Appendix A: Methodology

Data Collection

We first gathered statewide teaching standards (including stand-alone culturally responsive standards) from the website of each state’s department or board responsible for establishing the standards. We collected standards intended from all teachers across grade levels and did not collect standards that apply to only a subgroup of teachers (e.g., bilingual teachers) or standards we deemed "optional". We also collected supporting documents, including introductory language or preambles on state websites that provide additional information about the purpose, uses, and intended audience. We contacted officials via email to verify that we had identified the correct, most recent documents. We asked about the purpose and uses of standards if this information was not available from a review of publicly available documents. State officials had an opportunity to identify their state’s correct standards and provide additional information about these standards. We received feedback from 33 states by March 27, 2019.

Sample Questions Sent to SEAs

• Could you confirm if the documents attached are the correct (and most recent) professional teaching standards for your state?
• Is there a set of professional teaching standards that align expectations for teacher preparation candidates and in-service teachers in your state?
• Has your state developed any additional guiding documents and/or rubrics that support your teaching standards?
• What are the current uses of your state’s professional teaching standards?
• Who is the primary audience for your state’s professional teaching standards?
• Has your state adopted a stand-alone set of teaching standards relevant to cultural responsiveness?

Selection of Standards Documents

We were most interested in analyzing one standards document for each state, which undergirds processes in both pre-service and in-service such as licensure, induction, evaluation, re-licensure, and professional learning. In some cases, however, we were only able to identify teaching standards for initial certification/licensure (e.g., Delaware, Georgia, and Illinois). It was also the case that some states (e.g., Alaska, California, and Connecticut) had multiple sets of teacher-related standards. If we identified more than one teaching standards document, we reviewed standards documents that we identified as offering the most robust guidance. In some cases, states developed a supplemental document to expand on their standards and differentiate these by career level or stages of development. Because these documents expand on the states’ standards and provide more detailed guidance, we opted to review these supplemental documents for states that have developed them (e.g., Alaska, California, and Connecticut). Aside from Washington and Alaska, only one standards document was reviewed for each state. We recognize this is a limitation, as some states rely on multiple standards, including the InTASC Model Core Standards and Progressions, and each standards document may approach CRT competencies differently.

Coding Standards

We coded the content of standards across the eight CRT competencies outlined in Section 2 of this report (“Defining Culturally Responsive Teaching”) by using the following questions:

• Do standards or elements explicitly address teacher ability to understand their own frames of reference and/or biases in these frames?
• Do standards or elements explicitly address teacher understanding of institutional biases and/or commitment to addressing institutional biases?
• Do standards or elements explicitly address teacher ability to use student culture to adjust curriculum and/or instruction?
• Do standards or elements explicitly address teacher ability to connect content and/or concepts to real-world problems (e.g., local and global issues)?
• Do standards or elements explicitly address teacher understanding of the need to set high expectations?
• Do standards or elements explicitly address teacher understanding of how to model and/or promote respect for learners’ diversity/differences?
• Do standards or elements explicitly address teacher ability to engage with families and communities?
• Do standards or elements explicitly address teacher ability to be culturally and/or linguistically sensitive in engaging with learners and/or families?

We were conservative in our analysis of standards, opting not to “count” standards or elements unless they included at least one statement that explicitly addressed the relevant competency. For instance, broad references about teacher reflection that did not explicitly mention the ability to reflect, specifically, on one’s own cultural frames and/or personal biases did not meet the criteria of competency 1. Examples of statements categorized under each competency are presented in section four of this report (“Excerpts from Excellent Teaching Standards Documents”).