2012; Kidd, Sánchez, & Thorp, 2008; Marx, 2006). Interestingly, the one educator who was identified as culturally responsive in this study reported graduating from a principal preparation program with an explicitly stated focus on developing culturally competent educational leaders. The participant attributed this program, at least in part, to her development as a culturally responsive educator. Although a sample of only one, this finding supports other studies (e.g., Bodur, 2012; Kidd et al., 2008; Marx, 2006) that suggest preparation programs may hold promise for reducing educators’ deficit thinking and promoting culturally responsive practice. Moreover, the fact that the majority of participants in this study demonstrated a general awareness of culture suggests that preparation and professional development programs are working to develop educators’ cultural knowledge. It is reasonable to assume that such programs could be instrumental in building an even deeper knowledge of culture so that more educators might develop cultural competence.
To build cultural competence, preparation and in-service professional development programs must help teachers and leaders understand how cultural identity is embedded in all aspects of schooling (Delgado-Gaitan, 2006), including what, how, and who is taught (García & Dominguez, 1997), how classrooms are organized, what instructional materials are selected, how student behavior is managed, how interactions with parents are structured, and how the cultural identity taught at school may be in conflict with the worldview of students and families. This depth of understanding does not occur after one or two courses or one or two workshops. Developing this level of cultural competence requires a transformative journey that takes educators beyond cultural awareness and knowledge to a place where deficit beliefs and practices can be explored, challenged, and changed (Nelson & Guerra, 2008). Such a process helps educators “shift … from blaming [students and families] to probing and reshaping the processes, policies, and contexts designed to address inequity” (Delgado-Gaitan, 2006, p. ix). Creating programs that build cultural competence among educators also requires integrating cultural knowledge and skills into all program content and experiences. Learning of this nature must become the work of all who are involved in preparation programs and professional development experiences. This work cannot be left to a select few. Each faculty member and professional developer must take an honest look and critically assess her or his own beliefs about diversity, cultural knowledge, and commitment to equity, and then obtain the necessary knowledge and skills to facilitate this transformative journey (Guerra & Nelson, 2009, 2011). Without these recommended changes to educator preparation and professional development programs, there is little reason to believe 30 more years of school reform will produce significantly different results.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.