Integration of CRT in State Professional Teaching Standards

New America collected and reviewed publicly available standards documents in all 50 states,¹ which describe the pedagogical knowledge and skills expected of all teachers, regardless of grade level or subject area.² Standards relevant to culturally responsive teaching were examined for two states: Alaska and Washington. Also analyzed were the Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) standards, given that 12 documents reviewed here reflect these standards without any significant changes.³ Our review of standards focused on the extent to which state standards explicitly address the eight CRT competencies of interest (see Appendix A for our full methodology and Appendix B for a list of each state’s teaching standards).

A close reading of state teaching standards revealed that all states embed some combination of the key CRT competencies into their standards, though some competencies are more widely addressed than others. All 50 states, for example, address family and community engagement (competency 7) by describing teacher actions such as: engaging families in setting goals for students, using family contacts to learn more about students' cultural background, and confronting cultural barriers to family and community engagement. States also widely expect teachers to exhibit high expectations for all students (47 states; competency 5), though no state explicitly addressed how low expectations are commonly associated with race, class, culture, language, gender and sexual orientation, or disability status.

All 50 states embed some combination of the key CRT competencies into their standards.

The majority of states expect teachers to promote respect for student diversity (46 states; competency 6) and link curriculum or instructional practices to students’ culture (45 states; competency 3). States describe varied activities for competency 4 such as: setting clear rules to respect individuals and individual differences, respecting the value of students' home language, and preparing students to participate in a globally interconnected and diverse society. Activities described for competency 3 include: employing learners' diversity and culture as assets for teaching and learning, planning learning experiences that teach the contributions of people of diverse cultures and backgrounds, and planning lessons that address bias and stereotyping about cultures. Teachers’ ability to engage in cultural or linguistically sensitive communication (36 states; competency 8) and bring real-world issues into the classroom (28 states; competency 4) received less attention, though the majority of states still addressed these competencies to some degree. Activities described for the these competencies include: engaging in culturally proficient communication with families about student performance and expanding learners' ability to understand local and global issues, respectively.

Slightly more than half of all states (28) call on teachers to reflect on their own cultural lens and potential biases in this lens.

While almost all states include standards or elements that broadly highlight the importance of ongoing self-analysis and reflection in improving teachers' practice, only 28 states explicitly call on teachers to reflect on their own cultural lens and potential biases in this lens (competency 1). Specifically, state standards ask teachers to: analyze their cultural backgrounds and worldviews, recognize biases they may hold and their effect on relationships with students and families, and recognize how common societal "isms" (e.g., racism, sexism, and classism) can influence on their own attitudes.

Only three states explicitly advise that teachers acquire knowledge about institutional biases.

Overall, competency 2 received the least attention in states' teaching standards. While a many states account for teachers' responsibility in prompting school improvements or advancing "educational equity" to some extent, only three states (Alabama, Washington, and Minnesota) explicitly advise their teachers to become abreast of institutional biases (competency 2).⁴ These states describe activities such as: understanding structural privileges and how they impact educational practices and organizations, learning to deal with institutional racism and sexism, and empowering learners to analyze and overcome the effect of institutional bias.

Some teaching standards stand out for their tremendous depth and nuance, while others are broad and vague in their approach.

Though all states embed some combination of the culturally responsive competencies, we found variation in how much detail states included: some teaching standards documents stand out for their tremendous depth and nuance, while others are broad and vague in their approach. Our review revealed that standards documents are typically composed of standards⁵ (big-picture statements that identify what teachers need to know and do) and elements⁶ (finer-grain statements that describe how teachers need can meet the standards), but only a few states articulate a continuum of practice that delineates what teachers should know and be able to do at various levels of development.⁷ Figure 2 displays how many states address each of the eight competencies and differentiates between states that employ a continuum of practice. Overall, a much smaller share of states we reviewed address competencies through varied levels.

Generally, we find that standards that are not accompanied by a continuum of practice address the CRT competencies less substantially. For instance, Kansas, a state that does not feature a continuum of practice, meets competency 3 by requiring teachers to “know how to apply a range of developmentally, culturally, and linguistically appropriate instructional strategies to achieve learning goals.” While this element certainly raises the need to draw from learners’ culture when planning instructional strategies, the statement does not capture the actual instructional shift that is needed to ensure that varied cultures are represented in the classroom.

Similarly, New York addresses competency 3 by asking teachers to be “responsive to the economic, social, cultural, linguistic, family, and community factors that influence their students’ learning,” yet the state does not provide an additional element that captures how teachers are supposed to be “responsive to” students’ “cultural factors.” Rhode Island likewise requires teachers to “design instruction that accommodates individual differences (e.g., stage of development, learning style, English language acquisition, cultural background, learning disability) in approaches to learning,” but it provides no other elements to elaborate on this competency. Both of these states, like Kansas, outline broad goals but not approaches to achieve those goals. Reasonably, a lack of specificity makes it difficult for educators to act upon the expectations.

Professional standards that are accompanied by a continuum of practice take a more granular approach, outlining numerous elements that describe the various competencies in greater specificity while avoiding broad statements that can be interpreted in multiple ways.

By contrast, we find that professional standards that are accompanied by a continuum of practice take a more granular approach, outlining numerous elements that describe the various competencies in greater specificity while avoiding broad statements that can be interpreted in multiple ways. Alabama, for instance, has developed the Alabama Continuum for Teacher Development to support teachers in enacting the Alabama Quality Teaching Standards. This resource defines five levels at which teachers can meet competency 3, each level increasing in complexity. The state requires all teachers to “develop culturally responsive curriculum and instruction in response to differences in individual experiences, cultural, ethnic, gender, and linguistic diversity, and socio-economic status.” To embody this competency, a teacher at the Beginning/Pre-Service level⁸ “selects instructional strategies, resources, and technologies with some consideration for diverse learners.” Educators who strengthen their practice and move to the Applying level employ “lessons that teach the contributions of people of diverse cultures and backgrounds and that provide opportunities for learners to develop understandings, empathy, multiple perspectives, and self-knowledge.” At this level, a teacher also “invites learners to contribute resources that augment curriculum and reflect culture and other aspects of diversity.” A more accomplished, Innovating-level educator take a leadership role and “models and coaches colleagues in expanding culturally responsive curriculum and instruction in school and district.”

By providing graduated levels of teacher performance, states make clear that teachers are expected to grow and develop competency 3 as they advance from novices to teacher-leaders. When state standards provide this kind of comprehensive picture of what each CRT competency 3 entails, they can also serve as a tool to support growth. Thus, while it is encouraging to see that states are addressing many of the competencies, it is important to consider which states are addressing the competencies more extensively by providing more fine-grained guidance.

Figure 3 shows which competencies are addressed by each state’s standards. Like Figure 2, it highlights states that differentiate their standards by level of teacher development or performance level. Overall, states with the most specific and detailed account of the competencies include Alabama, California, and Washington’s Cultural Competency Standards. All of these standards include a continuum of practice and comprehensively address the pedagogical skills, knowledge, and dispositions that embody the eight competencies.