Do we teach students differently? Yes, we do, but whether or not it is being done with the correct mindset is where the incongruities arise. In today’s educational material you will inevitably come across the term “differentiated instruction” quite often. However, it does not mean that it is being carried out in an intentional way which supports the student’s background knowledge and prior experiences then makes connections with that raw material to create learning experiences with the curriculum that students can relate to in order to learn, know, and do what is expected of them. This is what true differentiation involves. Many educators are setting lower expectations for minority students under the guise of differentiated instruction. They present those students with a less rigorous version of a task, often in the form of lower order thinking worksheets, because they believe the students won’t have the prerequisite skills and problem solving ability to complete the higher order task due to the child already being behind grade level. However, this is not what is needed for those students. If they are already behind grade level, how will they ever make the gains needed to close the gap if they are not pushed. Delpit speaks of this in her work “Lessons from Teachers” in which she sets forth precepts to assist teachers in changing their “attitudes and actions in classrooms” in order to alter what happens in schools and transform the lives of our minority students (2006, p. 220). Educators must teach more content, ensure that their students are gaining access to the conventions and strategies essential to success, demand critical thinking, provide emotional ego strength to overcome challenges in racist society views, and build up their strengths. As instruction is given make connections between what children already know and to the school content and knowledge, create an environment where they feel comfortable and accepted by honoring and respecting the children’s home culture (Delpit, 2006). This article ties together with her later work “Multiplication is for White People” where she asserts “society’s bias of equating blackness with inferiority” which leads to students doubting their own competence and in turn living down to those lower expectations. This type of deficit thinking is found in the concept of students having a culture of poverty as the reason they are not performing at the same level of their non-minority peers. Gloria Ladson-Billings shared interactions with some of the prospective and novice teachers who were under her instruction and noted that in many cases the term “culture” was used as the reason for students not performing or behaving as expected, even though the teacher had not actually learned about culture and “it’s not the culture of poverty, it’s the poverty of culture” (2006, p. 104). In fact, culture is often seen as the answer only when the students aren’t white, U.S. born, or English-speaking and when her white, middle class teachers were asked about their own culture they often responded with having no culture or as being normal. Of course, when questioned if people unlike them must then be “abnormal” they struggle to correctly convey what they meant.
Education is powerful for all students, children and adults. As teachers, we have the power to build up and to tear down. According to research, after one year with an ineffective teacher, achievement results are negatively impacted for the next three years statistically, and that is if those students are placed with effective teachers in subsequent years (Tucker & Stronge, 2005). We must have more effective teachers, who are open to building relationships with their students to create culturally aware instruction.
Part of our awareness must also tie into an awareness of the culturally biased curriculum and assessments which teachers are required to use. There is a mismatch as “dominant culture educational institutions teach children from non-dominant communities” (Bailey & Pransky, 2005) In fact, some states have race based proficiency goals in place in order to meet the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act. These proficiency goals are differentiated among student subgroups, including racial minorities. “For example, by 2018 Florida will require 74 percent of African American, 88 percent of Caucasian, 81 percent of Hispanic, and 90 percent of Asian students to be proficient in math and reading” (Bland, 2014). This type of thinking only adds to the problem rather than providing a solution. Jennifer Rogalsky has made a valid point in stating that the push from new state and federal government requirements have led many to follow Payne’s theory of a culture of poverty in minority groups as an excuse for poor performance. However, this puts the blame outside of the school system and “she fails to recognize that student performance is based on much larger social, economic, and political structural issues” (2009). In fact, Delpits view of culture as a response to oppression are much more accurate (2012, p. 27). That the history of American education is steeped in an attempt to oppress and assimilate other cultures, such as when Native American children were expected to assimilate into European American culture by cutting their hair, changing their style of dress, and being educated in the style of the dominant culture.
In order for us to see real change, we as educators must be willing to recognize the strengths of our students who come from diverse cultures and adjust as needed to meet the ever shifting needs of the diverse and multicultural students that walk through our doors.
Critical Thinking in Diverse Cultures 