Conclusions and Recommendations

By opening the “black box” of culturally responsive teaching, this report offers a springboard for ongoing dialogue about the skills, knowledge, and mindsets all teachers need to work effectively with today’s learners. It is more pressing than ever that states update their definitions of quality teaching to privilege these characteristics. This recommendation has recently been buoyed by several stakeholder organizations. For instance, the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), which spearheads a multi-state initiative to support the development of a diverse and culturally responsive workforce, calls for states to “develop, pilot, revise, and adopt standards of cultural responsiveness with clear metrics, guidance, professional learning avenues, and evaluation strategies for their operationalization in systems of licensure.”¹ In a recent report, Chiefs for Change likewise advises that states “adopt standards and competencies focused on the skills necessary for teachers and school leaders to ensure the integration of cultural relevance into preparation and training.”²

We recognize that assessing, revising, and adopting standards that better align to culturally responsive practices is not easy. This work requires thoughtful collaboration between state education agencies, institutes of higher education, local education agencies, state legislatures, and many other stakeholders. This report offers insights that can help support this difficult but necessary work. Our scan finds that while all states are including CRT competencies in their universal professional teaching standards as well as their free-standing culturally responsive teaching standards, there is room for improvement in three critical ways:

1. Revise teaching standards to articulate the eight culturally responsive teaching competencies described in this report. Our scan suggests that additional attention should be paid to teachers’ understanding of system biases (competency 2), self-examination of biases (competency 1) as well as promoting real-world problem solving (competency 5) and culturally and linguistically responsive communication (competency 8). By integrating these competencies into their standards states can provide shared language and a common roadmap for teachers to implement CRT in their daily practice. However, it is important to note that the competencies outlined in this report are in no way exhaustive; school system leaders ought to convene stakeholders to identify additional CRT competencies that are appropriate for their contexts.
2. Craft a continuum of teaching practice that articulates a detailed vision of quality teaching at different levels of sophistication. In addition to integrating additional standards or elements that address all eight competencies, state leaders should consider developing a tool to support and guide teachers as they develop and refine their culturally responsive practice over time. Teachers need to see what effective CRT practice looks like at higher levels so that they can set goals to strengthen their practice. Developing stand-alone standards for culturally responsive teaching along with relevant teacher practice continuums, such as those reviewed here from Washington and Alaska, offer an opportunity to describe the knowledge, skills, and dispositions associated with cultural responsiveness in greater depth and at different levels of sophistication. However, this is only one option. Ohio, California, and Alabama are three states that have developed comprehensive continuums of teacher practice to expand on their state's universal standards. Teacher practice continuums in these states are good examples of tools states can develop to support their teachers as they engage in self-assessment and goal setting for professional growth.
3. Design teacher professional learning systems that help teachers develop and strengthen the competencies outlined in your state's professional standards. It is important to recognize that changes in teacher practice will not automatically follow from updating standards. For updates to pay off, states need to make certain that their professional teaching standards are intentionally aligned to a coherent system of preparation and development, one where pre-service coursework and curricula, licensure assessments, evaluation systems, and ongoing learning opportunities all elevate the need for culturally responsive practice and support full implementation. In addition, professional standards should help education leaders at all levels set goals for the development of resources, tools, and ongoing professional learning opportunities that will help teachers enact the CRT competencies in their daily instruction. Although leadership standards were beyond the scope of our analysis, we would be remiss not to acknowledge the critical role of school leaders in fostering teaching and learning environments that encourage, rather than thwart, culturally responsive teaching. Therefore, it is essential that system leaders also evaluate and update their leadership standards to align to teaching standards and include a greater focus on CRT. Like teachers, these leaders should receive ongoing support and development so that they can strengthen their practice as culturally responsive instructional leaders.

Helping teachers develop and strengthen their skills as culturally responsive practitioners, puts them in a better position to foster the types of learning encounters that are relevant to and effective for the learners of today. But teachers are unlikely to get the support they need if culturally responsive teaching is treated as an “add-on” approach by policymakers and education leaders. By taking bold action to weave CRT competencies into their state’s definition of quality teaching, system leaders can begin to ingrain CRT into the DNA of districts, schools, and classrooms; thereby ensuring that all learners in their state have access to rigorous and relevant learning experiences that will set them up for college, career, and life success.