Can Cultural Responsive Teaching improve student outcomes?

[j brown's body]

"But it’s not critical race theory, the academic concept conservatives have attacked in recent years, that officials say is missing. It’s culturally responsive teaching. This kind of instruction incorporates students’ cultural experiences, languages and identities into the learning process. Using students’ cultures can make lessons more relevant and engaging, education researchers have found. The term was first coined by multicultural education researcher Geneva Gay in 2000.

...Rounds learned through professional development programs that curriculum is often unrelatable to students of color. After getting to know her students more at KIPP, where 97% are Black, she infused culture in her lessons. Learning became more fun, she said, and students more engaged.

“When you bring culture into the classroom it lets students know, regardless of their background, that their culture is valued,” said Rounds.

...The science of reading and culturally responsive teaching work well together, according to Harvard University. Students are more likely to develop sustainable reading skills “when classrooms are student-centered, inclusive, and culturally responsive, when the curriculum is rigorous and intellectually challenging, and when educators have high expectations.”

The National Equity Project, an education reform organization, reported that creating a culturally responsive classroom includes teachers knowing their students well, building on students’ life experiences and creating a classroom learning community.

“Encourage students to care for one another and be responsible for each other inside and outside of the classroom,” the organization’s website stated."

Link

It looks like it serves to encourage reading and learning and respect for one another. Two very important aspects of education.

 

[Allan]

Encourage students to care for one another and be responsible for each other inside and outside of the classroom,” the organization’s website stated."

One thing I've always thought was missing from early education were life skills that can benefit students for a lifetime.

Everything from empathy to problem solving are talents that many children don't learn at home but can be taught in school at an early age.

This program looks like a sensible step in that direction.

 

[Citizen]

We should focus on STEM education. Our student are far behind

 

[tshade]

"But it’s not critical race theory, the academic concept conservatives have attacked in recent years, that officials say is missing. It’s culturally responsive teaching. This kind of instruction incorporates students’ cultural experiences, languages and identities into the learning process. Using students’ cultures can make lessons more relevant and engaging, education researchers have found. The term was first coined by multicultural education researcher Geneva Gay in 2000.

The purpose of public education is to help create economically, politically, and socially responsible/functioning citizens for the particular culture the children are in..........it is also to give all students as equal an opportunity as possible.......

 

[j brown's body]

We should focus on STEM education. Our student are far behind

They can do both.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

One thing I've always thought was missing from early education were life skills that can benefit students for a lifetime.

Everything from empathy to problem solving are talents that many children don't learn at home but can be taught in school at an early age.

This program looks like a sensible step in that direction.

Somehow I don't think "Cultural Responsiveness" is what you think it is, or what it would become.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Where to start with "cultural responsiveness".
In urban black areas -
Course #1 - Girls - Stop having 6 kids out of wedlock when you are broke as hell.
Course #2 - Boys - Don't be a deadbeat man and have 6 kids you never see.
Course #3 - How to look at your culture, and know how it can ruin your life.

More to come.

 

[Gardener]

Somehow I don't think "Cultural Responsiveness" is what you think it is, or what it would become.

but but but where would children learn about the white devil without schools teaching them?

Heaven forbid they be taught racist subjects like Math or Science.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

"But it’s not critical race theory, the academic concept conservatives have attacked in recent years, that officials say is missing. It’s culturally responsive teaching. This kind of instruction incorporates students’ cultural experiences, languages and identities into the learning process. Using students’ cultures can make lessons more relevant and engaging, education researchers have found. The term was first coined by multicultural education researcher Geneva Gay in 2000.

...Rounds learned through professional development programs that curriculum is often unrelatable to students of color. After getting to know her students more at KIPP, where 97% are Black, she infused culture in her lessons. Learning became more fun, she said, and students more engaged.

“When you bring culture into the classroom it lets students know, regardless of their background, that their culture is valued,” said Rounds.

...The science of reading and culturally responsive teaching work well together, according to Harvard University. Students are more likely to develop sustainable reading skills “when classrooms are student-centered, inclusive, and culturally responsive, when the curriculum is rigorous and intellectually challenging, and when educators have high expectations.”

The National Equity Project, an education reform organization, reported that creating a culturally responsive classroom includes teachers knowing their students well, building on students’ life experiences and creating a classroom learning community.

“Encourage students to care for one another and be responsible for each other inside and outside of the classroom,” the organization’s website stated."

Link

It looks like it serves to encourage reading and learning and respect for one another. Two very important aspects of education.

This sounds like a great way for school systems to blow a ton of money on consultants to tell them how to engage in "culturally responsive teaching".

This is all well intentioned, but likely to be abused by rent seekers in the consulting industry just like DEI has been. Moreover, the problem is not that Black children in general are falling behind in education. The problem is that black men are falling behind. In many school districts, it is not uncommon for Black girls to be among their top students. Boys in general are falling being girls in education, and Black boys are falling further behind.

Finally, these type of buzz terms used by the consulting industry fall into the identity focused trap of treating people as though along racial lines, they all have the same cultural experiences. There are more minorities that live in the suburbs now than in the inner cities. Class is typically a much bigger divide than race or ethnicity when it comes to culture, particularly once you are past first-generation immigrants.

 

[j brown's body]

This sounds like a great way for school systems to blow a ton of money on consultants to tell them how to engage in "culturally responsive teaching".

This is all well intentioned, but likely to be abused by rent seekers in the consulting industry just like DEI has been.

Since it's effective, its actually an investment.

 

[j brown's body]

but but but where would children learn about the white devil without schools teaching them?

Heaven forbid they be taught racist subjects like Math or Science.

Believe me, they're already familiar with the white devil.

 

[j brown's body]

Where to start with "cultural responsiveness".
In urban black areas -
Course #1 - Girls - Stop having 6 kids out of wedlock when you are broke as hell.
Course #2 - Boys - Don't be a deadbeat man and have 6 kids you never see.
Course #3 - How to look at your culture, and know how it can ruin your life.

More to come.

Marget Sanger approves! Support Planned Parenthood and comprehensive sex education.

 

[j brown's body]

Somehow I don't think "Cultural Responsiveness" is what you think it is, or what it would become.

It smacks of socialism!

 

[iamwhatiseem]

A great endorsement for comprehensive sex education.

No
Fatherless children account for over 70% of black children across inner cities all over the U.S.
Black children in poverty in inner cities are as high as 77% of their population.
Sex education has nothing to do with it - CLEARLY - they know what sex is.

The problem is culture.
So if there should be "Cultural Responsive" teaching - it should absolutely start with dealing with the devastating, self implosive culture they have.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Since it's effective, its actually an investment.

I read the article and didn't see where they provided any actual evidence that it is improving student outcomes. The cultural left in the United States has fallen into an identity focused trap where they see everything through the lens of racial, ethnic, and gender identities. Not only has this been catastrophic electorally, but it is also wrong because it assumes that race, sexual preference, ethnicity, or gender identity will determine cultural identity - as though an impoverished black child will have more in common with an upper middle class black child than they will an impoverished white child. Whether students are excelling or failing in a school district is more often determined by class than it is anything else. Moreover, black girls are doing well in our education system, its boys, and in some cases even more so, black boys, that are falling behind.

 

[Gardener]

Believe me, they're already familiar with the white devil.

Thanks for the knee jerk response.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Thanks for the knee jerk response.

It is what she does.
How this thread is going is not what she thought.

 

[j brown's body]

No
Fatherless children account for over 70% of black children across inner cities all over the U.S.
Black children in poverty in inner cities are as high as 77% of their population.
Sex education has nothing to do with it - CLEARLY - they know what sex is.

The problem is culture.
So if there should be "Cultural Responsive" teaching - it should absolutely start with dealing with the devastating, self implosive culture they have.

Its a problem with poverty, which runs through your post.

Contraception can help, as can economic opportunity. As we don't see thus as an issue aming middle class blacks.

Interestingly, I taught in a school that went from 95% white to 50% white. As whites began fleeing, they were replaced by African-Americans, but by the time I retired, they were increasingly replaced by Latinos, mixed race kids and African immigrants. It's not just about blacks and whites anymore.

 

[Gardener]

It is what she does.
How this thread is going is not what she thought.

I sure do miss the days when the left was liberal and sought to build a color-blind society.

 

[j brown's body]

Thanks for the knee jerk response.

I speak from experience.

You might benefit from some culturally responsive education.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

No
Fatherless children account for over 70% of black children across inner cities all over the U.S.
Black children in poverty in inner cities are as high as 77% of their population.
Sex education has nothing to do with it - CLEARLY - they know what sex is.

The problem is culture.
So if there should be "Cultural Responsive" teaching - it should absolutely start with dealing with the devastating, self implosive culture they have.

Actually, the problem there is concentrated poverty. There are a lot of white children that grow up in poverty, but black children living in poverty are about 5 times as likely to live in concentrated poverty. For example, I grew up in poverty in the South. However, I knew people that didn't live in poverty. For example, when I was growing up, my best friend's father was an electrical contractor. Thus, while I grew up in poverty, there were lots of people in my social circle that were not in poverty. Black children growing up in poverty in the inner city often have no one in their social circle that isn't in poverty as well. That makes a huge difference in terms of outcomes.

There was a pilot program in the Clinton years called Moving to Opportunity. They found that if you take a family that lives in poverty and move them to an area that isn't impoverished, they will usually have the same outcomes as children that were born in that area - there is a lot of value in the kind of community networks kids get in areas that aren't concentrated poverty.

As to why so many impoverished black children grow up in concentrated poverty, it is the legacy of past redlining. Moreover, if you look at areas where whites live in concentrated poverty, they have the same problems in terms of single parent households, lack of community support, and so on that we see in the inner city. This is why the cultural left is largely wrong about what they call "gentrification". When it comes to lifting people out of poverty and improving public safety, gentrification is a good thing. Investment into those areas of concentrated poverty, and all us living together and being part of the same communities, is exactly what has to happen to break the cycles of poverty and violence.

 

[Gardener]

I speak from experience.

You might benefit from some culturally responsive education.

You speak from the experience of instilling anti-white racist attitudes in children, true.

No wonder our kids are so messed up these days.

 

[j brown's body]

but but but where would children learn about the white devil without schools teaching them?

Heaven forbid they be taught racist subjects like Math or Science.

I sure do miss the days when the left was liberal and sought to build a color-blind society.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Actually, the problem there is concentrated poverty. There are a lot of white children that grow up in poverty, but black children living in poverty are about 5 times as likely to live in concentrated poverty. For example, I grew up in poverty in the South. However, I knew people that didn't live in poverty. For example, when I was growing up, my best friend's father was an electrical contractor. Thus, while I grew up in poverty, there were lots of people in my social circle that were not in poverty. Black children growing up in poverty in the inner city often have no one in their social circle that isn't in poverty as well. That makes a huge difference in terms of outcomes.

There was a pilot program in the Clinton years called Moving to Opportunity. They found that if you take a family that lives in poverty and move them to an area that isn't impoverished, they will usually have the same outcomes as children that were born in that area - there is a lot of value in the kind of community networks kids get in areas that aren't concentrated poverty.

As to why so many impoverished black children grow up in concentrated poverty, it is the legacy of past redlining. Moreover, if you look at areas where whites live in concentrated poverty, they have the same problems in terms of single parent households, lack of community support, and so on that we see in the inner city. This is why the cultural left is largely wrong about what they call "gentrification". When it comes to lifting people out of poverty and improving public safety, gentrification is a good thing. Investment into those areas of concentrated poverty, and all us living together and being part of the same communities, is exactly what has to happen to break the cycles of poverty and violence.

No
It is due to Democrat Party policies and liberal social policies of the 1960s and on.
Democrats built large "projects" in cities across America that packed people, overwhelmingly black, in like sardines in concrete buildings away from white people.
And then passed social policies that provided them just enough money to be able to live without having to work.
This built generational poverty, completely destroyed the family structure. - Blacks had lower divorce rates than whites did prior to the 1960s. They were VERY family oriented until Democrats passed policies where they got more money if they didn't marry.
You guys destroyed the black population in America - and still are.

 

[j brown's body]

Actually, the problem there is concentrated poverty. There are a lot of white children that grow up in poverty, but black children living in poverty are about 5 times as likely to live in concentrated poverty. For example, I grew up in poverty in the South. However, I knew people that didn't live in poverty. For example, when I was growing up, my best friend's father was an electrical contractor. Thus, while I grew up in poverty, there were lots of people in my social circle that were not in poverty. Black children growing up in poverty in the inner city often have no one in their social circle that isn't in poverty as well. That makes a huge difference in terms of outcomes.

There was a pilot program in the Clinton years called Moving to Opportunity. They found that if you take a family that lives in poverty and move them to an area that isn't impoverished, they will usually have the same outcomes as children that were born in that area - there is a lot of value in the kind of community networks kids get in areas that aren't concentrated poverty.

As to why so many impoverished black children grow up in concentrated poverty, it is the legacy of past redlining. Moreover, if you look at areas where whites live in concentrated poverty, they have the same problems in terms of single parent households, lack of community support, and so on that we see in the inner city. This is why the cultural left is largely wrong about what they call "gentrification". When it comes to lifting people out of poverty and improving public safety, gentrification is a good thing. Investment into those areas of concentrated poverty, and all us living together and being part of the same communities, is exactly what has to happen to break the cycles of poverty and violence.

Move to opportunity is a great idea in eliminating ghettos, but conservatives oppose it. It should not be confused with gentrification whuch forces minorities out of communities whites move into because they can no longer afford to live there.

How many of us grew up being taught about red-lining in school? I sure wasn't taught about it. And today, conservatives oppose thus because it's part of critical race theory