Communicating Care Across Culture and Language

A Sociocultural Perspective on Minority Students and Schools

Despite often being depicted as a-cultural, schools tend to mirror the culture of the dominant group, which may marginalize minority students who are less familiar with these cultural norms (Delpit 1995; Valenzuela 1999). Children from underrepresented communities may experience different expectations for behavior and relationships between classroom and home (Delpit 1995; Keller et al. 2006; Lee 2007). By contrast, children from highly schooled communities are likely to experience similar norms for interacting with peers and adults at home and at school (Laosa 1980; Tapia Uribe, LeVine, and LeVine 1993). For example, Mexican-heritage children from communities with indigenous history have been observed using collaboration, close observation, and multiple means of communication (especially nonverbal) to learn from ongoing community activities (Gaskins 1999; Mejía Arauz et al. 2007; Paradise 1994). This pattern of interaction contrasts with the highly verbal, usually solo, engagement in child-focused activities out of the context of community activities, common in Western schooling (Candela 2005; McNaughton 2005; Sharan and Sharan 1992). What’s more, these cultural differences can lead to imperfections in both accuracy and attributions of observed behavior (Lee 1995; A. L. D. Roberts and Rogoff 2012). For example, in viewing videos of peers using an unfamiliar cultural way of learning, children missed learning behaviors such as nonverbal communication and collaborative moves. Furthermore, these children misinterpreted others as “not working” or “goofing around” (A. L. D. Roberts and Rogoff 2012). Latin@ students accustomed to collaboration have reported being inappropriately accused of cheating by teachers (see Rogoff 2003). These reports are echoed by in-depth explorations of learning environments where instructional norms may limit teachers’ ability to engage students and facilitate student learning (Bang et al. 2012; Nasir and de Royston, 2013). These reports may suggest that teachers for whom working alone is the norm may also miss, or misinterpret, their students’ cultural ways of learning.

Latin@ students in U.S. schools are not likely to share an ethnic or linguistic background with their teachers (National Center for Education Statistics 2015). The congruence between students’ and teachers’ backgrounds and cultural norms has been discussed at length in the literature as a factor related to Latin@ academic success (Irizarry 2015; Irizarry and Donaldson 2012; Irizarry and Williams 2013; Ladson-Billings 1995) and rate of placement in gifted programs (Ford 2014; Grissom, Rodriguez, and Kern 2015). Although teachers who possess knowledge or skills relevant to their learners (e.g., fluency in Spanish) are significantly more successful ¹ with such learners (e.g., English-language learners; Loeb, Soland, and Fox 2014), teachers are unlikely to be prepared to work with students from different backgrounds (Karabenick and Clemens Noda 2004; Moll et al. 1992). Furthermore, the fact that norms for interaction in U.S. schools are often misrepresented as “culture free” may make cultural differences between teachers and students difficult to bridge (Connell 1993; Delpit 1995). Given these challenges and common demographic differences, teachers’ care for, and relationship with, students may be lost in translation.

Language as a Marker of Student Culture and Socialization in Schools

Language use and proficiency may shape the relationship of Latin@ students to teachers and schools. Historical and present day social and political pressures may trouble the student–teacher relationship, but it may also be critical for student success. Historically, the U.S. school system has been designed to assimilate students, rather than nurture minority cultures and languages (De La Luz Reyes and Halcon 2000; López 2010; Moll and Greenburg 1990; Valenzuela 1999). While research has documented the key role of language in identity (Noels, Pon, and Clement 1996; Oh and Fuligni 2010; Phinney et al. 2001; Weisskirch 2005), public schooling in the United States is conducted predominantly in English. Excluding or failing to acknowledge the languages or cultural norms of interaction common in students’ communities may constitute a continuation of this assimilation. Thus, language may mark challenges related to the relationship between the learner and school. Brown (2006) provides an example of a teacher inviting students to talk about scientific concepts using the slang they used to talk to one another. While the students learned the science skills, they did not adapt to their ways of speaking to reflect the discourse of science. Brown (2006) suggests that this refusal to put science in their own terms epitomized the students’ perception of a lack of ownership of the subject matter. The relationship to the subject matter, to school, and perhaps to their teacher had been “lost in translation.” U.S. schools that generally strip Latin@ students of their cultural and linguistic heritage (Garza and Crawford 2005; Menken 2013; Valenzuela 1999) may thereby create obstacles for students meaningfully relating to learning in schools. We join previous researchers in suggesting that while language alone cannot explain the achievement gap under which Latin@ students suffer, it may be a marker of socialization into the culture of schools that may be detrimental for students.

The multiple marginalities perspective suggests that both social and structural resources influencing academic outcomes for Latin@ youth are conveyed through subtle cultural norms and practices in individual relationships (Conchas and Vigil 2010). The multiple marginalities perspective on the success of Latinas/os in U.S. schools supports a focus on the student–teacher and student–school relationships in shaping Latin@ educational experience. Research on the student–teacher relationship further supports the importance of this relationship, as it correlates with a sense of belonging and improved student learning and achievement (Deci and Ryan 1985; Goodenow 1993; McCroskey 1992; Noddings 1995; Wentzel 1997). We propose that while structural forces in schools tend to marginalize Latino students, teacher care is vital for student achievement. Further, as teachers may not be of the same linguistic or cultural backgrounds as their students, an examination of the efficacy communication of this care is necessary.

Learning as Situated in Relationships: Teachers as Brokers

From a sociocultural historical perspective, learning is situated within relationships and thus is intrinsically tied to identity. As learners grow in their understanding of a practice or subject matter, their understanding and familiarity with the norms and the goals of the community of those who practice this skill or knowledge grows as well (Holland et al. 1998; Nasir and Cooks 2009). Thus, from a sociocultural perspective, learning not only occurs through but is motivated by, and assessed via, relationships (A. L. D. Roberts 2007; Rogoff et al. 2014). As a socially embedded process, learning is inseparable from the relationship between teacher and learner (Bingham and Sidorkin 2004; Dewey 1958).

M. A. R. Roberts (2010) found that successful African American high school students had meaningful relationships with their African American teachers that fostered their developing identities as learners. These African American teachers showed care for students, in part, by serving as cultural brokers for students engaging with an inequitable system. Teachers reported discussing the politics and experience of race in clear and direct ways including communicating with marginalized students about issues and challenges they faced and counteracting negative media perceptions of their group. Thus, these successful students had teachers who had personalized relationships with students but also acknowledged schooling as a cultural space and addressed the inequalities implicit in their underrepresentation in this space directly with students.

Student Perceptions of Teachers’ Care as Reflections of Their Relationship to the Culture of Schools

It is clear from previous research that the U.S. education system is disproportionately underserving Latin@ students (Fernández 2002; Gándara 2010). It is also clear that this gap between Latin@ achievement and that of other student groups cannot be directly explained through second-language learning or recency of immigration-related challenges (Buriel and Cardoza 1988; Suárez-Orozco 2001; Zsembik and Llanes 1996). Using sociocultural theory, we understand learning as situated in the relationships between teachers and students as well as between students and the larger institution of public education (Delpit 1995; Lee 2007; Rogoff et al. 2014). The multiple marginalities perspective (Conchas and Vigil 2010) builds on sociocultural foundations to suggest that interpersonal relationships such as those between students and teachers both hold the key to student success and can be the medium by which marginalization is enacted. Given the hazardous situation of Latinas/os in the public education system and teachers’ pivotal role in mediating between students and the larger educational institution, the current study explores student perceptions of how teachers communicate care.

Two Predominantly Latino Communities in Chicago

The current study compares across two Chicago area communities that have historically been home to large numbers of Latin@ residents. The first community described here, Howlett Park, has recently undergone significant gentrification (Theil 2015), while the later has remained a center of Latin@ cultural and political influence since the 1980s (Andrade 1998). Although Howlett Park was undergoing significant gentrification at the time of this study, there were also strong sources of support for schools and families (Aardema and Knoy 2004). Participating schools shared the same school district where teachers were 48 percent Caucasian, 25 percent Black, 15 percent Hispanic, 4 percent Asian, and 8 percent other. Teacher demographics did not mirror those of students in either school (over 90 percent Latin@ at each school). We suggest that the sociohistorical character of these communities and the schools within them heightens the contrast between the reports of students in our findings.

Howlett Park ² is a community of almost 85,000 located on the northwest side of Chicago that has historically attracted immigrant communities and is presently predominantly Latino—46 percent (U.S. Census Data 2012). This blue-collar community struggles with poverty, language barriers, and underperforming public schools.

In 2010, less than 55 percent of third graders at public schools in Howlett Park had attained the Illinois Learning Standards in reading (Chicago Public Schools [CPS] 2010). At the time of the study, Howlett Elementary served over 800 elementary students in PK-sixth grade, 98 percent of who received free/reduced-price lunch. Howlett was above both state (49 percent) and city (88 percent) averages in terms of the percentage of its students who are eligible for free or reduced-price lunches. The student body was 91 percent Latino, 7 percent African American, and 2 percent Caucasian. On state standardized measures in 2012, 72 percent of Howlett students met or exceeded state standards in math, and 62 percent met or exceeded standards in reading. At the time of the study, 40 percent of students were classified as limited English proficient and 11 percent of students received special education services (CPS 2012).

Five pairs of Spanish–English bilingual Latin@ elementary students (N = 10) at Howlett Elementary, in grades 3 through 5, participated in video-recorded focus group sessions. Two pairs were in third grade, two in fourth grade, and one in fifth grade. Although specific information on the generation of immigration on these participants was not available, demographic data for the region suggest a majority of Latin@ students were first and second generation (Patterson 2004).

Pueblito Oeste, the second study site, is located in the Southwest of Chicago. Since the 1980s, the area has been predominantly composed of Mexican immigrants and has been referred to as the “Mexico of the Midwest.” The strong presence of Mexican culture is epitomized by its Mexican Independence Day Parade which is the largest Hispanic parade in Chicago (Gellman 2008).

The Pueblito Oeste school grew out of a community organization founded in the late 1970s to serve Latin@ families in Chicago. We conducted our research at one of the two school sites with a focus on preparing students for a career track in the health and sciences. ³ At the time of the study, the school served approximately 500 students a majority of whom were classified as low-income students (96.1 percent). The student body was 92.3 percent Latino, 5 percent African American, and 1.7 percent Caucasian. During the 2012–2013 school year, 23.9 percent of students met or exceeded Illinois Standard Achievement Test reading and math expectations. A small percentage of the students (16.5 percent) classify as limited English proficiency.

A total of 18 Spanish–English bilingual Latin@ students (9 males and 9 females) from Pueblito Oeste participated in the study. Participants ranged in age from 13 to 18. Eleven participants (61 percent) identified as second generation immigrants.

Semistructured Interviews Building on Children’s Definitions

Semistructured interviews were conducted using a grounded theory methodology (Glaser and Strauss 1967; Saldaña 2013), in which interview techniques are allowed to evolve as the researcher gains understanding of the phenomenon of interest. Two main adaptations to interview protocol were as follows: Younger participants were interviewed in pairs while older participants were interviewed individually, ⁴ and video prompts were added to ground discussion in concrete examples. We utilized five brief (∼90 seconds) video segments depicting teachers working with classes from a video library designed to train teachers. Questions specific to the video clips were omitted from this analysis to improve comparability. ⁵

Participants from both communities were consented and asked several warm-up questions. Then, participants were asked language use at school and at home, how teachers show they care about students, and whether teachers’ respect students’ culture (see Appendix). Lastly, students completed a demographic questionnaire. All interviews were conducted in the language of the participants’ choice by interviewers fluent in both English and Spanish. Only one interview at each school was done in Spanish. Videos of interviews were transcribed and coded by bilingual research assistants.

Replicating Findings on Student Perceptions of Teachers’ Care

Students at both schools reported feeling their teachers cared about them when teachers were kind. This fits with previous findings that students feel they benefit most from teachers who are friendly, approachable, and perceived as caring (Noddings 2005; Patrick and Ryan 2008). Kind teachers were described as those who did not yell, did not embarrass them, and used fair discipline. ⁶ Howlett elementary students’ characterizations of student–teacher relationships focused on teacher disposition or personality such as “my teacher is nice” (80 percent of pairs). Twenty-two percent of Pueblito students mentioned teachers’ general kindness, one mentioned a teacher’s passion for teaching, and another noted encouragement.

Students’ descriptions of a caring teacher were also grounded in the teacher’s support for student learning (mentioned by 56 percent of students). Howlett students reported “[my teacher] shows she cares by helping me” (67 percent of pairs). Within this theme, three most common ways students perceived care were teachers’ availability and attentiveness (mentioned by 44 percent), teachers’high standards for student achievement (mentioned by 22 percent), and teachers offering help (mentioned by 22 percent). These findings from both schools fit with research, suggesting that students perceive care when teachers check for comprehension, accommodate students’ ability (Bosworth 1995; Ferreira and Bosworth 2001; Howard 2001), hold high expectations for students (Wentzel 1997), and appear dedicated to their learning (Ferreira and Bosworth 2001).

Personalized relationship was the most common theme in Pueblito students’ reports teachers’ care for them (mentioned by 67 percent of students). Two Howlett participants also mentioned knowing teachers’ care because they “know [them]” or ask about their families. We propose that differences across schools in prominence and detail of the personalized relationship theme are primarily due to the age of the students. Findings across both schools support previous research, suggesting that students perceive teacher care through the creation of individual relationships with students (Ferreira and Bosworth 2001). Thirty-nine percent of Pueblito described a positive personalized student–teacher relationship as supporting students’ academic and personal growth (see previous paragraph). Other common topics within this theme of personalized relationship included teachers seeking to learn about students’ lives (mentioned by 29 percent) and respectfully listening to students (mentioned by 29 percent). We note that these aspects of positive relationship highlighted by students imply teachers’ engagement with the student as a whole person by being receptive and relating to their lives outside of school (see M. A. R. Roberts 2010). The importance of this situated perspective on personalized relationship will be further discussed in a later section.

Language Use, Student–teacher Relationship, and Student Belonging

All of the students reported speaking Spanish at home though they made it clear that they understood English as the dominant language at school. Seventy-two percent of Pueblito students reported that teachers spoke English, or mostly English, in class (with 69 percent of those saying that teachers spoke only English). Over half (56 percent) of the Pueblito students reported speaking only, or “mostly,” English in class themselves. Two students mentioned that they spoke Spanish in class to translate for other students, suggesting that students negotiated with peers to circumnavigate the English-only norm in class when this threatened comprehension.

Perhaps as a result of the dominance of English in the classroom, bilingual students from both schools were reluctant to speak Spanish at school. Three Howlett pairs also had mixed feelings about speaking Spanish at school, reporting that, “I almost have nothing to talk about in Spanish.” Another student said, “I’m afraid I’m gonna say something wrong—even though I know how to speak it.” Similarly, half of the Pueblito students reported feeling uncomfortable speaking Spanish in class because of concerns about ability, citing concerns like “I mix my words up” or:

I’m not really good in Spanish but I’m still trying … and if I say one word wrong or if I pronounce it wrong they start laughing so that makes me feel uncomfortable.

Students discussed their choice of language use in more adaptive relational terms than the static English-only norms observed at school. Five Pueblito students reported that it was not comfortable to speak English at home because family members did not understand English.

Well, my mom doesn’t speak English, only my little brother … that is why I wouldn’t feel comfortable talking—I don’t speak English in the house at all.

In addition to the language use norms, we were interested in how students might understand teachers’ language use as related to their relationships with their teachers and schools. Three of the five pairs of Howlett students reported that teacher’s use of Spanish in the classroom showed teachers’ respect for students’ cultures. Yet, the phrasing of one Howlett student’s statement about language use suggests that speaking Spanish was a concession that marked a caring relationship, “My teacher respects my culture by letting me speaking Spanish” (emphasis added). Despite this suggestion by a majority of younger students that language use was a sign of teacher care, only two Pueblito students share this perspective. These students reported teachers using Spanish in noninstructional contexts as a way of building report. For example:

… they try learning Spanish words from the students and so sometimes they will crack jokes on us in Spanish sometimes or they’ll ask us “What’s this word?”

Pueblito students confirmed the connection between language use and identity previously documented in the literature (Oh and Fuligni 2010; Phinney et al. 2001). ⁷ One Pueblito student likened not speaking Spanish to denying identity.

Well, yeah, because you can’t forget about who you are … some people don’t like to be like known that they are Mexican. There’s a few kids coming to this school that are like Mexican and they’ll be like “I don’t know Spanish” but when you are talking to them they understand you but then they go on to say they don’t.… I’m not sure. It may be because they think it is better to not be Mexican but it is just like what some-I’m proud to be Mexican.

Student Perceptions of Teachers’ Respect for Their Culture

All participating students affirmed that their teachers respected their culture. As noted above, three of the five pairs of students from Howlett Park said that teachers respected their culture by welcoming Spanish in the classroom. A younger pair suggested that the presence of books about culture and the flags of many countries in class was evidence of a teacher’s cultural respect.

While Pueblito students gave more in-depth explanations of how their teachers showed respect for their culture as compared to the younger respondents, these differed in focus. Half of Pueblito students associated respect for one’s culture with not marking culture in interactions (22 percent) or a lack of discrimination (28 percent). One Pueblito student noted the absence of culture as evidence that their culture was respected, “Because they don’t talk about anything really. About culture.” Another offered “they never do some comments about the culture from us so I think they do respect.” One Pueblito student said that his culture was respected because he was not singled out for being Cuban. When asked if his teachers knew that he’s Cuban. He shrugged and laughed. These students’ acceptance of failure to acknowledge culture or lack of discrimination as respect may belie an underlying acceptance of school as a cultureless space (Delpit 1995; Ladson-Billings 1995; López 2010). We suggest that when socialized to see school as a culture-free context, actions marking one’s culture could be othering and therefore disrespectful.

While half of the Pueblito students defined respecting culture in terms of leaving it unmarked, five relayed how teachers had shown respect (or in one case lack thereof) by thoughtfully addressing students’ culture. Three students mentioned the importance of teachers acknowledging the history and struggles of immigrant groups. In two of these cases, noted as positive, teachers were knowledgeable of student culture and showed empathy. One student gave an example of a teacher failing to respect students’ culture by dismissing a student’s announcement that it was Mexican Independence Day because teaching about this topic was not in the curriculum. In contrast, two students mentioned teachers asking them questions about their heritage and showing interest as a sign that teachers cared and respected their culture. Less than a third of Pueblito students’ reports agreed with previous research, suggesting the importance of teachers’ thoughtful communication of the history and politics of a minority students’ cultural group (Howard 2001; Ladson-Billings 1995; M. A. R. Roberts 2010).

Seeking Personalized Relationship in an English-only and Culture-free Space

As in previous literature, the students at both sites described positive relationships with their teachers as grounded in positive disposition, effective instructional support, and forging a personalized relationship with individual students (Ferreira and Bosworth 2001). In these student reports of positive student–teacher relationships, we see students’ desire to learn from teachers who are responsive to them and invested in their success and dedicated to teaching them (Bosworth 1995; Ferreira and Bosworth 2001). As reflected in previous research (Ferreira and Bosworth 2001; Howard 2001), we heard students wanting to be known as whole individuals and appreciating teachers who sought these relationships. However, this desire for personalized relationship was critically complicated with regard to unquestioned adherence to English-only instruction and defining cultural respect as cultural omission. Our participants’ descriptions of the connections between identity and language use suggest a complex connection between language and relationships. A few Pueblito students spoke in detail about how teachers’ discussion of cultural histories showed that they cared and respected student’s culture. Yet all students assumed an English-only norm and many preferred not to discuss their cultural heritage. This finding fits with research by Phillippo (2012), showing that while students appreciated teacher’s attempts to create personalized relationship, these attempts also were a source of tension. These students valued teachers who knew them and were dedicated to their success, yet some were reluctant to bring their language and their cultural identity into the classroom.

These conflicting findings of students’ desire to be known, while holding expectations of a monolingual and culture-free classroom, could be understood as confirmation of these students’ socialization into a color-blind approach to schooling. Previous research suggests that such approaches in classrooms may indirectly send the message to students that their culture, ethnicity, race, or language have no place in schools (Connell 1993; Cooper 2011; Delpit 1995; Irizarry and Donaldson 2012). Perhaps these students indeed want to be known but not to have their cultural identity marked. However, this would contradict a sociocultural analysis of the student–teacher relationship by abstracting it from the larger contexts of students’ lives (Holland et al. 1998; Lave and Wenger 1991). It may also be the case that these students’ preference not to discuss culture or language in the classroom may be in reaction to discrimination they have experienced in other contexts. This desire to be known without discussing culture begs many questions regarding the genesis and affordances of this relational strategy as well as the implications of such decontextualized student–teacher relationships. We suggest that the disjuncture between wanting to be known and remaining culturally anonymous may indicate that students perceive their cultural identities to be marginalized in schools.

The socialization evidenced in these student descriptions of their relationship with teachers fits with previous critiques of the U.S. school system as assimilating students’ language and culture (De La Luz Reyes and Halcon 2000; López 2010; Moll and Greenburg 1990; Valenzuela 1999). This assimilation has historically been promoted under the guise of culture-free approaches to schooling that exclude students’ linguistic and cultural heritage while embracing White Anglo Saxon Protestant norms (Tyack 1974). Differences observed here between younger and older students’ expectations for the integration of their language and culture in student–teacher relationships may be a marker of this process. The concept of culture-free learning as enacted in schools may “subtract” Latin@ students’ language and culture from privileged learning contexts (Valenzuela 1999). As a result, Latin@ students may be directly and indirectly given the message that their culture, language, and they, themselves, are inferior to mainstream culture (Delpit 1995; Farr and Barajas 2005; Valdes 1996). Our findings across both schools suggest that students are socialized to expect educational contexts to require speaking in English and to omit discussion of cultures.

Differences across participating schools in the ages of participants, demographics of surrounding communities, and protocol make direct comparisons across these two communities problematic. While direct attributions are not possible, we see similar patterns of socialization to a monolingual, culture-free schooling in both communities, with younger Howlett students associating language use with care more than older Pueblito students.

Although the exploratory nature of this study precludes any conclusions regarding the influence of student–teacher relationships on student academic or developmental outcomes, previous research suggests the risks of culture-free approach to teaching. While Pueblito participants did not indicate that this “a-cultural” approach was harmful to their relationships with teachers or to schools, we are aware that students could have benefited from rich and supportive inclusion of their culture and language in school. The view of a learning as separate from the social contexts in which it occurs has been strongly critiqued theoretical perspective (Dreier 2003; Lave and Wenger 1991). Indeed such attempts to decontextualize learning from the social relationships within which it is embedded may serve to reify of power hierarchies (see Valenzuela 1999). Wortham (2006) explains how readily student–teacher relationships and interactions in the classroom bracket the identities available for students as learners and illustrates how these can resemble stereotypic caricatures to the detriment of students. Authentic relationships between teachers and students are critical for students’ sense of belonging at school, which predicts academic achievement motivation (Ibañez et al. 2004), academic effort (Sánchez, Colón, and Esparza 2005), academic resilience (Gonzalez and Padilla 1997), and grade point average (Goodenow and Grady 1993).

The personalized relationships that support students academically and socioemotionally must include consideration of the sociocultural–historical context in which it occurs as well as the related power dynamics (Ladson-Billings 1995; Nieto 2010; Phillippo 2012). Several alternative approaches to instruction aiming to avoid the insidious ways unconscious prejudices can influence student–teacher relationships. Culturally responsive pedagogy may support students by teaching through the lens of students’ race and cultural heritage (Nieto 2010; M. A. R. Roberts 2010; Yosso 2005). A main goal of culturally responsive pedagogy is centering both individual and community identities of students. Another approach based on the work of Freire (2000) focuses on the importance of inclusion of minority students’ culture and history in curriculum as well as reflected in instructional methods and student–teacher relationships (Hu-DeHart 1993). Although ethnic studies’ programs have been highly critiqued, outcomes of these programs suggest that these programs support student achievement. In fact, Tucson Unified School District’s Mexican American Studies program demonstrates that explicit and systematic curriculum based on students’ cultural and linguistic heritage can benefit students’ graduation rates and rates of passing standardized tests (Cabrera et al. 2014; Romero, Arce, and Cammarota 2009).

Learning cannot be separated from the contexts in which it occurs (Lave and Wenger 1991; Rogoff et al. 2007), therefore failing to recognize the social and cultural context of student lives and thus of the student–teacher relationship implies unmooring learning. We contend that socioculturally situated, personalized, student–teacher relationships like those described by M. A. R. Roberts (2010) may be key to supporting minority student success in the face of an education system in which their culture and language are marginalized.

Implications for Theory, Policy, and Practice

The exploratory findings from this study highlighting the role of language and personalized relationships in student–teacher relationships lend support to some existing strategies for creating supportive learning environments for Latin@ students. First, our findings suggest that language use in the classroom may inform students’ perceptions of student–teacher relationships. Our student respondents clearly saw English as the norm in schools and marked deviations from this standard as signs of relationship. Furthermore, older students made it clear links between language use and both identity and respect. As recommended by previous research (Baker 2011; Bialystok 2011), we suggest that a multilingual approach to learning would support students’ relationships with teachers and schools in addition to fortifying student language and cognitive development (Cammarota and Romero 2006; García 2009; Lindholm-Leary and Borsato 2006; Lucero 2014; Thomas and Collier 2002, 2003, 2012).

Second, our findings suggest that students desire a personalized relationship with their teachers. This desire to be known personally by their teachers fits with previous research (Ferreira and Bosworth 2001), however, we suggest that monolingual and color-blind norms for interaction in the classroom may pose a challenge for the creation of authentic, personal, student–teacher relationship. Our findings show that even among students who generally report a positive relationship with their teachers, socialization in a “color-blind” culture of schooling has led them not to expect their language or their culture to have a place in the classroom. As evidenced in prior research (Connell 1993; Cooper 2011; Delpit 1995; Irizarry and Donaldson 2012), culture-free and color-blind approaches in classrooms may indirectly send the message to students that student culture, ethnicity, race, or language have no place in schools. We join with previous research to recommend enhancing student–teacher relationships through explicit connections to the history and politics of the students’ ethnic group such as those proposed by culturally responsive pedagogy (Ladson-Billings 1995; Nieto 2010) and ethnic studies’ programs such as those of the Tuscon Unified School District (Cabrera et al. 2014).