week 8 revised

arnita

fulltext1.pdf

Home >History homework help >Ancient history homework help >week 8 revised

LIBERTY UNIVERSITY

JOHN W. RAWLINGS SCHOOL OF DIVINITY

A CORRELATIONAL STUDY OF CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE CHRISTIAN SCHOOL

LEADERSHIP AND ITS IMPACT ON CULTURALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

Denecia Brown Anderson

Liberty University, Lynchburg, VA

2024

A CORRELATIONAL STUDY OF CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE CHRISTIAN SCHOOL

LEADERSHIP AND ITS IMPACT ON CULTURALLY MARGINALIZED STUDENTS

by Denecia Brown Anderson

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

Liberty University, Lynchburg, VA

May 2024

APPROVED BY:

__________________________________

Micheal Pardue EdD, Dissertation Supervisor

__________________________________

Justin Smith EdD, Second Reader

ABSTRACT

According to the National Center for Education Statistics (2022), the Private School Universe

Survey (PSS) was given and disclosed that 4.7 million students were served in private

elementary and secondary schools in the fall of 2019. Approximately twenty-five percent of

private schools in the United States of America are considered conservative Christian schools

(National Center for Education Statistics, 2022). Within the conservative Christian schools, 0.7%

of the students were American Indian, 5.3% were Asian, 68.6% were white, 11.2% were Black,

9.2% were Hispanic, 0.8% were Pacific Islander, and 4.3% were two or more races. Diversity in

conservative Christian schools is minimal compared to public schools (Ee et al., 2018); however,

the smaller percentages of diverse students on a private Christian school campus do not nullify

the need for cultural awareness and responsiveness. The purpose of this correlational study was

to determine if a relationship exists between culturally responsive school leadership, cultural

awareness, teacher readiness for educating all students, and professional learning opportunities

about diversity, controlling for Christian private schools located in the United States of America.

This study utilized the survey design method, and the sample of this research comprised the

population of teachers employed for at least one year at Christian private schools. The results of

the study are based on significant Chi-square analyses, which show numerous strong

relationships between Likert scale item means that show primary factors that highlight teacher

perceptions of cultural awareness, teacher readiness to educate all students, and equity-focused

professional learning opportunities.

Keywords: culturally responsive school leadership, culturally responsive pedagogy,

cultural intelligence, culturally marginalized students, Christian private schools

Liberty University has permission to reproduce and disseminate this document in any form by

any means for purposes chosen by the University, including, without limitation, preservation or

instruction.

Dedication

I dedicate this research to every person who feels voiceless or inadequate due to

marginalization. My desire is to bring insight and awareness to possible factors that may

cause division within the educational sphere. As an educator with over 15 years of

experience, I have been afforded the opportunity to serve in varying capacities and in

different cultural school environments. This research is one piece to a huge puzzle and my

hope is that I have been able to connect a dot along the journey to continual improvement.

Students, educators, and leaders must share the same desire to meet the diverse needs of all

who are impacted by the education system. As the stakeholders arise together and refuse to

become trapped in the cycle of traditions, there is a way forward. The way forward is to

remove barriers causing increased challenges to the marginalized student population in any

educational setting.

Acknowledgments

As I pause to inhale and acknowledge the distance traveled along this journey, I must

appreciate those who have walked with me, prayed for me, and championed me across the finish

line. First, I begin by acknowledging the Holy Spirit for his wisdom, brilliance, strength, and

guidance during this season in my life. I definitely could not have done this without the grace

and power of the Holy Spirit. Secondly, I want to recognize and honor my husband, Davon T.

Anderson. He has been an amazing friend, partner, and covering throughout this process. Davon

was my sounding board when I became frustrated. He was my cheerleader, editor, counselor,

prayer partner, and so much more. Thank you, sweetheart, for your diligence and unwavering

support. Next, I want to highlight my children. My four children, Savian, Sydney, Dana, and DJ,

have been the fuel I needed to keep going when things became overwhelming. They were a

major part of my support system with their words of encouragement, their laughter, and their

reminders. My parents, Dr. David Brown Sr. and Dr. Dollie Brown, have also been a

foundational piece to my support system. Their example of being a life-long learner is what

ignites me to continue in my efforts to continually grow and develop into the person God has

purposed me to become. I honor them and appreciate them for their continual sacrifice

throughout my life. Of course, I do not have the time and space to call every person by name, but

I want to give space to acknowledge my friends; framily; Pastors, Dr. Kevin Duhart Sr. and

Pastor Lisa Duhart; my church family, The Rock San Antonio; and my home church family,

Holy Light Miracle Temple. Their prayers and words of encouragement have been an ongoing

motivation. I thank God for each of you, and I pray our Father continues to meet your every

need. Finally, I respect and thank my professors and dissertation chair. Thank you for your

support, encouragement, feedback, guidance, and prayers. This journey would have been a

completely different process if not for you. The information you provided gave clarity, insight,

and direction during every step of the journey. I have finally reached the point of exhaling. I

made it. We made it. Thanks be to God!

Table of Contents

ABSTRACT .....................................................................................................................................3

Dedication ........................................................................................................................................5

Acknowledgments............................................................................................................................6

Table of Contents .............................................................................................................................8

List of Abbreviations .....................................................................................................................14

CHAPTER ONE: RESEARCH CONCERN .................................................................................15

Introduction ........................................................................................................................15

Background to the Problem ...............................................................................................17

Statement of the Problem ...................................................................................................19

Purpose Statement ..............................................................................................................20

Research Questions ............................................................................................................21

Assumptions and Delimitations .........................................................................................21

Research Assumptions ...........................................................................................21

Delimitations of the Research Design....................................................................21

Significance of the Study ...................................................................................................24

Summary of the Design .....................................................................................................26

Proposed Instrumentation ..................................................................................................28

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................30

Overview ............................................................................................................................30

Theological Framework for the Study ...............................................................................30

Theoretical Framework for the Study ................................................................................46

Related Literature...............................................................................................................58

Rationale for the Study ......................................................................................................70

Gap in the Literature ..........................................................................................................72

Profile of the Current Study ...............................................................................................73

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................76

Research Design Synopsis .................................................................................................76

Research Problem ..................................................................................................76

Research Purpose ...................................................................................................77

Research Questions ................................................................................................78

Research Hypotheses .............................................................................................78

Research Design and Methodology .......................................................................78

Population ..........................................................................................................................81

Sampling Procedures .........................................................................................................82

Limitations of Generalization ............................................................................................82

Ethical Considerations .......................................................................................................83

Instrumentation ..................................................................................................................84

Validity ..................................................................................................................89

Reliability ...............................................................................................................90

Research Procedures ..........................................................................................................90

Data Analysis and Statistical Procedures ...........................................................................91

Data Analysis .........................................................................................................91

Statistical Procedures .............................................................................................92

Chapter Summary ..............................................................................................................93

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS .....................................................................................................94

Overview ............................................................................................................................94

Research Questions ............................................................................................................94

Research Hypotheses .........................................................................................................94

Compilation Protocol and Measures ..................................................................................94

Demographic and Sample Data .........................................................................................96

Data Analysis and Findings ...............................................................................................97

Research Question One ..........................................................................................98

Research Question Two .......................................................................................124

Research Question Three .....................................................................................144

Evaluation of the Research Design ..................................................................................153

Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................155

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS ...........................................................................................156

Overview ..........................................................................................................................156

Research Purpose .............................................................................................................156

Research Questions ..........................................................................................................158

Research Conclusions, Implications, and Applications ...................................................158

Research Limitations .......................................................................................................172

Further Research ..............................................................................................................173

Summary ..........................................................................................................................174

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................176

APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................184

List of Tables

Table Page

Table 1 Demographics Overview 97

Table 2 Descriptive Statistics for Cultural Awareness (Adult Focus) 98

Table 3 Descriptive Statistics for Cultural Awareness (Student Focus) 100

Table 4 Components of the Culturally Responsive School 103

Leadership Development Model and Cultural Awareness (Adult Focus)

Table 5 Components of the CRSL Development Model 104

and Cultural Awareness (Student Focus)

Table 6 Responses to Component 1 of the CRSL Model: 106

Critically Self-Reflect on Leadership Behaviors

Table 7 Responses to Component 2 of the CRSL Model: 107

Develops Culturally Responsive Teachers

Table 8 Responses to Component 3 of the CRSL Model: 108

Promotes Culturally Responsive/Inclusive School Environment

Table 9 Responses to Component 4 of the CRSL Model: 109

Engages Students, Parents, and Indigenous Contexts

Table 10 Chi-Squared Tests for Questions 2 and 4 (Component 1 of CRSL) 111

Table 11 Chi-Squared Tests for Questions 7 and 10 (Component 1 of CRSL) 111

Table 12 Chi-Squared Tests for Questions 8 and 15 (Component 2 of CRSL) 112

Table 13 Chi-Squared Tests for Questions 1 and 3 (Component 3 of CRSL) 112

Table 14 Chi-Squared Tests for Questions 6 and 9 (Component 3 of CRSL) 113

Table 15 Chi-Squared Tests for Questions 11 and 16 (Component 3 of CRSL) 113

Table 16 Chi-Squared Tests for Questions 5 and 12 (Component 4 of CRSL) 114

Table 17 Chi-Squared Tests for Questions 13 and 14 (Component 4 of CRSL) 114

Table 18 Descriptive Statistics for Teacher Readiness for Educating All Students 124

Table 19 Components of the CRSL Development Model and 127

Teacher Readiness to Educate All Students

Table 20 Responses to Component 1 of the CRSL Model: 129

Critically Self-Reflect on Leadership Behaviors

Table 21 Responses to Component 2 of the CRSL Model: 130

Develops Culturally Responsive Teachers

Table 22 Responses to Component 3 of the CRSL Model: 131

Promotes Culturally Responsive/Inclusive School Environment

Table 23 Responses to Component 4 of the CRSL Model: 132

Engages Students, Parents, and Indigenous Contexts

Table 24 Chi-Squared Tests for Questions 17 and 24 (Component 1 of CRSL) 133

Table 25 Chi-Squared Tests for Questions 18 and 21 (Component 2 of CRSL) 133

Table 26 Chi-Squared Tests for Questions 18 and 25 (Component 2 of CRSL) 134

Table 27 Chi-Squared Tests for Questions 21 and 25 (Component 2 of CRSL) 134

Table 28 Chi-Squared Tests for Questions 20 and 23 (Component 3 of CRSL) 135

Table 29 Chi-Squared Tests for Questions 19 and 22 (Component 4 of CRSL) 135

Table 30 Descriptive Statistics for Equity-Focused Professional Learning Opportunities 144

Table 31 Components of the CRSL Development Model and 146

Equity-Focused Professional Learning Opportunities

Table 32 Responses to Component 2 of the CRSL Model: 147

Develops Culturally Responsive Teachers

Table 33 Chi-Squared Tests for Questions 26 and 27 (Component 2 of CRSL) 149

Table 34 Chi-Squared Tests for Questions 28 and 29 (Component 2 of CRSL) 149

List of Abbreviations

Culturally Responsive School Leadership (CRSL)

Culturally Responsive Christian School Leadership (CRCSL)

Cultural Intelligence (CQ)

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)

CHAPTER ONE: RESEARCH CONCERN

Introduction

Words are spoken in an attempt to be recognized and embraced by those who have ears to

hear the speaker's heart. Some continue to speak softly while others begin to lift their voice

aloud. The elevation in the volume of their voices points to change and inclusion as the desired

outcome. These are the voices of those who have been marginalized, excluded, and oppressed.

They cry aloud and desire to be heard, valued, and included; however, some are still deaf to the

voices and desire to hold onto the vestiges of the past (Lopez, 2016, p. xii). Due to the world

being more connected than ever, cross-cultural interactions in various settings and encounters

with people from varying backgrounds consistently occur (Livermore, 2009). One setting

impacted due to cross-cultural exchange is the educational environment. The nature of diversity

among students can be seen through ethnicity, religion, culture, economics, and social status. The

broad range of diversity in America lends itself to a need for educators to center their efforts on

the humanity of students and not just be satisfied with informational exchanges within the

classroom (Khalifa & Delpit, 2018).

Consequently, educators are responsible for consistently supporting all students in an

inclusive, equitable, and relevant manner. Even more so, Christian educators must meet the

needs of students regardless of their diverse backgrounds. This responsibility stems from core

Christian teachings that emphasize the intrinsic value of every individual and the importance of

love and acceptance for all. John 13: 34-35 says,

A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you,

that you also love one another. By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if

you have love for one another. (New American Standard Bible, 1960/1995).

David Livermore (2009) encourages Christians to move from having the desire to love across

cultural differences, like clothing, food, language, customs, or perceptions, to having the ability

to express love for people of difference, persons from differing backgrounds, based on

socioeconomics, education, or ethnicity. He aligns with the core of Christian ministry centered

around interacting with all kinds of people, providing opportunities for them to have glimpses of

Jesus. Most people are comfortable with others who are like themselves; however, Scripture

challenges Christians to be uncomfortable with cultural standards and to align with Kingdom

standards. The Kingdom standard of love is intertwined through the Bible, and Jesus is the

perfect example of love and how to love.

Culturally responsive school leaders are responsible for initiating, implementing, and

sustaining a culturally responsive school culture (Khalifa et al., 2016). This is particularly

important in Christian private schools where the vision and mission often align with the

principles of Christianity, as exemplified through a commitment to show and communicate love

(Livermore, 2009). The overall impact on a student, ranging from academic performance to

social and emotional well-being, is directly connected to how well the school’s leadership creates

an environment where all students feel valued, supported, and empowered.

Terms such as inclusion, equity, and social justice are used and defined later in this

chapter. These terms are commonly used in public education as the filter to determine whether

educators engage in behaviors that incorporate any student; therefore, for this research, an

operational definition will be given to clarify the association with these terms in a Christian

school context.

Background to the Problem

The formal educational institution is viewed as a primary source of learning; therefore,

significant responsibility for consistent growth and adaptability within the Christian school

setting relies on those at the organization's head (DeMatthews & Izquierdo, 2020; Hajisoteriou,

et al., 2018). The leadership style used by educational leaders matters in establishing culture,

implementing necessary change, and sustaining growth and development (Brown et al., 2019;

Hajisoteriou et al., 2018). Culturally responsive school leadership is one leadership style that

supports and focuses on positively impacting all students regardless of culture (Marshall &

Khalifa, 2018). Wang (2019) defines culturally responsive school leadership as "the leader's

behaviors engaging in inclusion, equity, advocacy, and social justice in schools" (p. 342). A

culturally responsive Christian school leader embraces diversity and ensures the school culture

accepts all backgrounds. Christian leaders should lead the way in being a living picture of what it

looks like to collaborate, respect, and love others (Livermore, 2009). This portrait serves as an

example of Jesus Christ’s demonstration of unconditional love.

According to data from the Private School Universe Survey (PSS), 4.7 million students

were served in private elementary and secondary schools in the fall of 2019, accounting for nine

percent of all elementary and secondary school enrollment. Private schools are educational

institutions that are not primarily financially supported by the government or public funds. In

contrast, public schools receive most of their funding from public sources and the government

(National Center for Education Statistics, 2022). The PSS used five categories to group private

schools based on religious orientation. The following five categories are Catholic, which

includes parochial, diocesan, and private Catholic schools; conservative Christian; affiliated

religious (schools that are affiliated with denominations other than Catholic or conservative

Christian); unaffiliated religious (schools that have a religious orientation or purpose but are not

affiliated with any specific denomination), and nonsectarian (schools that are not religiously

affiliated).

In the fall of 2019, approximately twenty-five percent of conservative Christian schools

provided regular elementary and secondary education in the United States of America (National

Center for Education Statistics, 2022). In conservative Christian schools, 0.7% of the students

were American Indian, 5.3% were Asian, 68.6% were White, 11.2% were Black, 9.2% were

Hispanic, 0.8% were Pacific Islander, and 4.3% were two or more races. In comparison, 1% of

traditional public-school students in the fall of 2019 were American Indian, 5% were Asian, 47%

were White, 15% were Black, 28% were Hispanic, less than 1% were Pacific Islander, and 4%

were two or more races. Diversity in conservative Christian schools is minimal compared to

public schools (Ee et al., 2018); however, the smaller percentages of diverse students, Black,

Hispanic, and Native American, on a private Christian school campus do not nullify the need for

cultural awareness and responsiveness.

Whether the educational organization is public or Christian, instructional leaders must

incorporate culturally responsive practices into their pedagogy. The responsibility of Christian

instructional leaders is to uphold the dignity of all people. The creation narrative in Genesis

highlights the dignity of mankind (Mason, 2021), which began in God's image and likeness.

"God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He

created them " (New American Standard Bible, 1960/1995, Genesis 1:27). Mason (2021)

discusses the primary focus of creation as God investing value into mankind. The value that was

invested was God himself. Moreover, humanity is valuable to God. Culturally responsive school

leaders appreciate and embrace all students. They seek to incorporate the life experiences of their

diverse students into the daily learning context (Collins et al., 2016; Horton, 2006).

Cultural inclusion of diverse students confronts the tradition of exclusion due to dominant

culture schooling (DeMatthews & Izquierdo, 2020). Excluding students based on varying

backgrounds and upbringings creates division, and barriers are formed, which prevent diverse

students from feeling included. Some exclusionary practices involve shaming students, not

allowing students to incorporate their experiences into the lessons, or having low expectations of

students based on implicit bias regarding their cultural background (Khalifa & Delpit, 2018).

These actions cannot be tolerated in a Christian school setting or by Christian leaders (Horton,

2006). The difficulty of implementing culturally responsive practices stems from the pushback

against the unlearning of culturally exclusionary pedagogy and behaviors (Marshall & Khalifa,

2018). There needs to be more cultural understanding specific to marginalized students (Collins

et al., 2016). This is due to the inadequate professional development training opportunities for

culturally responsive practices specific to marginalized students (Krasnoff, 2016; Duchesneau,

2020).

Statement of the Problem

The need for increased awareness and implementation of diverse leadership and

educational practices is rising due to the change in varied student populations throughout the

country (Krasnoff, 2016). Hollowell (2019) agrees with the need for leadership to respond to the

complex contextual changes in schools based on increasing racial, ethnic, cultural, linguistic, and

socioeconomic diversity; therefore, the Culturally Responsive School Leadership framework is

preferred to address specific issues directly impacting students. The effectiveness of student

growth depends on the leadership style approach to ensuring an equitable learning environment,

inclusivity, relevancy, and access for all students (Krasnoff, 2016; Samuels, 2018; see also

Duchesneau, 2020).

Culturally responsive school leadership and culturally responsive teaching have been

studied within the public-school context (Marshall & Khalifa, 2018; Samuels, 2018; Tanase,

2020). Few studies refer to culturally responsive school leadership in a Christian school. This

accentuates the need and gap in the research regarding culturally responsive school practices

within the Christian school framework. The intersection of Christianity, culturally responsive

school leadership, and culturally diverse students is one to study based on the need for consistent

training within the Christian school setting in culturally responsive school leadership due to a

smaller number of diverse students on campus. Minimal training and instruction have been

employed to provide clear expectations of the execution of culturally responsive practices

through daily classroom instruction (Duchesneau, 2020; Krasnoff, 2016). Culturally responsive

practices in the school environment impact students' academic, social, and emotional aspects;

therefore, the need for all instructional leaders to be culturally intelligent and self-aware of their

cultural biases is critical in developing a culturally responsive school environment (Marshall &

Khalifa, 2018). Examining the current state of cultural awareness and culturally responsive

school leadership pedagogy in Christian private schools will inform and add to educational

practices for leadership preparation, professional development, and culturally responsive training

to support diverse student populations (Hesbol et al., 2020).

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this correlational study was to determine if a relationship exists between

culturally responsive school leadership, cultural awareness, teacher readiness for educating all

students, and professional learning opportunities about diversity, controlling for Christian private

schools located in the United States of America. This study sought to bring guidance to culturally

responsive school leadership development models in Christian private schools and their impact

on culturally marginalized students through cultural awareness, teacher readiness for educating

all students, and equity-focused professional learning opportunities in Christian private schools.

Research Questions

This study used the following questions to guide the research:

RQ1. What relationship, if any, exists between the culturally responsive school

leadership development model and cultural awareness?

RQ2. What relationship, if any, exists between the culturally responsive school

leadership development model and teacher readiness for educating all students?

RQ3. What relationship, if any, exists between the culturally responsive school

leadership development model and equity-focused professional learning opportunities?

Assumptions and Delimitations

Research Assumptions

In this study, there were two assumptions:

1. Khalifa's theory of culturally responsive school leadership accurately identifies an impact

on cultural awareness, teacher readiness to address issues of diversity, and equity-focused

professional learning opportunities.

2. Christian private schools and Christian leaders use a leadership model of choice to serve

all students.

Delimitations of the Research Design

This research was delimited to Christian private schools within the United States of

America (USA), that serve grades K-12. This research was further delimited to the access of

Christian private schools within the USA. Additionally, this study was delimited to Christian

private schools classified as such based on self-classification as a Christian private school. The

Culturally Responsive School Leadership framework was used to identify the integration and

practices of culturally responsive school leadership. Finally, the study only involved some

private Christian schools in the USA.

Definition of Terms

Some of the language presented is controversial; however, this research was inviting and

aligns with the virtues and values intrinsic to the Christian faith. It does not align with the

cultural and societal norms of these particular terms. Social standards for including LBGTQ+,

preferred sexual orientation, or no specific gender association may authorize the use of these

terms. Nevertheless, this researcher did not agree with what has been accepted as cultural and

societal customs. The following list defines terms that were used throughout the study. The

cultural and societal definitions are provided along with the operational definitions for the study.

Societal and Cultural Definitions

The following terms were used throughout the remaining sections of this dissertation:

1. Culturally Responsive School Leadership (CRSL): Educational leadership practices that

promote the creation of learning environments that are respectful of and responsive to the

cultural backgrounds of all students. This leadership style emphasizes the importance of

understanding, valuing, and integrating diverse cultural perspectives into the educational

process, ensuring that all students feel valued and achieve academic success (Khalifa,

Gooden, & Davis, 2016).

2. Culturally Marginalized Student: “social exclusion of a certain minority or sub-group

pushed to the edge and accompanied by negligence of their needs and lessening of their

importance” within the school community context. It may be caused by various reasons

such as: social class, educational status, disability, socioeconomic status, etc. (Petkovska,

2015, p. 216).

3. Diversity: “involves the representation or composition of various social identity groups in

a workgroup, organization, or community” (American Psychological Association, 2021,

p. 12). It is the presence of different and multiple characteristics that make up individual

and collective identities (Nakintu & Biting-Isreal, 2022).

4. Equity: The process of identifying and removing the barriers that create disparities in the

access to resources and means, and the achievement of fair treatment and equal

opportunities to thrive (Nakintu & Bitanga-Israel, 2022, p.2). “Providing resources

according to the need to help diverse populations achieve their highest state of health and

other functioning. Equity is an ongoing process of assessing needs, correcting historical

inequities, and creating conditions for optimal outcomes by members of all social identity

groups” (American Psychological Association, 2021, p. 12).

5. Equitable Learning Environment: recognizing and addressing inequitable power

structures; recognizing and optimizing the learning style of each child; adapting teaching

strategies to meet differing learning needs; and maximizing the strengths that each

student brings to the classroom because of the differences in student socioeconomic

circumstances, gender, language, culture, and race (Krasnoff, 2016, p. 21).

6. Inclusion: “creating environments in which any individual or group can be and feel

welcomed, respected, supported, and valued to participate fully” (Nakintu & Bitanga-

Israel, 2022, p.2). “An environment that offers affirmation, celebration, and appreciation

of different approaches, styles, perspectives, and experiences, thus allowing all

individuals to bring in their whole selves (and all of their identities) and to demonstrate

their strengths and capacity” (American Psychological Association, 2021, p. 12).

7. Social Justice: “Commitment to creating fairness and equity in resources, rights, and

treatment of marginalized individuals and groups of people who do not share equal power

in society” (American Psychological Association, 2021, p. 12).

8. Cultural Intelligence: "a person's ability for successful adaption to the new cultural

settings, that is, for unfamiliar environments attributable to cultural context" (Earley &

Ang, 2003, p. 9).

Operational Definitions

The following operational definitions describe how each term was used within this study:

1. Culturally Responsive Christian School Leadership (CRCSL): Culturally responsive

Christian school leadership is an approach that combines the principles of culturally

responsive leadership with the values and beliefs of the Christian faith. It involves

creating a learning environment that authentically and respectfully recognizes and values

the diversity of students while also promoting the love and teachings of Jesus Christ.

2. Diversity in the Christian school: In a Christian school context, diversity can be

understood as the presence of various backgrounds and perspectives among students,

teachers, and the broader school community. This diversity can include cultural diversity

and socioeconomic diversity.

3. Equity in the Christian school: In Christian schools, equity refers to the fair and just

treatment of students, parents, and staff, regardless of their background or abilities.

Christian schools aim to provide equal opportunities for all individuals to thrive

academically, socially, and spiritually while promoting the values and teachings of the

Christian faith.

4. Inclusion in the Christian school: Inclusion in a Christian school context is the intentional

and proactive effort to create a welcoming and supportive environment for all students,

regardless of their background or abilities. This includes promoting a sense of belonging,

providing equal opportunities for learning and participation, and fostering a culture of

respect and understanding.

5. Social Justice in the Christian school: In a Christian school context, social justice is the

application of Christian principles and values to address and rectify social, economic, and

political inequalities and injustices in society.

Significance of the Study

As previously mentioned, the National Center for Education Statistics (2022) highlights the

number of American students attending private schools. In the fall of 2019, 4.7 million students

were served in private elementary and secondary schools. Approximately twenty-five percent of

private schools in the United States of America are considered conservative Christian schools

(National Center for Education Statistics, 2022). In conservative Christian schools, 0.7% of the

students were American Indian, 5.3% were Asian, 68.6% were white, 11.2% were Black, 9.2%

were Hispanic, 0.8% were Pacific Islander, and 4.3% were two or more races. In comparison,

1% of traditional public-school students in the fall of 2019 were American Indian, 5% were

Asian, 47% were White, 15% were Black, 28% were Hispanic, less than 1% were Pacific

Islander, and 4% were two or more races.

Culturally responsive practices address assumptions and stereotyping that hinder

accepting culturally diverse individuals within the United States (Khalifa & Delpit, 2018;

Livermore, 2009). These practices are essential in gaining insight and knowledge of varying

identities, cultures, races, and communities. The educational system is where culturally

responsive practices need to be consistently evident. The local school is where learning and

development occur for all youth in the United States; therefore, culturally responsive practices

must be embedded into the fabric of the school system, and it begins with the educational leaders

(DeMatthews & Izquierdo, 2020).

Culturally responsive leadership has been studied, focusing on marginalized students in

the traditional public-school environment (Hesbol et al., 2020). Very little study has been

conducted to discover the impact of culturally responsive leadership in Christian private schools

where the standard is to love and uphold dignity to all mankind. The need and gap exist for

research to consider the educational impact on marginalized students at Christian private schools.

Educational leadership is a central component of educational reform, and a part of reformation

deals with leaders being capable of creating and sustaining a culturally responsive environment

(Khalifa et al., 2016). Minkos et al. (2017) emphasize that "now more than ever educators must

be prepared to support the needs and education of students who often differ from them from a

cultural perspective” (p. 1261). All stakeholders need to carry out the mandate of Christ in

Matthew 22 to be equipped to support the needs of all students.

This study aimed to enrich the bodies of research by informing educators’ professional

development as well as heighten their awareness and implementation of culturally responsive

school leadership practices in Christian private schools. By using the Culturally Responsive

School Leadership (CRSL) model as the overarching theoretical framework, this researcher

hoped to continue the discussion of diversity in Christian private schools and broaden the

understanding of how Christian private schools can provide an inclusive learning environment

for marginalized students. Existing research on culturally responsive teaching, culturally

responsive school practices, culturally responsive pedagogy, and culturally responsive school

leadership show the significance of teachers, educational systems, curriculum, and leaders

integrating and implementing the broad areas of critical self-reflection, community advocacy and

engagement, school culture and climate, and transformational leadership (Khalifa et al., 2016;

Marshall & Khalifa, 2018; see also Brown et al., 2019; Collins et al., 2016; DeMatthews &

Izquierdo, 2020; Genao, 2021; Hajisoteriou et al., 2018; Ham et al., 2020; Hesbol et al., 2020;

Hutchinson et al., 2020; Krasnoff, 2016; Levitan, 2020; Minkos et al., 2017; Mustian et al.,

2017; Samuels, 2018; Tanase, 2020). The culturally responsive school leadership dialogue has

started in previous research with DeMatthews, D. E., & Izquierdo, E. (2020), Genao, S. (2021),

Ham, S.-H., Kim, J., & Lee, S. (2020), Hollowell, C. (2019), Johnson, L. (2014), Khalifa, M. A.,

& Delpit, L. (2018), Khalifa, M. A., Gooden, M. A., & Davis, J. E. (2016), Lopez, A. E. (2016),

and Marshall, S. L., & Khalifa, M. A. (2018). This study intended to leverage current findings

and use the lens of a Christian leader to investigate the impact of a culturally responsive school

leadership framework on student outcomes in a Christian private school.

Summary of the Design

Research Population

Based on the classification of most diverse schools in 2024, Niche (n.d.) listed 7,692

schools. The researcher identified the target population based on the characteristics of being

recognized as a Christian private school. The recognition of being classified as a diverse school

also characterized the population sample. Each state had a different number of private schools

known as Christian; therefore, the number of schools for each state varied.

Niche (n.d.) listed 7,692 Christian private schools rated as most diverse with a letter

grade of either an A, B, or C. These schools were selected due to their identification as diverse

Christian private schools in the United States. Diversity is determined based on racial and

economic diversity and survey responses from students and parents on school culture and

diversity. This population was chosen because the researcher had children who attended

Christian private schools in various states within the country. The researcher also worked as a

basketball coach at a Christian private school.

Research Sample(s) and Sampling Technique(s)

The sample of this research comprised the population of teachers employed at Christian

private schools in America for at least one year. According to Creswell & Creswell (2018),

single-stage sampling involves accessing the names in the population and sampling them

directly. The researcher used a single-stage sampling technique by contacting the schools. The

sample recruitment was conducted through email. The researcher gained permission to send

recruitment emails explaining the nature of the research and the request for participation in the

study. Permission was extended from the Head of Schools and Administration at the Christian

private schools or the Director of Operations and Membership of Christian Schools International.

The researcher sent two recruitment emails to the faculty over a one-month period.

Methodological Design

This study purposed to inform educators’ professional development as well as heighten

their awareness and implementation of culturally responsive school leadership practices within

the Christian private school context and the impact on cultural awareness, teacher readiness to

address issues of diversity, and equity-focused professional learning opportunities. The research

included quantitative methods. The researcher used a survey method design to determine if a

relationship existed between culturally responsive school leadership, cultural awareness, teacher

readiness to address issues of diversity, and equity-focused professional learning opportunities.

The researcher sought to discover to what extent culturally responsive school leadership exists in

a Christian private school.

This study sought to bring insight and guidance to the impact of culturally responsive

school leadership on cultural awareness, teacher readiness to address issues of diversity, and

equity-focused professional learning opportunities in Christian private schools. Khalifa et al.'s

(2016) Culturally Responsive School Leadership framework guided the researcher. It emphasizes

the significance of critical self-awareness, culturally responsive curricula and teacher

preparation, culturally responsive and inclusive school environments, and engaging students and

parents in community contexts. The researcher also used the foundational frameworks of imago

Dei and the Theology of Love to develop a biblical perspective of cultural responsiveness within

the Christian school context.

Proposed Instrumentation

The data collection method for this research was a survey. The researcher implemented

additional questions to gather information based on specific characteristics of the faculty

population. They included questions regarding race, years employed at the particular school, and

gender. This provided basic information to the researcher and was helpful when examining the

data to draw conclusions and build consistent themes.

Panorama Education

According to Buckle (2022), teachers, staff, and administrators initiate the cultivation of

equitable and inclusive school environments. These personnel interact with the students every

day; therefore, they can also provide critical data based on their perceptions of the teaching and

learning environment for the students and adults.

Panorama Education provides a thirty-four-question survey to gather teacher and staff

feedback regarding school equity and inclusion (Buckle, 2022). Dr. Samuel Moulton, Dr. Hunter

Gehlbach, and the Panorama team designed the teacher survey to engage teachers in topics

related to school climate, school leadership, and professional development (Breese, 2019). The

survey is customizable and can be used to measure and support this research in the areas of

cultural awareness and action (adult focus), cultural awareness and action (student focus),

educating all students, and professional learning about equity. This study focused on responses

from the faculty and staff; therefore, permission was not needed from individuals under the age

of 18 years.

Equity and Inclusion Survey.

The survey was created adhering to modern principles of survey design (Panorama

Equity and Inclusion User Guide, n.d.). The items are worded as questions that avoid agree-

disagree response options. They ask about one idea at a time, and there are at least five response

options. The questions do not measure political beliefs but focus on school experiences. The

survey items are designed to be broadly applicable regardless of cultural or community

demographics. The survey is presented as a series of questions working together to measure a

single topic. The response options include a variety of Likert-style responses. Some responses

included choices such as do not understand at all to completely understand; not at all connected

to extremely connected; no respect at all to a tremendous amount of respect; almost never to

almost always; or not at all valuable to extremely valuable. Additional questions were also used

to provide background information the researcher needed for reporting.

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

Overview

The purpose of this research study was to determine if a relationship exists between

culturally responsive school leadership, cultural awareness, educating all students, and

professional learning opportunities about diversity for culturally marginalized students in

Christian private schools. This chapter provides a comprehensive summary of relevant studies

correlating to this researcher’s research. The intentional task of structuring, organizing, and

refining is challenging; however, the goal of insight and understanding far outweighs the

undertaking. This literature review is divided into five parts: Theological Framework,

Theoretical Framework, Related Literature, Rationale for the Study, and the Gap in the

Literature.

Theological Framework for the Study

Over time, the ideologies of man have evolved and shifted based on cultural and

philosophical viewpoints. The viewpoints and mindsets shape people's approaches to interacting

with different groups of people. The challenge some face is the cultural differences and attributes

of diverse people. These foundational misconceptions originated from misunderstanding God's

purpose and intention for humanity and have led people astray in their treatment, acceptance, and

perceived and displayed value of all humanity. The best approach to gaining insight into God's

design for humanity is by examining the word of God.

The Bible is clear and specific in revealing God's plan for humanity. Based on what the

word of God exposes, Christians are responsible for upholding the dignity of all people (Genesis

1 and 2). More specifically, Christian instructional leaders maintain the dignity of all people by

intentionally valuing and incorporating life experiences into the daily educational practices

within the school context.

Theology of Christian Education

Estep et al. (2008) suggest that the initial step of the dialogue begins with defining terms

to bring meaning to the concept of Christian education. The starting point is defining theology,

which is the study of Scripture and expression of the central beliefs of Christianity. Scripture is

the authoritative source Christians use to undergird the beliefs and definition of education;

therefore, it must be considered, and the investigation of Biblical texts should be used to guide

educators in their efforts to serve students. Genesis 1:28 shows God as the first example of an

instructor. Education began in Genesis with God himself. Genesis 1:28 says,

God blessed them; and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and

subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every

living thing that moves on the earth’ (New American Standard Bible, 1960/1995).

God created mankind and then gave them specific instructions. He facilitated their learning

through task delegation and provided clear guidelines for them to fulfill the assignment.

Education has been described as follows:

1. The activity of parents, teachers, and schools with children, adolescents, and adults.

2. The learning process that occurs in the learner.

3. The product of learning, that is, an education.

4. The discipline of education, that is, the formal study of the above three items (Estep

et al., 2008, p. 16)

The idea of learning is what connects all the descriptors of education mentioned above.

Education is a systematic, intentional learning experience that can happen in a formal or informal

environment. At the core of education, it is based on a worldview that expresses philosophical

convictions.

For Christian educators, education is more than the transfer of information. Christian

education aims to transform students into the likeness of Christ (Estep et al., 2008; Wilhoit,

1991). Colossians 1:28 shares, “We proclaim Him, admonishing every man and teaching every

man with all wisdom, so that we may present every man complete in Christ” (New American

Standard Bible, 1960/1995). Transformation is more than theological instruction. It happens

through the knowledge of God, and Christian education is a tool for helping persons come to

know God (Wilhoit, 1991). Heart transformation is Christian education's end goal and outcome

(Estep et al., 2008). It brings people to a place of acknowledging more than head knowledge.

Christian education makes persons aware of who God is and their need for God and encourages

them to honor him through love and devotion.

Matthew 28:19-20 instructs,

Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the

Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded

you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age (New American Standard

Bible, 1960/1995).

The command from Jesus to make disciples happened through teaching (LeBar & Plueddemann,

1998). Teaching is a tool that Christian educators use to bring students into a more excellent

knowledge of God and communicate Biblical truths that help them live out those truths in

everyday life (Estep et al., 2008; Wilhoit, 1991). So, for Christian educators, it is vital to be

theologically aligned in their worldviews. Theological alignment will help educators have a

distinctive approach to serving students within the Christian school.

What Makes Education Christian?

The preliminary question begins with what makes anything Christian (Estep et al., 2008)?

The term Christian is not just an adjective that serves as a descriptor for something to be labeled

or identified as non-Christian. The use of Christian as a describing term must begin with

theological intent. Theological alignment and foundation are what cause anything to meet the

standard of being considered distinctively Christian. The criteria for categorizing something as

Christian is that it is defined by and informed by Scripture; therefore, education becomes

Christian through theology beyond the basic level of content (Estep et al., 2008, p. 26; Hoch &

Smith, 2011).

Christian education is the overlap of theological and scientific integration (Estep et al.,

2008). The overlap is not black and white, but there is some difficulty in defining the extent of

the integration of theology and social science. Thus, clarity arises when theory and

methodologies are distinct to a theologically informed worldview. Estep et al. (2008) explain

what makes education Christian as involving the following:

1. Education should have a theologically informed and constructive use of social science

theories. Education should understand that the nature of the student is both

developmental in nature and is innately the imago dei, the image of God.

2. Education has a theologically informed purpose. This means that education is for the

glory of God, maturity in the Christian faith, and the advancement of the kingdom.

3. Education features a theologically informed selection of content. This means that

education starts with Scripture but includes theological tradition, church history,

Christian living, and ministry preparation.

4. Education evidences a theologically informed design. This means that education

develops relevant theological assumptions for educational theory, such as teacher-

student roles and relationships, education environment, and instructional methods (p.

38).

Education becomes distinctly Christian as the integration of theology and social sciences

interconnects. Estep et al. (2008) extend the work of Little (1990) and Hull (1976) by presenting

the levels of integration in Christian education. He shares that Christian education is used as a

category to combine theology and the social sciences; therefore, the process of moving from the

existence of no integration to a thorough integration of the two is what helps to answer what

makes education Christian.

There are five levels of integration in Christian education (Estep et al., 2008). They are

disintegration, segregation, paradoxical, synthetic, and paradigmatic. Disintegration is the level

of education that is not Christian due to an unawareness of theology or believing theology to be

irrelevant to education. Segregation is when education is considered Christian because there is a

rejection of what may be regarded as the secular influence of social sciences. Paradoxical

describes the level of education considered Christian based on students being exposed to

theology and social sciences, but there is no synthesis, just the combination of both areas. The

synthetic level of integration is when education is Christian based on a theological description of

social science. The social sciences are the substance, and theology is the form of education.

Finally, the paradigmatic level of integration in education that is Christian is when there is a

holistic approach to theology and the social sciences that is transformative and based on a

theologically informed worldview.

The goal of Christian educators and schools should be the paradigmatic level of

integration because this is the level at which theology and the social sciences are both used

simultaneously and interactively (Estep et al., 2008; Hoch & Smith, 2011); therefore, education

can be Christian and suitable based on the worldview being theologically informed. The more

integrated the level, the more distinctively Christian education becomes. This is a pattern for

Christian educators and schools to emulate to ensure the education provided for students is

indeed Christian.

Implications for Christian Educational Leadership

As previously shared, the paradigmatic level of integration is where education is most

distinctively Christian. For the Christian leader, integrating the field of theology and social

science is beneficial. This level of integration cultivates and preserves the distinctiveness of

Christianity within educational theory (Estep et al., 2008). Education must be a theological

discipline to be Christian and a social science discipline to be educational. So, Christian leaders

must be equipped and prepared in educational theory and theology. They need to embed

theological principles within their approach to education. This creates an intentional effort to

sustain Christian education and to assist students through instruction with the goal of

transformation into the likeness of Christ.

Estep et al. (2008) and Wilhoit (1991) encourage Christian leaders to make the central

aim of Christian education maturity. Wilhoit (1991) determines the four fundamental concepts of

Christian maturity: spiritual autonomy, spiritual wholeness, spiritual stability, and wise use of

knowledge. Spiritual autonomy is when individuals have self-control of their lives and please

God with their actions, attitudes, and bodies (Rom. 12:1). Spiritual wholeness is a quality

descriptive of total devotion to God (Deut. 6:5). Spiritual stability is when an individual can

remain constant in their theological beliefs and not become swayed by the latest trends or

currents of thought. This individual perseveres and grows over time through their spiritual

journey. Wise use of knowledge comes from an individual who understands the significant issues

of the faith and can use their knowledge to inform and teach themselves and others.

A vital part of Christian education is the leader maturing and wisely using their

knowledge of theology. They must know their theological convictions and be willing to share

them through teaching (Estep et al., 2008). This is what will impact students and undergird their

educational and spiritual growth. Christian educators should embrace collaboration with other

professionals to gain further understanding and incorporation of theology and educational theory

within their schools and classrooms.

Christian leaders should have a passion for Biblical truths and use the Bible as the

foundation of their theological convictions. The Bible is where all truth is derived, guiding

leaders within their schools and classrooms. Christian educators can see the necessity of

education within the Bible (Estep et al., 2008). It is an obligation given by God throughout the

Old and New Testament (Deut. 6:6-9; Matt. 28: 16-20; Acts 1:8). Christian leaders’ commitment

to instruction and their obedience to the divine imperative of education leads to them using the

Bible to make decisions regarding curriculum, teaching strategies, and disciplinary methods.

Imago Dei

The study of humanity has been an ongoing pursuit for historians, archaeologists, and

theologians. In the quest to gain more insight into the human experience, a scientific discipline

known as anthropology was created. The roots of anthropological research began during the

eighteenth century; however, some believe that science officially became a practice in the 1850s

or after World War I (Eriksen & Nielsen, 2013). Anthropology is an area of study in which the

focus is on understanding the human experience (Cameron, 2005). Another area of attention in

anthropological research emphasizes the creation of humankind.

Examining God’s intention for humanity involves thoroughly considering the doctrine of

the image of God, also referred to as imago Dei. Hobson (2019) details the core truth of imago

Dei as male and female is a “creature ontologically related to God” (p. 47), meaning mankind is

in relation to God. Humans have qualities that resemble the characteristics of God. They have

rationality and freedom, which express their relation to God. First, man is a creature created by

God. There is a dependency on God for existence and maintenance in being. Second, the imago

Dei is concrete (Imes, 2023). It resembles that of a king or deity. Humanity is a representation of

kingship and is responsible for rulership over creation.

According to Peppiatt (2022), this doctrine touches every other doctrine of the Christian

faith. God initiates the mandate to value humanity and treat everyone with dignity. Genesis 1 and

2 uncovers the doctrine of the Image of God and divulges the purpose and intent of humanity.

The main focus of imago Dei is centered around the idea of humanity being created for

connection and reflection (Kilner, 2015). God invested himself in humankind (Mason, 2021), so

all humanity is valued (Peppiatt, 2022). The instruction from God to value humankind is

pertinent to the area of education.

Historical Aspect

This research begins at the point of inspection with the authority of Scripture. The history

behind the doctrine of the image of God begins biblically in Genesis. Genesis 1: 26-27 says,

Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them

rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all

the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.’ God created man in His

own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. (New

American Standard Bible, 1960/1995).

Various people have used this passage of scripture to liberate groups, but there has also been a

great attempt to oppress and destroy people groups based on this doctrine (Kilner, 2015). Groups

that have been oppressed or destroyed are Jews, Blacks, women, and persons with disabilities.

The doctrine of the Image of God is liberating because it teaches humanity to see people in the

image and likeness of God. When people view each other as being created in the image of God,

it encourages dignity and respect for all humanity (Mason, 2021).

According to Kilner (2015), the idea of humankind being created in the image of God has

been misunderstood and minimized to only focus on specific attributes dealing with reason,

righteousness, rulership, and relationship. People have struggled to grasp the concrete idea of

what the terms “image” and “likeness” represent (Peppiatt, 2022; Feinberg, 1972). The central

emphasis of the concepts mentioned above has changed over time due to the shift of values in the

present culture. Contradictory views of imago Dei have derived from little attention and

definition to the doctrine in the Bible and importing theological and cultural ideas into the

original purpose and meaning for humanity (Kilner, 2015). Man’s plan has distorted God’s

design and intention for the creation of humankind. Consequently, the word of God has been

misused historically to disqualify or discredit people from being viewed in God’s image and

likeness. Some have pondered the significance of humanity’s likeness to God’s image, while

others question what God meant by “image”. In Genesis 1:26, there are two Hebrew words used

for mankind: tselem (image) and demuth (likeness) (Peppiatt, 2022; Feinberg, 1972). The

Septuagint translates these two words in Greek as eikon (image) and homoiosis (likeness). The

debate about what God meant by “image” relates to whether these words refer to distinct

characteristics of God or God’s intents and purposes.

Peppiatt (2022) shares that the creation stories in Genesis nor any other creation of

humanity reference in the Bible are precise in what humans possess, that they bear God’s image

and likeness. Scripture tells of humanity sharing a special connection with God that makes them

unique, and they do not share their uniqueness with any other creation. God also created animals,

but they were not created in the same way, nor did they receive God's breath. No other creation

received instruction from God as Adam and Eve in the garden. There was no other creation

commissioned or conversing with God. Humanity was made in the image and likeness of God,

which denotes equality, unity, dignity, and the sanctity of life.

Biblical Aspect

There must be an analysis of the biblical aspect of imago Dei to gain more knowledge

regarding the intent of God in creating humanity in His image and likeness. As mentioned

earlier, the biblical premise of the image of God begins in Genesis 1 and 2; however, it does not

stop there. The doctrine of the Image of God is intertwined throughout scripture. God began in

Genesis but continued to reveal His plan for humanity through the person of Christ.

New Testament scripture uncovers Christ as the exact image of God (Peppiatt, 2022). In

alignment with the New Testament, Kilner (2015) shares the clearest affirmation about the image

of God in the Bible as Christ. Hebrews 1:3-4 states,

And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and

upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He

sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much better than the

angels, as he has inherited a more excellent name than they (New American Standard

Bible, 1960/1995).

Christ is the perfect image of God himself, and humanity becomes more like God through him

(Robinson, 2011). So, humankind was made in the likeness of God, and Christ is the image of

God. Humanity is made in the image of God through connection, and the reflection of God

becomes a more precise picture as transformation occurs through Christ.

Humanity reflects the image of God and has been identified as reflecting the image of

God through having the ability to love and be loved, spirituality, immorality, conscience,

memory, language, and personhood (Peppiatt, 2022, p. 10). The value of humankind is

confirmed by having the stamp of the creator. God was purposeful in creating man and woman in

his image and likeness. He created them for purpose and on purpose. Humanity was empowered

through the responsibility of stewardship (Genesis 1: 28-30). Their role on the earth resembled

God’s authority over the earth. Humanity embodies the kingship, priesthood, and stewardship of

God. 1 Peter 2:9 says, “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for

God’s own possession, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out

of darkness into His marvelous light” (New American Standard Bible, 1960/1995). Humanity

was created with responsibility on the earth; therefore, each person has value and is needed to

fulfill God’s purpose and plan.

Theological Aspect

As previously mentioned, the doctrine of the Image of God gives reference to humanity

being connected to God and reflecting who he is on Earth. The creation of humankind was to

bring glory to God (Grudem, 1994; Kilner, 2015); therefore, God is glorified as man becomes

more like Christ. Christ is the blueprint and standard of who humanity is to become (Kilner,

2015; Pazmiño, 2008). As transformation occurs in the lives of humankind, they become more

like Christ, reflect the image of God, and ultimately bring glory to the Father.

The transformation of man must occur because of the impact of sin. Sin has affected the

attributes of people, but it has never damaged or affected the image of God (Kilner, 2015). The

transformational process humanity must go through to become an exact image of God is

sanctification. Grudem (1994) defines sanctification as “a progressive work of God and man that

makes us more and more free from sin and like Christ in our actual lives” (p. 746). Sanctification

deals with transformation and humanity becoming like Christ, which is the exact image of God

(Feinberg, 1972). This process gives access to humanity being restored from the damage of sin.

Theologically, some use imago Dei to debate that there is an ethical and missional

command to bear God’s image and not just simply that humanity is created in His image

(Peppiatt, 2022). To be God’s image bearer refers to carrying his presence and representing Him

to the world. A representation of God’s image is seen through peace and reconciliation (2

Corinthians 5: 18-22; Ephesians 2: 11-22). As image bearers, Christians are commissioned to

cultivate and bring about peace as ministers of reconciliation to all mankind.

Implications for Christian Educational Leadership

God is the source of all things, and humanity was created for a relationship with him. He

established a covenant with mankind, and in response to that covenant, humanity responds by

fulfilling the responsibility of treating people with dignity and respect. Pazmiño (2008) portrays

God as the redeemer-liberator of persons, groups, and societies. For the Christian leader, aligning

educational efforts focusing the plan on righteousness, justice, and freedom is essential.

"Christian educators are called upon to raise the consciousness of persons in issues that relate to

righteousness, justice, and freedom as components of God's continuing activity in the world"

(Pazmiño, 2008, p. 54). The responsibility of Christian educational leaders to acknowledge and

value the investment of God within each person is critical in the push to promote God's agenda

on Earth.

Biblically and theologically, Christian leaders are charged with caring for God's creation

(Bullitt-Jonas, 2021). The call to serve others is the biblical way of life (Wilhoit, 1991). We

serve God through our concern for others and responsible action; therefore, Christian educational

leaders need more than good intentions. Having a concern, acknowledgment, and a warm heart is

commendable; therefore, Christians must consistently live out the significant responsibility of

responsible action (Matthew 22:39). The Christian educational leader must emphasize

accountable action in the education setting more than a behavior change. An environment that

fosters love, respect, value, righteousness, justice, and freedom must be cultivated.

The emphasis and application of an inclusive school environment begin with the leaders.

God has given every person a gift, and with that gift, each leader must value the significance of

everyone (1 Peter 4:10). Consequently, every student has importance. Their experiences ought to

be welcomed into the educational conversations of the Christian school context, so they feel like

they belong and their experiences are valued. Additionally, 1 Peter 4:10 (New American

Standard Bible, 1960/1995) shares, "As each one has received a special gift, employ it in serving

one another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God". Christian educational leaders'

service to one another enhances the work of inclusivity, which involves promoting a sense of

belonging, providing equal opportunities for learning and participation, and fostering a culture of

respect and understanding. The use of God-given gifts promotes the call of service to every

individual. There is no distinction of who benefits from the variety of spiritual gifts. The

directive from God is to use spiritual gifts to serve others. In the Christian school, leaders

directly impact the students, faculty, and community. Subsequently, they must uphold all

people's dignity through their responsible actions.

Theology of Love

Apostle Paul accentuates the significance of love when he presents the triad of faith,

hope, and love in the New Testament. Of the three mentioned, Paul suggests that the greatest is

love (1 Corinthians 13:13). The comprehension of this notion launches from a biblical

understanding of the essence and attributes of love.

Love

What is love? For the Christian educational leader, the answer is found within the text of

the Bible. The initial point of investigation begins with God's definition of love. In the New

Testament, the Apostle Paul defines love in 1 Corinthians 13: 4-8 (New American Standard

Bible, 1960/1995) as

Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant,

does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into

account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth;

bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails;

but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will

cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away.

According to Taylor (2014), this passage is not a stand-alone text but must be read as the entire

letter Paul intended when writing chapters twelve and fourteen. He describes the character of

love in chapter thirteen and provides a clear understanding of the nature of love and the necessity

of love. The complete and correct appreciation of Paul's letter emphasizes the aspiration for the

Corinthians to desire spiritual gifts but not apart from love.

Love expresses what God expects within a Christian community (Rosner & Ciampa,

2010). When people treat others the way God has treated them, it glorifies God. God is self-

sacrificing and loves humanity to the point of death. This type of love is called agape, which

means unconditional love (Thiselton, 2000 & Morris, 1985). There are no pretenses or

requirements to receive this type of love. 1 John 4:9-10 (New American Standard Bible,

1960/1995) illustrates the self-sacrificing love God showed mankind,

By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son

into the world so that we might live through Him. In this love, not that we loved God, but

that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

Love is of God and from God. It is considered the greatest of the faith, hope, and love triad

(Taylor, 2014 & Bossman, 1995). Paul introduces the three principal values of faith, hope, and

love in 1 Thessalonians. Of the three, love is the greatest. 1 John 4:7-8 (New American Standard

Bible, 1960/1995) admonishes, "Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and

everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. The one who does not love does not know

God, for God is love". God's desire for love to lead our actions and decisions is found within the

pattern of the bible.

Love Your Neighbor

The commandment to love does not begin in the New Testament but is found throughout

the holy scriptures. Leviticus is a place to start considering the most critical commandment

shared by Jesus in Matthew 22. Leviticus 19:18 (New American Standard Bible, 1960/1995)

says, "You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but

you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the Lord". This commandment is found in the

chapter of the Torah that most aligns with the idea of imago Dei (Friedman, 2003). The law

instructs the Israelites to love their neighbor, also translated as companion or fellow based on the

Hebrew word rea', it refers to a member of one's own group, a peer (Friedman, 2003, p. 382).

Like this, Christians are to love other human beings as they would themselves.

Self-love fuels narcissistic behavior, and it juxtaposes the command of God to treat others

kindly and lovingly (Malamat, 1990 & Blomberg, 1992). This type of action parallels what

Smith and Denton (2009, as cited in Dreher, 2017) refer to as Moralistic Therapeutic Deism.

Moralistic Therapeutic Deism is referred to as a pseudo-religion that acknowledges God, but it is

driven by self-improvement. The focus is on self and materialism. Moralistic Therapeutic Deism

is associated with emotivism, which is the "idea that all moral choices are nothing more than

expressions of what the choosing individual feels is right" (Dreher, 2017, p. 15). Selfishness

drives Moralistic Therapeutic Deism and emotivism, and it is very individualistic.

Implications for Christian Educational Leaders

Who is my neighbor? The answer to this question is what Christian leaders need to

always have at the forefront of their minds when serving in the educational setting. As one of the

foundational pillars of the Christian faith, love is the launching point for service. Christ gives the

directive in Matthew 22 when the Pharisees ask him the most important commandment in the

law of Moses.

And He said to him, ‘you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all

your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the great and foremost

commandment. The second is like it, ‘you shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these

two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets. (Matthew 22:37-40, New

American Standard Bible, 1960/1995).

This passage is a guide for Christian leaders in the pursuit of equitable and inclusive educational

practices. The idea that one is valued more than another is divisive and errored thinking,

especially when using the bible as the standard. The intentionality of incorporating all students

and families within the context of diverse learning and linking applicable connections through

lived experiences should be a top priority in the Christian school. Loyalty to Christ requires

Christian educational leaders to move beyond the normalcy of mainstream education.

Bachrach (2021) advocates for Christian educational change through the reminder of the

transformative nature of Christianity. Christian educational leaders obedient to the Holy

Scriptures must align their conduct with the instruction to become more like Christ. One of the

main behaviors of Christ is seen through his loving nature. "As Christians, we are united as a

family, adopted, chosen, and loved (Ephesians 1:5; Matthew 12:48-50; Romans 8: 16-17; 1 John

4: 12-13)" (Bachrach, 2021, p. 4). Because of love, Christ gave his life to save the world, and his

example of love encourages Christians to serve others unselfishly (1 John 4: 15-17).

Christian leaders can show their love for others within the school setting through

instruction and nurture. Making the needs of each student a priority above the curriculum is an

excellent basis. The concern for all students is imperative in ensuring their particular needs are

met. The care has to be more than educational; it must encompass the social and emotional well-

being of the individual student. The model and implementation of agape love is the tool for

Christian educational leaders to fulfill all students' academic, social, emotional, and spiritual

maturation.

Theoretical Framework for the Study

This part of the literature review highlights the existing research regarding Culturally

Responsive School Leadership. It heightens awareness of the necessity of culturally responsive

leadership practices embedded throughout the daily academic practices in all learning situations.

Culturally Responsive School Leadership

Chapter One mentions that culturally responsive school leadership is "the leader's

behavior engaging in inclusion, equity, advocacy, and social justice in schools" (Wang, 2019,

p.342). According to Khalifa et al. (2016), "culturally responsive leadership influences the

school context and addresses the cultural needs of the students, parents, and teachers" (p. 1274).

This style of leadership within the educational setting is beneficial to all stakeholders. The

leadership approach towards cultivating the school climate in which learning occurs is

imperative for practical instruction and learning. School leadership needs to be aware of the

various changes in the school community, and they must be intentional about establishing

culture, implementing necessary change, and sustaining growth and development.

The Culturally Responsive School Leadership framework attempts to tackle the exclusion

and inequity of students, especially marginalized students. This framework identifies four areas

of intentionality a leader must consistently implement to cultivate and promote an equitable

learning environment with inclusivity, relevancy, and access for all students (Khalifa et al.,

2016). First, leaders need to be critically reflective of their leadership behaviors. Second, school

leaders must create opportunities for teachers and staff to develop culturally. Third, the school

environment must reflect and promote cultural inclusivity. Fourth, all stakeholders must be

engaged in the process of implementing and sustaining a culturally inclusive environment.

Critically Self-Reflect Leadership Behaviors

The first section of the Culturally Responsive School Leadership framework involves

self-reflection (Khalifa et al., 2016). School leaders fashion the educational environment to

reflect the desired growth outcomes. They must begin with a thoughtful analysis of their

commitment to continuous learning of diverse cultural contexts. Khalifa et al. (2016) argue that

the functioning of a school and the cultural tone and climate are established by leadership. To

accomplish the act of critical self-reflection, leaders need to use systems, such as equity audits, to

measure their inclusiveness and collaborate with parents and community members to gauge the

school's cultural responsiveness.

Critical self-reflection is a concept that begins with examination. In 1 Corinthians 11,

Paul writes an admonishment to the Corinthian church to examine themselves prior to taking the

Lord's Supper. He tells them to examine themselves and ensure they are worthy of eating the

bread and taking the cup (New American Standard Bible, 1960/1995). The Lord's Supper

represents Christ's broken body and the blood shed on Calvary. The primary purpose of this act

is to gather with a community of believers and proclaim the gospel by remembering what Christ

did for humanity (Stanley, 2021). Self-reflection is a foundation for growth and development

because it recognizes the need for improvement and identifies the areas of deficiency.

A theological approach to self-reflection and development is sanctification. As previously

mentioned, Grudem (1994) defines it as "a progressive work of God and man that makes us more

and more free from sin and like Christ in our actual lives" (p. 746). The process of sanctification

is a model to implement as leaders for critical self-reflection because it brings awareness.

Sanctification also breeds transformative growth. Transformative growth happens in three stages.

The first stage of evolution begins with regeneration when a moral change occurs within

(Grudem, 1994). Next is ongoing growth, which takes place throughout the life of a Christian.

Finally, the last stage of sanctification occurs, which is the completed process that happens

through death. The goal of sanctification is to become more like Christ.

Sanctification shapes the self-reflection of a leader, and its process can inform the

leadership of their need to grow and develop. Sanctification is essentially a personal growth

model that can be used to develop a person into their full potential. The intentional inner work of

the leader will benefit the potential impact of the school and its community. This is significant

because the leader is the dominant voice and primary source of direction. The potential impact of

a school or organization is directly subjected to the leader's understanding of themselves, their

preferences, biases, and ignorance. The process of sanctification gives the leader greater self-

awareness.

Growth can only occur with understanding and acknowledging strengths, weaknesses,

abilities, and failures. Self-reflection can eventually lead to change. It may not be immediate, but

it will be eventual. This can be seen in the second stage of the process of sanctification. As

mentioned earlier, the second stage of sanctification includes the aspect of growth (Grudem,

1994). It is not an instantaneous change; however, a gradual and continual change happens

throughout life.

Develops Culturally Responsive Teachers

The second component of the Culturally Responsive School Leadership framework

deals with the development of instructional leaders. A challenge exists in higher education

leadership preparation programs (Williams, 2018). The challenge is specific to the need for more

intensive training for educational leaders to equip them to enhance students' academic

achievement and overall well-being. Developing culturally responsive teachers begins at the

instructional level within the institutional program for school leaders.; therefore, whether the

proper training is provided, there must still be ongoing professional development opportunities

for leaders to expand their cultural awareness and responsiveness.

Williams (2018) uncovers the need for school administrators and leaders to develop

cultural competence through modeling. Modeling serves as an intervention for developing

cultural competence. Demonstrating the expected and desired responsiveness to cultural

differences offers occasions for engaging and reforming the existing cultural curriculum (Khalifa

et al., 2016). School districts, local schools, and educational leaders who confront and challenge

dominant culture curriculums find ways to model cultural responsiveness. Teachers and students

learn through modeling to gain concrete examples of incorporating a culturally relevant and

engaging curriculum. Modeling also guides what to say and do in culturally sensitive moments.

One of the responsibilities of Christians is the call to serve others (Wilhoit, 1991).

Biblically, Christians are charged to use what God gave them to help others. As mentioned

earlier, 1 Peter 4:10 (New American Standard Bible, 1960/1995) charges Christians to use their

gifts well to serve others, and Romans 12: 6-8 agrees as it states,

Since we have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, each of us is to exercise

them accordingly: if prophecy, according to the proportion of his faith; if service, in his

serving; or he who teaches, in his teaching; or he who exhorts, in his exhortation; he who

gives, with liberality; he who gives, with liberality; he who leads, with diligence; he who

shows mercy, with cheerfulness. (New American Standard Bible, 1960/1995).

These scriptures accentuate the gifts of the spirit given to Christians to use to encourage and

support each other. The attitude and action of service are necessary for developing culturally

responsive leaders and instructors.

The posture of serving is seen through the life of Jesus Christ. He was the perfect

example of serving others. As formerly mentioned, culturally responsive school leadership is the

leader's behavior centered around inclusion, equity, advocacy, and social justice (Wang, 2019).

As a leader, Jesus modeled how to serve through a culturally responsive lens through his

teachings and interactions with diverse cultures. For example, Jesus was inclusive towards

Samaritans. This was not a customary attitude of Jews towards Samaritans, so Jesus' actions

confronted fixed mindsets. John 4 describes an encounter Jesus had with a Samaritan woman at a

well. John 4:9 says, "Therefore the Samaritan woman *said to Him, ‘How is it that You, being a

Jew, ask me for a drink since I am a Samaritan woman?’ (For Jews have no dealings with

Samaritans.)” (New American Standard Bible, 1960/1995). This passage confirms the unusual

interaction of Jesus with a Samaritan based on present-day cultural norms; however, his actions

unveil the servant mentality of Jesus and provide a model of a culturally responsive leader and

teacher.

Promotes Culturally Responsive/Inclusive School Environment

The school's culture and environment are the appointed leadership's responsibility. The

leadership style matters when the goal is to create a diverse and inclusive learning environment.

A culturally responsive school environment promotes inclusive practices that incorporate

students' relevant and real-life experiences. The instructional leaders set the tone for establishing

and maintaining a culturally responsive atmosphere by intentionally involving students in the

learning practice.

Student voice is an integral part of the effort to build inclusivity (Levitan, 2020).

Culturally responsive school leaders should prioritize inviting students' participation in invoking

change concerning school culture. Students' social and emotional well-being is directly tied to

the school's cultural climate (Hajisoteriou et al., 2018). Consequently, there is a paramount need

for students to be significantly involved in bringing awareness and change to the school context.

Another implication of a culturally responsive and inclusive school setting is challenging

systemic barriers and dominant culture curriculum if it excludes students. Instruction and

curriculum centered around the dominant culture are limited to one specific group of students

versus including the whole student population. Culturally responsive school leaders must

confront systems that do not promote inclusion for all and exclude the experiences of diverse

students. The exclusion of students based on varying backgrounds and upbringing creates

division, and barriers are formed, which prevent diverse students from feeling included.

Scripture encourages the idea of bridge-building through the command from Jesus to love your

neighbor (Baldwin, 2015; Matthew 22:39). Christian instructional leaders should embrace

culturally responsive pedagogy and practices because it is a tool to oppose division and support

the inclusion of culturally diverse students.

Baldwin (2015) recommends using culturally responsive pedagogy to transform teaching

and learning. "Culturally responsive pedagogy conceives of teaching and learning in a way that

accounts for the value and complexity of all cultures, the relationship between culture and power

in educational contexts, and the generativity of teacher-student role reversal in multicultural

classrooms" (Baldwin, 2015, p. 110). Culturally responsive school leaders appreciate and

embrace all students. They seek to incorporate the life experiences of their diverse students into

the daily learning context. The integration of intercultural education originates with school

leadership and through a clear vision for the learning environment.

During the life of Jesus, he opposed systems and faulty thinking that created barriers for

people who were not considered worthy by certain groups of people. Based upon imago Dei and

scripture, we know this is not the heart of God. As mentioned earlier, Genesis 1 is a foundational

starting point for the inception of God's intent for creating humanity. Mason (2021) discusses the

primary focus of creation as God investing value into humankind. The value that was invested

was God himself. Moreover, thus, humanity is valuable to God.

Jesus Christ challenged cultural order during his time. The Bible explicitly gives multiple

examples of Christ's decision to resist dominant consciousness and embrace all types of people.

He healed on the Sabbath, ate with outcasts, and threatened traditional Temple practices that

exploited the poor (Graves, n.d.). Mark 3:1-2 discloses Jesus is healing a man with a deformed

hand on the Sabbath. “He entered again into a synagogue; and a man was there whose hand was

withered. They were watching Him to see if He would heal him on the Sabbath, so that they

might accuse Him” (Mark, 3:1-2, New American Standard Bible, 1960/1995). The action of

Jesus to heal the man's hand on the Sabbath disrupted the religious and Jewish cultural norms.

Culturally responsive school environments disturb traditional mindsets and customary practices

when they are conducive to embracing all students. Christ was purposeful in his actions to

include all types of people because he understood the value of each person.

Engages Students, Parents, and Indigenous Contexts

An effective way to cultivate a culturally responsive environment is to develop

meaningful relationships with the school community (Khalifa et al., 2016). Relationships are a

vital part of students' academic, social, and emotional development. Building a culture that

endorses and maintains meaningful relationships and consistent community interaction is

essential for a culturally responsive environment. As impactful relational interactions occur with

all stakeholders, culturally responsive school leaders will become culturally aware and develop

positive understandings of students, families, and the community.

Parent and family involvement is one of the most effective ways to learn about other

cultures and grow in culturally responsive practices. Research shows the positive outcomes of

family involvement in the educational progression of youth. Sanders-Smith et al. (2020) tell of

students' short-term positive results in grades, attendance, and attitudes toward learning. The

active participation of families alongside purposeful strides to foster a welcoming and inclusive

learning context undergirds cultural awareness, diversity, and maturity. As parents and families

partner with school leadership, the instructional environment gains the parental perspective of

cultural upbringing. The learned cultural upbringing can help incorporate cultural relevance and

life experiences within the educational curriculum.

The foundational principle of family involvement in their children's educational growth is

a biblical standard. Theologically, engaging parents and families in the educational process of

students were referred to in the Old Testament. The premise of the academic construct began

with God's instruction to the family patriarchs (Anthony, 2011). Deuteronomy 6:7 says, "You

shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and

when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up" (New American

Standard Bible, 1960/1995). This scripture refers to the Ten Commandments given to Moses

from God, and the emphasis is on the family to teach the Law as instruction for the children of

Israel (Anthony, 2011). During this time, there was no formal education system. Thus, the charge

of teaching was the responsibility of the family. Psalms 78:1-4 highlights the command of the

family to teach their children.

Listen, O my people to my instruction; Incline your ears to the words of my mouth. I will

open my mouth in a parable; I will utter dark sayings of old, Which we have heard and

known, And our fathers have told us. We will not conceal them from their children, But

tell to the generation to come the praises of the Lord, And His strength and His wondrous

works that He has done. (New American Standard Bible, 1960/1995)

The weight of families teaching their children is important because future generations depend on

the educational knowledge of their forefathers. The children of Israel were instructed to hand

down the lessons to their children so that future generations would know God.

The routine of parents and families participating in their children's learning progression is

crucial to the development of meaningful relationships between the school and the family. As

families and instructional leaders partner within the learning context, the student's perception of

learning will improve due to the trust developed through the intentional partnership. Students and

families will become more willing to share personal experiences with the educational leaders.

This purposeful transparency assists in the fostering of cultural understanding and the inclusion

of relevant and meaningful instruction.

Distributed Culturally Responsive Leadership

As mentioned earlier, establishing a culturally responsive school setting relies upon the

selected school leadership model. To move towards the sustainability of a culturally responsive

school culture, the school organization needs to distribute responsibility. Brown et al. (2019)

propose that distributed and culturally responsive leadership produces an overall impact on the

student and school outcome. Principals influence the school's effectiveness and student

achievement. The benefit of using distributed leadership alongside culturally responsive

leadership is that others are empowered and share responsibility in fulfilling the responsibility of

cultivating an inclusive school culture.

The argument presented by Brown et al. (2019) encourages using shared power to

minimize the individualistic approach to organizational change. The action to change a

traditional, systemic culture becomes more complicated when only a handful of persons are

empowered to enforce the desirable growth; therefore, "culturally responsive, distributed

leadership is critical for organisational effectiveness" (Brown et al., 2019, p. 470). Influence

within the school setting begins at the threshold of the school's front doors. Distributed culturally

responsive leadership should be felt and seen as one enters the school building. The office staff,

custodial staff, lunch staff, and all school personnel require professional development to build

confidence in upholding a culturally responsive school environment. The distribution of

responsibility to all faculty demands intentional change to increase and support equality for all

students.

The improvement of student outcomes depends on school leadership, school climate, the

instructors' craft, and the understanding of cultural differences (Khalifat et al., 2016). Culturally

responsive school leadership influences the school environment, the selected curriculum, and the

school community (Johnson, 2014). The foundation set by educational leaders impacts student

achievement; therefore, the origination of continual improvement is found in the hands of school

leaders.

Leaders are responsible for the overall growth and development of the area where they

are given authority. To sustain a certain level of success, leaders must implement an environment

that endorses continual improvement. Within the educational context, professional development

and training must be a fundamental part of the model of continued growth. Cloud (2006) conveys

a key ingredient in getting better constantly. He shares a character trait that leads to making

things bigger and better over time. Leaders who have the drive to grow will always make things

better. Instructional leaders have to be more than maintainers; they must be growers.

The charge to develop into culturally responsive school leaders begins with self-

awareness. Continually reflecting on one's beliefs and biases is imperative to the growth process

and producing a culturally responsive environment. Professional development and training

opportunities within the organization are adequate procedures to contest cultural biases.

Providing moments for open dialogue and conversation gives leaders chances to communicate

the truths and realities of their personal cultural experiences and the experiences of those they

work with and teach.

Authentic Leadership

As previously shared, self-reflection is the first component of Culturally Responsive

School Leadership. The theory of authentic leadership surmises the idea of effective leadership

being rooted in self-reflection. This is the starting point for Christian educational leaders to build

upon meaningful relationships and create an inclusive school environment.

Warren Bennis provides a foundational truth of leadership as being directly linked to

relationships. He shared in an interview with Perttula (2000) that "the enduring quality of

leadership is managing relationships" (p. 353). The basis of relationships fosters a level of

influence and power leaders can use to lead others. Chiu et al. (2017) and Whittington (2015)

uncover influence as a necessary component of leadership. Leadership uses intentional influence

in the context of a relationship by which leaders use their level of power to get people to align

fully and commit to achieving a common goal.

Bennis highlights that the art of leadership involves abandoning the ego to create a culture

of authenticity, trust, and integrity (Spears, 2018). In his book, On Becoming a Leader (Bennis,

1989/2009), he discusses the essential ingredients of leadership. He emphasized integrity,

trustworthiness, and authenticity as qualities most followers desire their leader to possess.

Throughout this book, he introduces the model of authenticity. He shares what an authentic

leader is and provides examples of how leaders must be self-aware, have experience, and have

personal ethics.

According to Bennis (1989/2009), a guiding vision is one essential ingredient of

leadership. The leader must have a clear vision of what they desire to accomplish, and they need

to possess the strength to continue when they face adversity. It is the charge of culturally

responsive school leaders to have a clear vision for equity and educational freedom for all

students (Ham et al., 2020). When the vision is well-defined, all stakeholders exercise the

practices identified within the concept. Consistently modeling the vision encourages

participatory behaviors. Consistent with Ham et al. (2020), "if the principal fails to exercise

culturally responsive leadership, such loss would be more striking for teachers working in

already challenging situations" (p. 260).

Bennis (1989/2009) introduces ten factors for leaders to consider for future growth,

enduring change, and creating a learning environment within the organization. The ten factors

are: leaders manage the dream, leaders embrace error, leaders encourage reflective talkback,

leaders encourage dissent, leaders possess the Nobel Factor-optimism, faith, and hope, leaders

understand the Pygmalion effect in management, leaders have the Gretzky Factor, a certain

"touch", leaders see the long view, leaders understand stakeholder symmetry, and leaders create

strategic alliances and partnerships. Christian private schools should consider these ten factors as

they implement culturally responsive school leadership practices.

For this research, the tenth factor is further inspected. Leaders have the charge to create

intentional partnerships. As highlighted earlier, culturally responsive school leaders are

deliberate in their efforts to engage students, parents, and indigenous contexts. Christian leaders

must collaborate with all stakeholders to ensure sustaining the targeted outcome of an inclusive

and culturally responsive school environment. Through meaningful relationships and

collaboration, leadership and the school develop a culture of trust, which leads to solidified

relationships.

Related Literature

The increase in diversity among American citizens raises the question regarding the

responsibility of the formal education system to address the needs of a shifted cultural presence

within the conservative Christian school. The diversity of students has shifted the landscape of

the educational approach throughout all levels of learning. Educational leaders and trainers must

be culturally aware of the environment within the school setting to effectively impact every

student. This part of the literature review examines the intersection of Christianity, culturally

responsive school leadership, and culturally marginalized students.

Culturally Responsive Practices

Culturally responsive practices encompass various techniques school personnel use to

support learning within a diverse school setting. There is a prodigious weight on classroom

teachers as some of the principal administrators of culturally responsive practices due to the

direct influence of instruction on students. Consequently, teachers must consistently and

effectively use culturally responsive techniques within the classroom. For the success of cultural

practice implementation, teachers willingly have to build intentional relationships with their

students. Meaningful relationships between students and their teachers are foundational in the

infrastructure of an equitable learning culture.

Hilaski (2020) highlights the practice of teachers immersing themselves in their students'

culture. This is a phenomenal technique to employ because it gives teachers opportunities to

have first-hand knowledge of the life experiences of their students and families. Specifically,

teachers can visit their students' homes, churches, and communities. They can also set up lunch

or recess dates at school during the students' lunch or recess time. The culturally responsive

practice of immersion provides educators with genuine experiences that help cultivate

relationships and diverse cultural understanding. It also demonstrates an interest in teachers

learning about their students and their families, which communicates their appreciation for

diversity (Minkos et al., 2017).

Culturally responsive practices generate greater transparency, which is necessary for

fostering an inclusive school environment. Transparency reveals the ideologies and preconceived

notions of varying cultures. School leaders should recognize their fault in looking past students

and being more concerned with a customized plan that may only include the cultures of some of

their students and families. At times, educational leaders lose focus by getting distracted with

meeting deadlines, standardized tests, paperwork, and the majority culture practices (Hilaski,

2020). The majority culture practice can have educators concentrate mainly on marginalized

students' deficits instead of embracing the uniqueness of each child and their specific culture. For

teachers to transition their focus from highlighting deficiencies to appreciating differences, they

have to begin by acknowledging their need for more understanding and training in culturally

responsive practices.

Student and school achievement increase becomes evident as school leaders change

instruction to become more culturally responsive. "Changing instruction to become more

culturally responsive is the responsibility of school districts across the country with the purpose

of addressing the increased diversity among our students and their communities" (Hilaski, 2020,

p. 380). The change of instruction and curriculum needs to be initiated by district and school-

level leadership. Minkos et al. (2017) and Hilaski (2020) share similar ideas regarding culturally

responsive practices. They both enforce the responsibility of culturally responsive methods,

beginning at the top-tier leadership within the organization. The influence of leadership from the

district office on the local school must be aligned for the effectiveness of cultural competence

and equitable learning. Minkos et al. (2017) emphasize the role of school administrators in

cultivating and sustaining a safe environment for all students and the responsibility to guide

teachers in implementing culturally responsive practices. This will empower teachers to research

and engage in culturally responsive practices that situate students in a successful position.

Culturally responsive practices include emphasizing the strengths of diverse students and using

their cultural backgrounds to link familiar and new information (Hilaski, 2020).

Culturally Responsive Praxis

Educational leaders usually begin their training process within a collegiate institutional

setting. Leaders learn about pedagogy, teaching practices, and curriculum, to name a few.

Hutchinson and White (2020) recommend that teacher preparation programs, specifically

doctoral-level programs, incorporate culturally responsive and social justice pedagogy. Programs

that prepare leaders for the educational sector are responsible for preparing their scholars for a

culturally diverse setting. A purpose for entering a collegiate educational program is to gain

insight and practice for instructional interaction with students and the school community.

Clearly, increases in culturally diverse students requires preparation of staff to address the unique

needs of the current student population. Hutchinson and White (2020) address the concern found

within public education as,

An ongoing threat to the commitment to urban education, equity, and social justice within

current trends in public education; yet again, there is much critical hope for awareness,

advocacy, action, and application to transform public education into an action that

embraces equity, social justice, and culture. (p. 148)

As the platform for cultural awareness, equity, social justice, and culturally responsive practices

emerge within the professional learning context, educational leaders will become critically

conscious and engage in collaborative efforts to promote positive cultural change.

Transformative change is necessary to bridge the gap between the dominant white culture

and marginalized students of color. The effort to learn another's background is needed to

diminish the hole. Cultural assimilation is an approach to assist in the efforts mentioned above,

and it requires involvement in a community of diverse cultures. Community immersion is a

powerful tool for culturally responsive school leaders that includes deliberate actions of interest

and exposure to the life experiences of diverse students (Mustian et al., 2017). Through

community immersion, privilege, and possible implicit bias are confronted. When school leaders

confront and become aware of their own privileges, they can change their outlook on the cultural

context of others. Genao (2021) speaks to the previously mentioned idea of confronting personal

biases. He states, "culturally responsive is who you are and not what you do" (Genao, 2021, p.

5). The beginning of cultural responsiveness is reflecting on personal ideologies and prejudices

that exist due to a lack of acceptance of others' cultures. This breeds self-identification and the

confidence to transform dominant culture mindsets to embrace diversification.

Cultural Intelligence

The business sector, along with educational settings, has increased in cultural diversity

and faced similar challenges in meeting the diverse needs within the organization (Collins et al.,

2016). The capacity of school leaders must be increased through cultural intelligence to address

their student's academic and social needs. Collins et al. (2016) present Earley and Ang's (2003)

definition of cultural intelligence as "A person's ability for successful adaptation to new cultural

settings, that is, for unfamiliar settings attributable to cultural context" (p. 9). The expectation of

educational leaders to be change agents within the school setting requires an increase in

knowledge of cultural intelligence (Collins et al., 2016). Cultural awareness is an imperative

portion of cultural intelligence. Culturally responsive school leaders have high cultural

intelligence. This intelligence helps them adapt to diverse situations. They also perceive

multiculturalism as a benefit to the learning environment rather than a challenge.

High culturally intelligent school leaders influence the overall culture and growth within

the learning environment. Collins et al. (2016) research revealed improved student achievement

and standardized tests. School leaders directly impact the outcomes of their students. There is an

increase in results when the school leadership has high cultural intelligence. The exposure and

acceptance of various cultures increase the comfort of diverse learners. High cultural intelligence

also supports the integration of multiculturalism into the curriculum. Culturally responsive

school leaders use the experiences of their students to bring connectivity to the presented

curriculum. Thus, increasing understanding and producing successful measured outcomes.

As organizations intentionally try to increase their cultural intelligence, they must be

informed about the genesis of culture. Livermore (2009) suggests that culture is associated with

mental conditioning. It is learned and formed through teaching, observation, and interaction with

others. People are socialized into what they know about their cultures and through their family

setting. Socialization is reinforced through media, school, church, other networks, and

environments. Cultural meanings are psychological and social. They also deal with individual

personalities. Culturally responsive leaders take an introspective assessment of themselves to

discover if they are culturally unintelligent. They understand that culture shapes everything they

do; therefore, they are willing and eager to grow in their cultural intelligence to continue on the

pathway of love toward those of different backgrounds and cultures.

Social Justice and Intercultural Education

The work of social justice undergirds the mission of culturally responsive school leaders.

Culturally responsive school leaders lead from a social justice lens. Social justice compels

leaders to be concerned about all students' needs and create an equitable educational system.

"Culturally responsive school leaders should see their role as being bridge builders among people

from various cultures" (Brown et al., 2019, p. 462). Subsequently, they challenge oppressive

systems and curricula that exclude marginalized students (Khalifa et al., 2016).

Culturally responsive school leaders are synonymous with social justice leaders. They are

parallel due to the emphasis and vigor of equitable education and the integration of intercultural

education. Social justice and intercultural education oppose the previous curriculum that

underlines the majority culture (Hajisoteriou et al., 2018). School leaders must challenge the

systems that do not promote education for all and exclude the experiences of culturally diverse

students. In order to incorporate culturally diverse backgrounds into the curriculum and learning

experience, students' voices must be heard. Conversations need to happen among school leaders

and students to bring cultural awareness and understanding. By using the voice of students and

the lens of social justice, culturally responsive school leaders can begin to integrate intercultural

education throughout the educational sector. The intentionality of increasing intercultural

education programs and curricula in the educational setting demonstrates the value of all

students' backgrounds.

Culturally Responsiveness in District-Level Leadership

Marshall and Khalifa (2018) present the significance of instructional coaches as leaders

to be a necessary component in "promoting cultural responsive teaching and pedagogy in

schools" (p 537). Instructional coaches are representative of district-level leadership. As

previously stated, culturally responsive leadership at the district level is requisite for significance

in developing inclusive school cultures and applying intercultural education programs. District-

level leaders must commit to employing culturally responsive practices that reflect intercultural

education by offering training and development opportunities for all employees. The training and

development of teachers assist in the improvement of student outcomes. Teachers have direct

interaction with their students and need to have the required tools to implement culturally

responsive practices and pedagogy. The role of the instructional coach is to train, assist, and

support teachers in needed growth and development. As instructional coaches apply the

appropriate strategies to help teachers incorporate intercultural education, they can influence the

impact on students by increasing teachers' cultural responsiveness.

A significant concern is the support of district policies and programs. Educational leaders

desire to have the backing of district-level administrators. This support is prevalent in the

perceived ability to apply equitable practices (Marshall & Khalifa, 2018). The commitment to be

culturally relevant and responsive must derive from top-tier leadership. The impact will be more

significant as the administration puts policies and practices in place to sustain a culturally

inclusive environment.

Trust is another facet of district-level leaders' alignment with instituting culturally

responsive school leadership (Marshall & Khalifa, 2018). The relationship between instructional

coaches, administration, teachers, and superintendents must be strong for equity work to occur

within the school. There has to be a high level of trust to empower and encourage leaders to fight

through institutionalized systems that have not yet embraced varying cultures. Marshall and

Khalifa (2018) suggest, "in order to promote humanizing practices among teachers, there is a

need for establishing trust between teachers and instructional coaches to have challenging and

possibly uncomfortable conversations about one's practice" (p. 539). Purposeful relationships

provide the confidence to have difficult conversations that may challenge personal thoughts,

beliefs, and ideologies.

Emotional Leadership

Leadership encompasses various approaches regarding the method leaders select to use to

promote organizational change and growth. Wang (2019) discloses the connection between

neuroscience and educational leadership. He illuminates the emotional aspect of leadership

within the educational setting. Specific to culturally responsive leadership, the emotional part of

leading aligns with the mandate to be conscious of diverse cultures within the school

environment and to understand the need to create an inviting culture for all people. "Culturally

responsive school leaders empathize with followers, channel moral outrage as the motivator of

change, and regulate negative emotions of fear and disgust through building a collective social

identity and ensure organizational justice" (Wang, 2019, p. 345). Emotions are consistently

involved throughout every aspect of leading; therefore, the self-reflection of every leader is

crucial.

The emotional component of leading has often been overlooked compared to using data

as the foundation of decision-making (Wang, 2019). School leaders use their emotions to make

decisions. Culturally responsive school leaders channel their feelings toward the desired outcome

for the overall organization. Educational leaders have to be emotionally authentic and display

genuine concern regarding the diverse needs of their student population. The production of a

culturally diverse school setting is rooted in the emotional influence of the school leader;

therefore, training in emotional awareness and regulating emotions is necessary for all school

leaders.

Positive School Climate

Forming a positive school climate is the responsibility of all persons who make up the

organization. Accordingly, culturally responsive school leaders are to initiate the charge to

establish a positive school climate through the encouragement to build meaningful relationships

with all stakeholders (Blitz et al., 2016). All school community members should feel welcomed,

involved, and valued. Inclusivity begins with a sense of belonging. As people feel connected and

understand they are an intricate part of the overall success and development, they will willingly

take the appropriate steps to learn the needs of everyone within the school environment.

Culturally responsive school leaders should provide specific action steps for school personnel to

become informed and trained in culturally responsive practices. The first steps begin with self-

awareness through reflective experiences based on one's own cultural understanding (Genao,

2016). "The process of reflection reveals that the more one is exposed to cultures different from

one's own, the greater the realisation of how much one does not know about the other" (Genao,

2016, p. 433). Participation in occasions that display diverse cultural experiences and practices

must be presented to increase cultural understanding.

Unlearning cultural biases is imperative in producing a culturally responsive

environment. Bonner et al. (2018) emphasize that "teachers must continuously reflect on their

own beliefs and biases to become more culturally conscious and committed to supporting

marginalized, diverse students" (p. 720). Culturally responsive school leaders can create

consistent moments for open dialogue to happen. The open discussion can allow anyone within

the school context to communicate truths and realities regarding their specific cultural

background. Recognizing the significance of open dialogue and accepting others' cultural

experiences is beneficial to increasing cultural awareness and understanding.

Continual Improvement

The sustainability and success of an organization are dependent upon the process of

continual improvement. Specific to the educational setting, professional development and

training must be an integral part of the model of continued growth. Viloria (2017) shares the

benefit of providing opportunities for educators to attend professional development training that

will equip them to become organizational leaders. Empowering school leaders creates

accountability and participatory actions supporting the vision of inclusive and equitable

environments. It is the charge of culturally responsive school leaders to have a clear vision for

equity and educational freedom for all students (Ham et al., 2020). When the vision is well-

defined, all stakeholders exercise the practices identified within the concept. Consistently

modeling the vision encourages participatory behaviors. Consistent with Ham et al. (2020), "if

the principal fails to exercise culturally responsive leadership, such loss would be more striking

for teachers working in already challenging situations" (p. 260). The modeling method is a

strength for culturally responsive leaders because others can imitate the demonstrated behaviors

of acceptance and inclusion of all cultures. If teachers do not have an example of the

communicated expectation, the desire to sustain a culturally responsive atmosphere will not be

achieved.

School and community partnerships are necessary to undergird the goal of continually

growing cultural understanding and meeting all students' needs. Community partnerships can be

developed to merge a sense of unity between the school and its members. Simpkins et al. (2017)

endorse organized activities with similarities, highlighting commonalities between cultures. This

can include "identifying shared interests and experiences, as well as fostering a sense that

adolescents are all part of the same activity group, to build comradery and a shared activity-

based identity" (Simpkins et al., 2017, p. 29). The framework designed to integrate concrete

practices of cultural responsiveness must contain unification. School leaders and community

members can collaborate to oppose prejudices and separatism. Culturally responsive institutional

change is accomplished from an established relationship that communicates the various

challenges presented within the community (DeMatthews & Izquierdo, 2020). Community

members' voices are needed to create organized activities upholding corrective action against

oppressive schemes to marginalize certain ethnic groups. DeMatthews and Izquierdo (2020)

provide examples of one-on-one meetings with community members to discuss the school's

future. This action of collaboration portrays all stakeholders' valuing, acceptance, and inclusion.

Parental Family Involvement and Engagement

Research has evidenced the positive outcomes of family involvement in children's

educational progression. Specifically, there have been positive short-term outcomes in grades,

attendance, and attitudes toward learning (Sanders-Smith et al., 2020). Families' engagement and

involvement in their children's educational development fosters holistic maturation. The active

participation of their families undergirds youth, and they are held accountable for the instruction

they receive.; therefore, parent and family engagement in academic and cultural development is

necessary for student success.

The interaction between culturally responsive school leaders and families is imperative

for cultural awareness and understanding. Children imitate the behaviors and attitudes learned

through observation. So, as families work closely with culturally responsive leaders, children

will display the modeled behaviors presented within the home and school. Parent and family

involvement aims to gain perspective regarding the various legal, social, and domestic challenges

in specific communities (DeMatthews & Izquierdo, 2020). The insight into diverse familial and

cultural challenges "promotes deeper understanding of the role of trauma and structural

inequities to help school personnel…" (Blitz et al., 2016, p. 118). Culturally responsive leaders

are not the only ones with solutions to address cultural and racial disparity issues. Parents and

families play an intricate role in the operation of equitable learning opportunities.

Accountability is established with the consistent involvement of families in the overall

maturation of their students. When parents and instructional leaders communicate regularly,

students gain additional insight into what they have been academically, culturally, and socially

introduced to through diverse examples based on applying culturally responsive practices and

curricula. Parental involvement raises the achievement level of students (McNeal, 2015). The

increased success is in grades, behavior, or cultural awareness. Hajisoteriou et al. (2018) stress

parents' importance in improving student learning. Not only is success obtained, but it is also

sustained due to the family's additional support. Gaining a parental perspective of cultural

upbringing can assist instructional leaders in incorporating cultural relevance within the learning

environment.

Student Voice and Participation

Levitan (2020) highlights the incorporation of students' voices in the practice of

culturally responsive leadership. Educational leaders should strive to involve students' life

experiences in school programming. This is an intentional attempt to push past the barriers of

colonial ideologies. The efforts presented to increase minoritized students' cultural backgrounds

in the learning experience provide concrete evidence of a culturally responsive atmosphere.

Culturally responsive school leaders are constantly considering ways to include all students in

the learning practice. Including culturally diverse students expresses the determination of leaders

to refrain from allowing a majority rule mindset to dictate the cultural context.

The participation of students in incorporating change within the school culture needs to

be a top priority with culturally responsive school leaders. The school's cultural climate can

either positively or negatively impact the social and emotional components of the students

(Hajisoteriou et al., 2018). Hence, the need for the student to be directly involved in bringing

awareness and change to the school context is evident. Students' social and emotional well-being

is in jeopardy when schools are not conducive to a sustained, culturally inclusive environment.

Bonner et al. (2018) discuss the increase in self-confidence and self-esteem in students from

culturally responsive practices. Students gain confidence in themselves and grow in their cultural

pride when their experiences are heard and incorporated into learning moments. The classroom

engagement and motivation are also enhanced due to the recognition and relevancy of the lessons

taught.

Schools will remain at a basic level of cultural understanding if they do not inquire from

those who are linked to specific cultural themes, ideas, and backgrounds. Culturally responsive

leaders can be limited in the cultural understanding of different races they do not identify with.

This may not be intentional, but the lack of understanding is because of limited interaction and

experiences of other cultures. It may be difficult for leaders to precisely know what cultures are

outside their own experience because it does not happen directly to them. Though culturally

diverse, leaders can increase their personal knowledge of other cultures and integrate the varying

cultures of their students into the school context through student voice and participation.

Rationale for the Study

According to the National Center for Education Statistics (2022), 4.7 million

Approximately twenty-five percent of private schools in the United States of America are

considered conservative Christian schools (National Center for Education Statistics, 2022). In

conservative Christian schools, 0.7% of the students were American Indian, 5.3% were Asian,

68.6% were white, 11.2% were Black, 9.2% were Hispanic, 0.8% were Pacific Islander, and

4.3% were two or more races. In comparison, 1% of traditional public-school students in the fall

of 2019 were American Indian, 5% were Asian, 47% were White, 15% were Black, 28% were

Hispanic, less than 1% were Pacific Islander, and 4% were two or more races. Even though

smaller percentages of diverse students are obvious in Christian schools in the data presented

above, the need for cultural awareness and responsiveness cannot be nullified. It is clear based

on the two groups with the largest differences between enrollment in Christian schools (Blacks,

11.2%; Hispanics, 9.2%) and public schools (Blacks, 15%; Hispanics, 28%). These two groups

of students comprise over 20% of the students enrolled in Christian schools.

The former approach in the education of dominant cultural instruction has shifted due to

the increase of diverse populations. The theological mandate to address the need for cultural

awareness and equitable opportunities is presently evident throughout all levels of education.

Intercultural education built on the foundation of social justice means creating fairness and

equity in resources, rights, and treatment of marginalized students, which is necessary to meet all

students' needs. Culturally responsive school leaders must promote, create, and sustain a

culturally diverse environment. The genuine demonstration of inclusive practices through

integrative, relevant, and cultural curricula provides evidence of embracing unique cultures. The

cultural design of the school is contingent upon the district and local school leadership. All

stakeholders have to be included in the process of producing cultural policies and practices. This

will support the sustainability of consistent acceptance and acknowledgment of diverse cultures

among all student body populations.

Gap in the Literature

Culturally responsive practices are a solution to addressing the increase in cultural

diversity within the United States. These practices are essential in gaining insight and knowledge

of varying identities, cultures, races, and communities. Culturally responsive practices need to be

consistently evident in the educational system because it is one of the systems used to inform and

transform. The local school is where learning and development occur for youth in the United

States; therefore, culturally responsive practices must be embedded into the fabric of the school

system, and it begins with the educational leaders (DeMatthews & Izquierdo, 2020).

Culturally responsive leadership has been studied, focusing on marginalized students in

the traditional public school environment (Hesbol et al., 2020). Very little study has been

conducted to discover the impact of culturally responsive leadership in Christian private schools

where the standard is to love and uphold dignity to all mankind. The need and gap exist for

research to consider the educational impact on marginalized students at Christian private schools

because educational leadership is a central component of educational reform. A part of

reformation deals with leaders being capable of creating and sustaining a culturally responsive

environment (Khalifa et al., 2016). Minkos et al. (2017) emphasize that "now more than ever,

educators must be prepared to support the needs and education of students who often differ from

them from a cultural perspective” (p. 1261). The onus to serve marginalized students in a

Christian school does not singularly rest on the school administrators. Still, all stakeholders need

to carry out the mandate of being equipped to support the needs of all students.

This study proposed to enrich the bodies of research by informing educators’

professional development for the purpose of heightening their awareness and implementation of

culturally responsive school leadership practices in Christian private schools. By using the CRSL

model as the overarching theoretical framework, this researcher hoped to continue the discussion

of diversity in Christian private schools and broaden the understanding of how Christian private

schools can provide an inclusive learning environment for marginalized students. Existing

research on culturally responsive teaching, culturally responsive school practices, culturally

responsive pedagogy, and culturally responsive school leadership show the significance of

teachers, educational systems, curriculum, and leaders integrating and implementing the broad

areas of critical self-reflection, community advocacy and engagement, school culture and

climate, and transformational leadership (Khalifa et al., 2016; Marshall & Khalifa, 2018; see also

Brown et al., 2019; Collins et al., 2016; DeMatthews & Izquierdo, 2020; Genao, 2021;

Hajisoteriou et al., 2018; Ham et al., 2020; Hesbol et al., 2020; Hutchinson et al., 2020;

Krasnoff, 2016; Levitan, 2020; Minkos et al., 2017; Mustian et al., 2017; Samuels, 2018; Tanase,

2020). The culturally responsive school leadership dialogue has started in previous research;

however, this study aimed to leverage current findings and use the lens of a Christian leader to

investigate the impact of a culturally responsive school leadership framework on student

outcomes in a Christian private school.

Profile of the Current Study

Changes in the curriculum that exclude marginalized youth have not been a consistent

priority (Haijisoteriou et al., 2018). Thus, there has been a continuation of dominant culture

instruction within the learning context. Culturally diverse students do not perceive their

experiences and background as a prevalent part of the learning process because the lack of

diversified instruction has limited the relevancy to the dominant culture. This must be addressed

and challenged through a social justice lens and intercultural education. Including students'

voices, school and community partnership, and parent/family engagement is critical in

developing a positive, inclusive school setting.

Culturally Responsive Christian School leadership must involve serving diverse cultures,

regardless of race, background, or socio-economic status. Continual growth and development are

necessary to establish an equitable learning environment. The beginning of continual growth and

development is critical self-reflection. Christian leaders must be aware of their biases for

transformation to occur. The priority and intentionality of opposing elitism, separatism, and

prejudices are required to foster and sustain a culturally responsive school setting.

This study explored the culturally responsive school leadership, cultural awareness,

teacher readiness for educating all students, and professional learning opportunities within the

Christian private school context. The objective was to the relationship, if any, between culturally

responsive school leadership, cultural awareness, teacher readiness for educating all students,

and professional learning opportunities about diversity, controlling for Christian private schools

located in the United States of America. There were three research questions.

To achieve research objectives, the researcher used a quantitative approach with a survey

design. The population was Christian private schools within the United States of America. An

already-validated survey instrument was used, and electronic surveys were sent. Questions

collected demographic information, assessed cultural awareness, teacher readiness to educate all

students, and equity-focused professional learning opportunities. Data were collected from study

participant responses and statistically analyzed. Correlational and inferential statistics determined

a relationship between culturally responsive school leadership and cultural awareness, teacher

readiness for educating all students, and equity-focused professional learning opportunities.

Statistical significance was determined, and the null hypotheses were rejected. Chapter three

provides details of the research methodology for this study.

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

This chapter includes a description of the quantitative research design used by this

researcher to examine the relationship between Culturally Responsive School Leadership

(CRSL) and the impact on students based on cultural awareness, teacher readiness for educating

all students, and equity-focused professional learning opportunities in Christian private schools

located in the United States of America. The focus of the research used a survey design

approach.

Research Design Synopsis

In this section, this researcher described the research problem, purpose statement,

research questions, and the research design and methodology.

Research Problem

The need for increased awareness and implementation of diverse leadership and

educational practices is rising due to the change in varied student populations throughout the

country (Krasnoff, 2016). Hollowell (2019) agrees with the need for leadership to respond to the

complex contextual changes in schools based on increasing racial, ethnic, cultural, linguistic, and

socioeconomic diversity; therefore, the Culturally Responsive School Leadership (CRSL)

framework is preferred to address specific issues directly impacting students. The effectiveness

of student growth depends on the leadership style approach to ensuring an equitable learning

environment, inclusivity, relevancy, and access for all students (Krasnoff, 2016; Samuels, 2018;

related topics?

How often do adults

at your school have

important

conversations about

diverse cultures,

even when they

might be

uncomfortable?

2.4

1.0

112

5 When there are

major news events

related to diverse

cultures, how often

do adults at your

school talk about

them with each

other?

2.8 1.1 112

How confident are

you that adults at

your school can have

honest conversations

with each other about

different cultures?

3.2

1.2

112

How comfortable are

you discussing

diverse culturally

related topics?

3.0

0.9

112

How often do

students at your

school have

important

conversations

about diverse

cultures, even

when they might

uncomfortable?

2.7

0.9

112

101

13 When there are

major news

events related to

diverse cultures,

how often do

adults at your

school talk about

them with each

other?

2.8 1.0 112

How confident

are you that

adults at your

school can have

honest

conversations

with students

about different

cultures?

3.2

1.1

112

How

comfortable are

you discussing

diverse

culturally related

topics with your

students?

3.8

0.8

112

How well does

your school help

students speak

out against the

exclusion of

people based on

race, ethnicity,

or culture?

2.8

1.1

112

Overall Mean

3.2

The data obtained from study participants in their responses to survey questions 1-8 and

9-16 revealed overall means of 2.9 and 3.2, respectively (see Tables 2 and 3). When the overall

means of questions 1-8 and 9-16 were combined, the final overall mean equated to 3.1. These

102

questions used a five-point Likert scale. The Likert scale options were: [1] – almost never or not

at all; [2] – once in a while or slightly; [3] – sometimes or somewhat; [4] – frequently or quite;

[5] – almost always or extremely. The Likert scale was used to capture the opinions, attitudes,

behaviors, and experiences of the participants (Leedy & Ormrod, 2019).

This researcher defined the survey questions based on the CRSL framework (Khalifa et

al., 2016). The four components of the Culturally Responsive School Leadership model are

critically self-reflects on leadership behaviors, develops culturally responsive teachers, promotes

culturally responsive/inclusive school environments, and engages students, parents, and

indigenous contexts (Khalifa et al., 2016). The specific questions from the survey defined by

each component of the CRSL framework are outlined in Tables 4 and 5.

103

Table 4

Components of the Culturally Responsive School Leadership Development

Model and Cultural Awareness (Adult Focus)

Critically self-

reflects on

leadership

behaviors

Develops

culturally

responsive

teachers

Promotes culturally

responsive/inclusive

school

environments

Engages

students,

parents, and

Indigenous

contexts

How often do

you think about

what colleagues

of different

races,

ethnicities, or

cultures

experience?

How well does

your school help

staff speak out

against the

exclusion of

people based on

race, ethnicity,

or culture?

How often do

school leaders

encourage you to

teach about people

from different

races, ethnicities, or

cultures?

When there are

major news

events related to

diverse cultures,

how often do

adults at your

school talk about

them with each

other?

How often do

adults at your

school have

important

conversations

about diverse

cultures, even

when they might

uncomfortable?

At your school, how

often are you

encouraged to think

more deeply about

multi-culturally

related topics?

How

comfortable are

you discussing

diverse

culturally related

topics with your

colleagues?

How confident are

you that adults at

your school can

have honest

conversations with

each other about

different cultures?

104

Table 5

Components of the Culturally Responsive School Leadership Development

Model and Cultural Awareness (Student Focus)

Critically self-

reflects on

leadership

behaviors

Develops

culturally

responsive

teachers

Promotes culturally

responsive/inclusive

school

environments

Engages students,

parents, and

Indigenous contexts

How often do

you think about

what students of

different races,

ethnicities, or

cultures

experience?

How

comfortable are

you discussing

diverse

culturally related

topics with your

students?

How often are

students given

opportunities to

learn about people

from different

races, ethnicities, or

cultures?

How often do students

at your school have

important

conversations about

diverse cultures, even

when they might be

uncomfortable?

At your school, how

often are students

encouraged to think

more deeply about

multi-culturally

related topics?

When there are major

news events related to

diverse cultures, how

often do adults at your

school talk about them

with each other?

How well does your

school help students

speak out against

the exclusion of

people based on

race, ethnicity, or

culture?

How

confident are

you that

adults at your

school can

have honest

conversations

with students

about

different

cultures?

The data disclosed that most study participants believed they were either sometimes [3]

supported or frequently [4] supported in learning about, discussing, and confronting race,

105

ethnicity, and culture issues. Specifically, 29% [3] and 37.7% [4] of teachers felt like their school

supported them in learning about, discussing, and confronting race, ethnicity, and culture issues

in relation to being critically self-reflective (See Table 6). Table 7 highlighted that 31.7% [3] and

33.4% [4] of teachers believed they were either somewhat [3] supported or very [4] supported in

learning about, discussing, and confronting race, ethnicity, and culture issues in relation to being

developed as a culturally responsive teacher. The majority of teachers responded as sometimes

[3] supported or frequently [4] supported in learning about, discussing, and confronting race,

ethnicity, and culture issues in relation to their ability to promote a culturally

responsive/inclusive school environment (See Table 8). Component three of the CRSL model

showed that 34.8% [3] and 27.7% [4] of teachers felt supported in discussing and confronting

cultural issues in relation to the promotion of a culturally responsive and inclusive school

environment. The fourth component of the CRSL model emphasized the engagement of students,

parents, and those of indigenous contexts. The study participants responded similarly to the

previous components of the CRSL model. Most teachers believed they were supported to learn

about, discuss, and confront race, ethnicity, and cultural issues through engaging the school

community and those of indigenous contexts (See Table 9). Precisely, 38.9% [3] and 22.5% [4]

of teachers selected sometimes [3] supported or frequently [4] supported learning about,

discussing, and confronting race, ethnicity, and cultural issues through engaging students,

parents, and indigenous contexts.

106

Table 6

Responses to Component 1 of the CRSL Model: Critically Self-Reflect on Leadership Behaviors

Question

Number

Question [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Total

2 How often do

you think

about what

colleagues of

different races,

ethnicities, or

cultures

experience?

4.5%

(N = 5)

14.3%

(N = 16)

31.3%

(N = 35)

44.6%

(N = 50)

6.4%

(N = 6)

112

4 How often do

adults at your

school have

important

conversations

about diverse

cultures, even

when they

might be

uncomfortable?

19.6%

(N = 22)

32.1%

(N = 36)

32.1%

(N = 36)

16.1%

(N = 18)

(N = 0)

112

7 How

comfortable

are you

discussing

diverse

culturally

related topics

with your

colleagues?

6.3%

(N = 7)

11.6%

(N = 13)

21.4%

(N = 24)

43.8%

(N = 49)

17.0%

(N = 19)

112

10 How often do

you think

about what

students of

different races,

ethnicities, or

cultures

experience?

1.8%

(N = 2)

6.3%

(N = 7)

31.3%

(N = 35)

46.4%

(N = 52)

14.3%

(N = 16)

112

Total 8%

(N = 36)

16%

(N = 72)

29%

(N = 130)

37.7%

(N = 169)

9.4%

(N = 41)

107

Table 7

Responses to Component 2 of the CRSL Model: Develops Culturally Responsive Teachers

Question

Number

Question [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Total

8 How well does

your school

help staff

speak out

against the

exclusion of

people based

on race,

ethnicity, or

culture?

16.1%

(N = 18)

18.8%

(N = 21)

32.1%

(N = 36)

21.4%

(N = 24)

11.6%

(N = 13)

112

15 How

comfortable

are you

discussing

diverse

culturally

related topics

with your

students?

0.9%

(N = 1)

4.5%

(N = 5)

31.3%

(N = 35)

45.5%

(N = 51)

17.9%

(N = 20)

112

Total 8.5%

(N = 19)

11.7%

(N = 26)

31.7%

(N = 71)

33.4%

(N = 75)

14.7%

(N = 33)

108

Table 8

Responses to Component 3 of the CRSL Model: Promotes Culturally Responsive/Inclusive

School Environment

Question

Number

Question [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Total

1 How often do

school leaders

encourage you

to teach about

people from

different races,

ethnicities, or

cultures?

12.5%

(N = 14)

29.5%

(N = 33)

34.8%

(N = 39)

18.8%

(N = 21)

4.5%

(N = 5)

112

3 At your

school, how

often are you

encouraged to

think more

deeply about

multi-

culturally

related topics?

14.3%

(N = 16)

29.5%

(N = 33)

33.9%

(N = 38)

15.2%

(N = 17)

7.1%

(N = 8)

112

6 How confident

are you that

adults at your

school can

have honest

conversations

with each other

about different

cultures?

9.8%

(N = 11)

21.4%

(N = 24)

20.5%

(N = 23)

36.6%

(N = 41)

11.6%

(N = 13)

112

9 How often are

students given

opportunities

to learn about

people from

different races,

ethnicities, or

cultures?

2.7%

(N = 3)

10.7%

(N = 12)

35.7%

(N = 40)

45.6%

(N = 50)

6.3%

(N = 7)

112

11 At your

school, how

often are

students

4.5%

(N = 5)

20.5%

(N = 23)

44.6%

(N = 50)

28.6%

(N = 32)

1.8%

(N = 2)

112

109

encouraged to

think more

deeply about

multi-

culturally

related topics?

16 How well does

your school

help students

speak out

against the

exclusion of

people based

on race,

ethnicity, or

culture?

15.2%

(N = 17)

18.8%

(N = 21)

39.3%

(N = 44)

21.4%

(N = 24)

5.4%

(N = 6)

112

Total 9.8%

(N = 66)

21.7%

(N = 146)

34.8%

(N = 234)

27.7%

(N = 185)

6.1%

(N = 41)

Table 9

Responses to Component 4 of the CRSL Model: Engages Students, Parents, and Indigenous

Contexts

Question

Number

Question [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Total

5 When there are

major news

events related

to diverse

cultures, how

often do adults

at your school

talk about them

with each

other?

17%

(N = 19)

21.4%

(N = 24)

35.7%

(N = 40)

21.4%

(N = 24)

4.5%

(N = 5)

112

12 How often do

students at

your school

have important

conversations

about diverse

cultures, even

when they

12.5%

(N = 14)

26.8%

(N = 30)

43.8%

(N = 49)

15.2%

(N = 17)

1.8%

(N = 2)

112

110

might be

uncomfortable?

13 When there are

major news

events related

to diverse

cultures, how

often do adults

at your school

talk about them

with each

other?

12.5%

(N = 14)

23.2%

(N = 26)

40.2%

(N = 45)

19.6%

(N = 22)

4.5%

(N = 5)

112

14 How confident

are you that

adults at your

school can

have honest

conversations

with students

about different

cultures?

10.7%

(N = 12)

10.7%

(N = 12)

35.7%

(N = 40)

33.9%

(N = 38)

8.9%

(N = 10)

112

Total 13.2%

(N = 59)

20.5%

(N = 92)

38.9%

(N = 174)

22.5%

(N = 101)

4.9%

(N = 22)

Correlational Analyses

This research study utilized Pearson’s chi-square (See Tables 10-17). This analysis was

selected to highlight any relationships that may exist between single-question responses on the

CRCSL Survey for questions 1-16. The chi-square test was used because the survey responses

had categorical data (Biswal, 2023). Creswell and Creswell (2018) and Leedy and Ormrod

(2019) recommend using chi-square tests when the scores are categorical. This test assessed

whether the variables were related.

111

Table 10

Chi-Square Test for Questions 2 and 4

(Component 1 of CRSL)

P Value 0.104

Effect Size (Cramér’s V) 0.234

Sample Size 112

There is no statistically significant relationship, p = 0.104, between teachers who think

about colleagues of different races, ethnicities, or cultures and teachers having important

conversations about diverse cultures, even when they might be uncomfortable.

Table 11

Chi-Square Test for Questions 7 and 10

(Component 1 of CRSL)

P Value 0.144

Effect Size (Cramér’s V) 0.221

Sample Size 112

There is no statistically significant relationship, p = 0.144, between teachers being

comfortable discussing diverse, culturally related topics and thinking about what students of

different races, ethnicities, or cultures experience.

112

Table 12

Chi-Square Test for Questions 8 and 15

(Component 2 of CRSL)

P Value 0.00587

Effect Size (Cramér’s V) 0.274

Sample Size 112

There is a statistically significant relationship, p = 0.00587, between the school helping

staff speak out against the exclusion of people based on race, ethnicity, or culture and the

comfortability of staff with discussing diverse culturally related topics with their students.

Table 13

Chi-Square Test for Questions 1 and 3

(Component 3 of CRSL)

P Value < 0.00001

Effect Size (Cramér’s V) 0.452

Sample Size 112

There is a strong statistically significant relationship, p = 0.00001, between the school

leaders encouraging staff to teach about people from different races, ethnicities, or cultures and

the frequency of staff being encouraged to think more deeply about multi-culturally related

topics.

113

Table 14

Chi-Square Test for Questions 6 and 9

(Component 3 of CRSL)

P Value 0.00127

Effect Size (Cramér’s V) 0.293

Sample Size 112

There is a strong statistically significant relationship, p = 0.00127, between the

confidence of teachers in having honest conversations with each other about different cultures

and the regularity of students being given the opportunity to learn about people from different

races, ethnicities, or cultures.

Table 15

Chi-Square Test for Questions 11 and 16

(Component 3 of CRSL)

P Value 0.0000511

Effect Size (Cramér’s V) 0.327

Sample Size 112

There is a strong statistically significant relationship, p = 0.0000511, between the

regularity of students being encouraged to think more deeply about multi-culturally related topics

and the consistency of the school helping students speak out against the exclusion of people

based on race, ethnicity, or culture.

114

Table 16

Chi-Square Test for Questions 5 and 12

(Component 4 of CRSL)

P Value 0.000408

Effect Size (Cramér’s V) 0.306

Sample Size 112

There is a strong statistically significant relationship, p = 0.000408, between the

frequency of teachers talking to each other about major news events related to diverse cultures

and the regularity of students having important conversations about diverse cultures, even when

they might be uncomfortable.

Table 17

Chi-Square Test for Questions 13 and 14

(Component 4 of CRSL)

P Value < 0.00001

Effect Size (Cramér’s V) 0.378

Sample Size 112

There is a strong statistically significant relationship, p = 0.00001, between the regularity

of teachers talking to each other about major news events related to diverse cultures and the

confidence of teachers to have honest conversations with their students about different cultures.

Demographic Data for Component One of the CRSL Model. Tables A1-A16 (See

Appendix A) provide the specific demographics for each component of the CRSL model. The

data from Table A1 (See Appendix A) illustrates the association of years taught at the current

115

school and the teachers' belief in the support received from their school in learning about,

discussing, and confronting race, ethnicity, and cultural issues in relation to critical self-

reflection. The 112 teachers scored an overall mean of 3.2. This indicates they felt somewhat

supported [3] in learning about, discussing, and confronting race, ethnicity, and culture issues

pertaining to critical self-reflection. Specifically, 39 teachers with 0 – 3 years of teaching

experience had an overall mean of 3.2; 25 teachers with 4 – 6 years of teaching experience had

an overall mean of 3.1; 15 teachers with 7 – 9 years of teaching experience had an overall mean

of 3.3; 32 teachers with ten or more years of teaching experience had an overall mean of 3.4.

There was a participant who did not specify years at the current school. So, the data was

categorized as "Other". The overall mean for "Other" was 3.7. The information reported as

"Other" was calculated in the overall mean. The years of teaching experience at their current

campus reflected a belief of being either somewhat supported [3] or frequently [4] supported in

learning about, discussing, and confronting race, ethnicity, and culture issues pertaining to

critical self-reflection.

Table A2 (See Appendix A) illustrates the gender of the teachers represented in this study

and their belief in the support received from their school in learning about, discussing, and

confronting race, ethnicity, and cultural issues in relation to critical self-reflection. The 111 male

and female teachers scored an overall mean of 3.3. This indicates they felt supported [3] in

learning about, discussing, and confronting race, ethnicity, and culture issues regarding critical

self-reflection. Specifically, 28 male teachers had an overall mean of 3.4, and 83 female teachers

had an overall mean of 3.1.

Table A3 (See Appendix A) illustrates the ethnicity of the study participants and their

belief in the support received from their school in learning about, discussing, and confronting

116

race, ethnicity, and cultural issues in relation to critical self-reflection. The 111 teachers scored

an overall mean of 3.2. This indicates they felt supported [3] in learning about, discussing, and

confronting race, ethnicity, and culture issues related to critical self-reflection. Specifically, two

American Indian or Alaska Native teachers had an overall mean of 2.8; four African American or

Black teachers had an overall mean of 3.2; and 105 White teachers had an overall mean of 3.2.

There were no Asian and Native Hawaiian, or Other Pacific Islander teachers in the study

participants.

The data in Table A4 (See Appendix A) signifies where the Christian private schools are

located. There were 20 states represented in this study. Table A4 identifies each state by its two-

letter abbreviation. Two teachers indicated responses that did not align with a specific state;

therefore, their responses are listed under "Other". The 112 teachers scored an overall mean of

3.2. This indicates they felt supported [3] in learning about, discussing, and confronting race,

ethnicity, and culture issues as it relates to critical self-reflection. Specifically, 6 teachers in

Arizona had an overall mean of 3.2; 19 teachers in California had an overall mean of 3.2; 11

teachers in Florida had an overall mean of 3.3; 8 teachers in Georgia had an overall mean of 3.4;

9 teachers in Illinois had an overall mean of 3.1; 2 teachers in Iowa had an overall mean of 2.7;

one teacher in Kentucky had an overall mean of 4.5; 34 teachers in Michigan had an overall

mean of 3.1; one teacher in Maryland had an overall mean of 3.5; two teachers in Minnesota had

an overall mean of 4.2; one teacher in Montana had an overall mean of 2.7; one teacher in North

Dakota had an overall mean of 3.5; four teachers in New Jersey had an overall mean of 3.4; one

teacher in Oregon had an overall mean of 4; one teacher in South Carolina had an overall mean

of 4; one teacher in South Dakota had an overall mean of 4; three teachers in Texas had an

overall mean of 3.4; one teacher in Virginia had an overall mean of 2.2; two teachers in

117

Wisconsin had an overall mean of 2.7; two teachers in Washington had an overall mean of 3.7;

and two teachers that did not list a specific state had an overall mean of 2. The information

reported as "Other" was calculated in the overall mean.

Demographic Data for Component Two of the CRSL Model. The data from Table A5

(see Appendix A) illustrates the association of years taught at the current school and the teachers'

belief in the support received from their school in learning about, discussing, and confronting

race, ethnicity, and cultural issues in relation to developing as a culturally responsive teacher.

The 112 teachers scored an overall mean of 3.3. This indicates they felt somewhat [3] supported

by their school in learning about, discussing, and confronting race, ethnicity, and cultural issues

pertaining to developing as a culturally responsive teacher. Specifically, 39 teachers with 0 – 3

years of teaching experience had an overall mean of 3.2; 25 teachers with 4 – 6 years of teaching

experience had an overall mean of 3.3; 15 teachers with 7 – 9 years of teaching experience had

an overall mean of 3.4; 32 teachers with ten or more years of teaching experience had an overall

mean of 3.4. There was a participant who did not specify years at the current school. So, the data

was categorized as "Other". The overall mean for "Other" was 4. The information reported as

"Other" was calculated in the overall mean. The years of teaching experience at their current

campus reflected a belief of being [4] quite supported by their school in learning about,

discussing, and confronting race, ethnicity, and cultural issues pertaining to developing as a

culturally responsive teacher.

Table A6 (See Appendix A) illustrates the gender of the teachers in this study and their

belief in the support received from their school in learning about, discussing, and confronting

race, ethnicity, and cultural issues in relation to developing as a culturally responsive teacher.

The 111 male and female teachers scored an overall mean of 3.3. This indicates they felt

118

somewhat [3] supported by their school in learning about, discussing, and confronting race,

ethnicity, and cultural issues in relation to developing as a culturally responsive teacher.

Specifically, 28 male teachers had an overall mean of 3.5, and 83 female teachers had an overall

mean of 3.3.

Table A7 (See Appendix A) illustrates the ethnicity of the study participants and their

belief in the support received from their school in learning about, discussing, and confronting

race, ethnicity, and cultural issues in relation to developing as a culturally responsive teacher.

The 111 teachers scored an overall mean of 3.3. This indicates they felt somewhat [3] supported

by their school in learning about, discussing, and confronting race, ethnicity, and cultural issues

in relation to developing as a culturally responsive teacher. Specifically, two American Indian or

Alaska Native teachers had an overall mean of 3.5; four African American or Black teachers had

an overall mean of 2.9; and 105 White teachers had an overall mean of 3.4. There were no Asian

and Native Hawaiian, or Other Pacific Islander teachers in the study participants.

The data in Table A8 (See Appendix A) signifies where the Christian private schools are

located. There were 20 states represented in this study. Table A8 identifies each state by its two-

letter abbreviation. Two teachers indicated responses that did not align with a specific state;

therefore, their responses are listed under "Other". The 112 teachers scored an overall mean of

3.3. This indicates they felt somewhat [3] supported by their school in learning about, discussing,

and confronting race, ethnicity, and cultural issues in relation to developing as a culturally

responsive teacher. Specifically, 6 teachers in Arizona had an overall mean of 3.7; 19 teachers in

California had an overall mean of 3.4; 11 teachers in Florida had an overall mean of 3.1; 8

teachers in Georgia had an overall mean of 3.5; 9 teachers in Illinois had an overall mean of 3.4;

2 teachers in Iowa had an overall mean of 3.7; one teacher in Kentucky had an overall mean of 4;

119

34 teachers in Michigan had an overall mean of 3.2; one teacher in Maryland had an overall

mean of 2; two teachers in Minnesota had an overall mean of 4.7; one teacher in Montana had an

overall mean of 3; one teacher in North Dakota had an overall mean of 4.5; four teachers in New

Jersey had an overall mean of 3.1; one teacher in Oregon had an overall mean of 4.5; one teacher

in South Carolina had an overall mean of 2.5; one teacher in South Dakota had an overall mean

of 3; three teachers in Texas had an overall mean of 3.8; one teacher in Virginia had an overall

mean of 2.5; two teachers in Wisconsin had an overall mean of 4; two teachers in Washington

had an overall mean of 3.2; and two teachers that did not list a specific state had an overall mean

of 2. The information reported as "Other" was calculated in the overall mean.

Demographic Data for Component Three of the CRSL Model. The data from Table

A9 (See Appendix A) illustrates the association of years taught at the current school and the

belief in the support received from their school in learning about, discussing, and confronting

race, ethnicity, and cultural issues in relation to promoting a culturally responsive/inclusive

school environment. The 112 teachers scored an overall mean of 2.9. This indicates they felt

somewhat [3] supported by their school in learning about, discussing, and confronting race,

ethnicity, and cultural issues in relation to promoting a culturally responsive/inclusive school

environment. Specifically, 39 teachers with 0 – 3 years of teaching experience had an overall

mean of 2.8; 25 teachers with 4 – 6 years of teaching experience had an overall mean of 2.9; 15

teachers with 7 – 9 years of teaching experience had an overall mean of 2.9; 32 teachers with ten

or more years of teaching experience had an overall mean of 3.1. There was a participant who

did not specify years at the current school. So, the data was categorized as "Other". The overall

mean for "Other" was 3.8. The information reported as "Other" was calculated in the overall

mean. The years of teaching experience at their current campus reflected a belief of being

120

between somewhat [3] and [4] quite supported by their school in learning about, discussing, and

confronting race, ethnicity, and cultural issues in relation to promoting a culturally

responsive/inclusive school environment.

Table A10 (See Appendix A) illustrates the gender of the teachers in this study and their

belief in the support received from their school in learning about, discussing, and confronting

race, ethnicity, and cultural issues in relation to promoting a culturally responsive/inclusive

school environment. The 111 male and female teachers scored an overall mean of 2.9. This

indicates they felt somewhat [3] supported by their school in learning about, discussing, and

confronting race, ethnicity, and cultural issues in relation to promoting a culturally

responsive/inclusive school environment. Specifically, 28 male teachers had an overall mean of

3.2, and 83 female teachers had an overall mean of 2.9.

Table A11 (See Appendix A) illustrates the ethnicity of the study participants and their

belief in the support received from their school in learning about, discussing, and confronting

race, ethnicity, and cultural issues in relation to promoting a culturally responsive/inclusive

school environment. The 111 teachers scored an overall mean of 2.9. This indicates they felt

somewhat [3] supported by their school in learning about, discussing, and confronting race,

ethnicity, and cultural issues in relation to promoting a culturally responsive/inclusive school

environment. Specifically, two American Indian or Alaska Native teachers had an overall mean

of 2.8; four African American or Black teachers had an overall mean of 2.1; and 105 White

teachers had an overall mean of 3.0. There were no Asian and Native Hawaiian, or Other Pacific

Islander teachers in the study participants.

The data in Table A12 (See Appendix A) signifies where the Christian private schools are

located. There were 20 states represented in this study. Table A12 identifies each state by its

121

two-letter abbreviation. Two teachers indicated responses that did not align with a specific state;

therefore, their responses are listed under "Other". The 112 teachers scored an overall mean of

2.9. This indicates they felt somewhat [3] supported by their school in learning about, discussing,

and confronting race, ethnicity, and cultural issues in relation to promoting a culturally

responsive/inclusive school environment. Specifically, 6 teachers in Arizona had an overall mean

of 2.9; 19 teachers in California had an overall mean of 3.1; 11 teachers in Florida had an overall

mean of 2.6; 8 teachers in Georgia had an overall mean of 3.1; 9 teachers in Illinois had an

overall mean of 3.0; 2 teachers in Iowa had an overall mean of 3.2; one teacher in Kentucky had

an overall mean of 4; 34 teachers in Michigan had an overall mean of 2.9; one teacher in

Maryland had an overall mean of 3.5; two teachers in Minnesota had an overall mean of 4.4; one

teacher in Montana had an overall mean of 3.5; one teacher in North Dakota had an overall mean

of 3.3; four teachers in New Jersey had an overall mean of 3.1; one teacher in Oregon had an

overall mean of 4.0; one teacher in South Carolina had an overall mean of 2.6; one teacher in

South Dakota had an overall mean of 2.1; three teachers in Texas had an overall mean of 2.5; one

teacher in Virginia had an overall mean of 2.5; two teachers in Wisconsin had an overall mean of

3.3; two teachers in Washington had an overall mean of 2.3; and two teachers that did not list a

specific state had an overall mean of 1.9. The information reported as "Other" was calculated in

the overall mean.

Demographic Data for Component Four of the CRSL Model. The data from Table

A13 (See Appendix A) illustrates the association of years taught at the current school and the

belief in the support received from their school in learning about, discussing, and confronting

race, ethnicity, and cultural issues in relation to engaging students, parents, and indigenous

contexts. The 112 teachers scored an overall mean of 2.8. This indicates they felt somewhat [3]

122

supported by their school in learning about, discussing, and confronting race, ethnicity, and

cultural issues in relation to engaging with students, parents, and indigenous contexts.

Specifically, 39 teachers with 0 – 3 years of teaching experience had an overall mean of 2.6; 25

teachers with 4 – 6 years of teaching experience had an overall mean of 2.9; 15 teachers with 7 –

9 years of teaching experience had an overall mean of 2.7; 32 teachers with ten or more years of

teaching experience had an overall mean of 3.0. There was a participant who did not specify

years at the current school. So, the data was categorized as "Other". The overall mean for

"Other" was 3.2. The information reported as "Other" was calculated in the overall mean. The

years of teaching experience at their current campus reflected a belief of being somewhat [3]

supported by their school in learning about, discussing, and confronting race, ethnicity, and

cultural issues in relation to engaging students, parents, and indigenous contexts.

Table A14 (See Appendix A) illustrates the gender of the teachers represented in this

study and their belief in the support received from their school in learning about, discussing, and

confronting race, ethnicity, and cultural issues in relation to engaging students, parents, and

indigenous contexts. The 111 male and female teachers scored an overall mean of 2.8. This

indicates they felt somewhat [3] supported by their school in learning about, discussing, and

confronting race, ethnicity, and cultural issues in relation to engaging with students, parents, and

indigenous contexts. Specifically, 28 male teachers had an overall mean of 3.2, and 83 female

teachers had an overall mean of 2.7.

Table A15 (See Appendix A) illustrates the ethnicity of the study participants and their

belief in the support received from their school in learning about, discussing, and confronting

race, ethnicity, and cultural issues in relation to engaging students, parents, and indigenous

contexts. The 111 teachers scored an overall mean of 2.8. This indicates they felt somewhat [3]

123

supported by their school in learning about, discussing, and confronting race, ethnicity, and

cultural issues in relation to engaging students, parents, and indigenous contexts. Specifically,

two American Indian or Alaska Native teachers had an overall mean of 3.2; four African

American or Black teachers had an overall mean of 1.6; and 105 White teachers had an overall

mean of 2.9. There were no Asian and Native Hawaiian, or Other Pacific Islander teachers in the

study participants.

The data in Table A16 (See Appendix A) signifies where the Christian private schools are

located. There were 20 states represented in this study. Table A16 identifies each state by its

two-letter abbreviation. Two teachers indicated responses that did not align with a specific state;

therefore, their responses are listed under "Other". The 112 teachers scored an overall mean of

2.8. This indicates they felt somewhat [3] supported by their school in learning about, discussing,

and confronting race, ethnicity, and cultural issues in relation to engaging students, parents, and

indigenous contexts. Specifically, 6 teachers in Arizona had an overall mean of 2.5; 19 teachers

in California had an overall mean of 2.8; 11 teachers in Florida had an overall mean of 2.7; 8

teachers in Georgia had an overall mean of 3.2; 9 teachers in Illinois had an overall mean of 2.3;

2 teachers in Iowa had an overall mean of 2.7; one teacher in Kentucky had an overall mean of

3.5; 34 teachers in Michigan had an overall mean of 2.8; one teacher in Maryland had an overall

mean of 3.2; two teachers in Minnesota had an overall mean of 4.1; one teacher in Montana had

an overall mean of 3.2; one teacher in North Dakota had an overall mean of 3.5; four teachers in

New Jersey had an overall mean of 3.2; one teacher in Oregon had an overall mean of 4.0; one

teacher in South Carolina had an overall mean of 3; one teacher in South Dakota had an overall

mean of 2; three teachers in Texas had an overall mean of 3.4; one teacher in Virginia had an

overall mean of 2.2; two teachers in Wisconsin had an overall mean of 3; two teachers in

124

Washington had an overall mean of 2.6; and two teachers that did not list a specific state had an

overall mean of 3.1. The information reported as "Other" was calculated in the overall mean.

Research Question Two

RQ2. What relationship, if any, exists between the culturally responsive school

leadership development model and teacher readiness for educating all students?

The relationship between the CRSL model or framework and teacher readiness for

educating all students was examined using participants scores generated by Qualtrics from the

Culturally Responsive Christian School Leadership Survey. The teacher’s readiness for

educating all students was measured by 112 participants’ answers to the 9 questions (i.e., #s 17-

25), which are listed under the Educating All Students section of the CRCSL Survey (see Table

18). Table 19 shows the way this set of 9 questions can be organized to reflect the structure of

the 4 components of the CRSL model. Pearson’s chi-square analyses were used to determine if

there was statistical significance (see Tables 24-29). Descriptive statistics, including means,

percentages, and standard deviations, were also used to distinguish the extent of the relationship

(See Table 18).

Table 18

Descriptive Statistics for Teacher Readiness for Educating All Students

Question

How easy do you

find interacting with

students at your

school who are from

a different cultural

background than

your own?

4.2

0.9

112

125

18 How comfortable

would you be in

incorporating new

material about

people from different

backgrounds into

your curriculum?

4.0 0.9 112

How knowledgeable

are you regarding

where to find

resources for

working with

students who have

unique learning

needs?

3.4

1.1

112

If students from

different

backgrounds

struggled to get

along in your class,

how comfortable

would you be

intervening?

4.0

0.8

112

21 How easy would it

be for you to teach a

class with groups of

students from very

different religions

from each other?

3.3 1.1 112

In response to events

that might be

occurring in the

world, how

comfortable would

you be having

conversations about

race with your

students?

3.6

0.9

112

How easily do you

think you could

make a particularly

4.2

0.7

112

126

overweight student

feel like a part of the

class?

How comfortable

would you be having

a student who could

not communicate

well with anyone in

class because of

his/her home

language was

unique?

3.6

1.0

112

When a sensitive

issue of diversity

arises in class, how

easily can you think

of strategies to

address the

situation?

3.6

0.8

112

Overall Mean

3.8

The data obtained from study participants in their responses to survey questions 17-25

revealed an overall mean of 3.8 (see Table 18). These questions used a five-point Likert scale.

The Likert scale options were: [1] – not at all; [2] – slightly; [3] – somewhat; [4] – quite; [5] –

extremely. The Likert scale was used to capture the participants' opinions, attitudes, behaviors,

and experiences (Leedy & Ormrod, 2019).

The survey questions were defined using the CRSL framework (Khalifa et al., 2016). As

mentioned earlier, the four components of the Culturally Responsive School Leadership model

are critically self-reflects on leadership behaviors, develops culturally responsive teachers,

promotes culturally responsive/inclusive school environments, and engages students, parents,

and indigenous contexts (Khalifa et al., 2016). The specific questions from the survey defined by

each component of the CRSL framework are outlined in Table 19.

127

Table 19

Components of the Culturally Responsive School Leadership Development

Model and Teacher Readiness to Educate All Students

Critically self-

reflects on

leadership

behaviors

Develops

culturally

responsive

teachers

Promotes culturally

responsive/inclusive

school

environments

Engages

students,

parents, and

Indigenous

contexts

How easy do

you find

interacting with

students at your

school who are

from a different

cultural

background than

your own?

How

comfortable

would you be in

incorporating

new material

about people

from different

backgrounds

into your

curriculum?

If students from

different

backgrounds

struggled to get

along in your class,

how comfortable

would you be

intervening?

In response to

events that might

be occurring in

the world, how

comfortable

would you be

having

conversations

about race with

your students?

How

comfortable

would you be

having a student

who could not

communicate

well with anyone

in class because

of his/her home

language was

unique?

How easy would

it be for you to

teach a class

with groups of

students from

very different

religions from

each other?

How easily do you

think you could

make a particularly

overweight student

feel like a part of

the class?

How

knowledgeable

are you

regarding where

to find resources

for working with

students who

have unique

learning needs?

128

When a sensitive

issue of diversity

arises in class,

how easily can

you think of

strategies to

address the

situation?

The data disclosed that most study participants believed they were quite ready to educate

all students [4]. Specifically, 42.4% of teachers felt confident in their readiness to educate all

students in relation to being critically self-reflective (See Table 20). Table 21 highlighted that

39% of teachers believed they were very ready to educate all students with regard to being

developed as a culturally responsive teacher. Most teachers responded as quite confident [4] in

their ability to promote a culturally responsive/inclusive school environment (See Table 22).

Component three of the CRSL model showed that 47.3% of teachers felt very prepared to

promote a culturally responsive and inclusive school environment. The fourth component of the

CRSL model emphasized the engagement of students, parents, and those of indigenous contexts.

The study participants responded similarly to the previous components of the CRSL model. Most

teachers believed they were equipped to educate all students regarding engaging the school

community and those of indigenous contexts (See Table 23). Exactly 36.2% of teachers selected

quite [4] confident in their teacher readiness to educate all students in relation to engaging

students, parents, and indigenous contexts.

129

Table 20

Responses to Component 1 of the CRSL Model: Critically Self-Reflect on Leadership Behaviors

Question

Number

Question [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Total

17 How easy do

you find

interacting

with students

at your school

who are from a

different

cultural

background

than your own?

2.7%

(N = 3)

2.7%

(N = 3)

5.4%

(N = 6)

50%

(N = 56)

39.3%

(N = 44)

112

24 How

comfortable

would you be

having a

student who

could not

communicate

well with

anyone in class

because of

his/her home

language was

unique?

3.6%

(N = 4)

8.9%

(N = 10)

33%

(N = 37)

34.8%

(N = 39)

19.6%

(N = 22)

112

Total 3.1%

(N = 7)

5.8%

(N = 13)

19.2%

(N = 43)

42.4%

(N = 95)

29.4%

(N = 66)

130

Table 21

Responses to Component 2 of the CRSL Model: Develops Culturally Responsive Teachers

Question

Number

Question [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Total

18 How

comfortable

would you be

incorporating

new material

about people

from

different

backgrounds

into your

curriculum?

2.7%

(N = 3)

(N = 0)

21.4%

(N = 24)

48.2%

(N = 54)

27.7%

(N = 31)

112

21 How easy

would it be

for you to

teach a class

with groups

of students

from very

different

religions

from each

other?

8.0%

(N = 9)

14.3%

(N = 16)

34.8%

(N = 39)

26.8%

(N = 30)

16.1%

(N = 18)

112

25 When a

sensitive

issue of

diversity

arises in

class, how

easily can

you think of

strategies to

address the

situation?

0.9%

(N = 1)

5.4%

(N = 6)

40.2%

(N = 45)

42.0%

(N = 47)

11.6%

(N = 13)

112

Total 3.8%

(N = 13)

6.6%

(N = 22)

32.1%

(N = 108)

39%

(N = 131)

18.5%

(N = 62)

131

Table 22

Responses to Component 3 of the CRSL Model: Promotes Culturally Responsive/Inclusive

School Environment

Question

Number

Question [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Total

20 If students

from different

backgrounds

struggled to

get along in

your class,

how

comfortable

would you be

intervening?

0.9%

(N = 1)

1.8%

(N = 2)

24.1%

(N = 27)

47.3%

(N = 53)

25.9%

(N = 29)

112

23 How easily do

you think you

could make a

particularly

overweight

student feel

like a part of

the class?

(N = 0)

0.9%

(N = 1)

15.2%

(N = 17)

47.3%

(N = 53)

36.6%

(N = 41)

112

Total .45%

(N = 1)

1.4%

(N = 3)

19.6%

(N = 44)

47.3%

(N = 106)

31.3%

(N = 70)

132

Table 23

Responses to Component 4 of the CRSL Model: Engages Students, Parents, and Indigenous

Contexts

Question

Number

Question [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Total

19 How

knowledgeable

are you

regarding

where to find

resources for

working with

students who

have unique

learning needs?

5.4%

(N = 6)

13.4%

(N = 15)

35.7%

(N = 40)

29.5%

(N = 33)

16.2%

(N = 18)

112

22 In response to

events that

might be

occurring in

the world, how

comfortable

would you be

having

conversations

about race with

your students?

2.7%

(N = 3)

5.4%

(N = 6)

34.8%

(N = 39)

42.9%

(N = 48)

14.3%

(N =16)

112

Total 4%

(N = 9)

9.4%

(N = 21)

35.2%

(N = 79)

36.2%

(N = 81)

15.2%

(N = 34)

Correlational Analyses

This research study utilized Pearson’s chi-square tests to determine whether a

relationship exists between the nine questions that represent both the CRSL model and teachers’

readiness for educating all students (See Tables 24-29). Chi-square tests were used because

survey responses are classified as categorical data (Biswal, 2023).

133

Table 24

Chi-Square Test for Questions 17 and 24

(Component 1 of CRSL)

P Value 0.0115

Effect Size (Cramér’s V) 0.265

Sample Size 112

There is a statistically significant relationship, p = 0.0115, between teachers’ ease in

interacting with students at their schools who are from a different cultural background than their

own and their comfortability with having a student who could not communicate well with

anyone in class because his/her home language is unique.

Table 25

Chi-Square Test for Questions 18 and 21

(Component 2 of CRSL)

P Value 0.214

Effect Size (Cramér’s V) 0.215

Sample Size 112

There is no statistically significant relationship, p = 0.214, between the comfortability of

incorporating new material about people from different backgrounds into the curriculum and the

ease of teaching a class with groups of students from very different religions from each other.

134

Table 26

Chi-Square Test for Questions 18 and 25

(Component 2 of CRSL)

P Value < 0.00001

Effect Size (Cramér’s V) 0.376

Sample Size 112

There is a strong statistically significant relationship, p = 0.00001, between the

comfortability of incorporating new material about people from different backgrounds into the

curriculum and easily thinking of strategies to address sensitive issues of diversity that may arise

in class.

Table 27

Chi-Square Test for Questions 21 and 25

(Component 2 of CRSL)

P Value 0.00385

Effect Size (Cramér’s V) 0.280

Sample Size 112

There is a statistically significant relationship, p = 0.00385, between the ease of teaching

a class with groups of students from very different religions from each other and easily thinking

of strategies to address sensitive issues of diversity that may arise in class.

135

Table 28

Chi-Square Test for Questions 20 and 23

(Component 3 of CRSL)

P Value 0.114

Effect Size (Cramér’s V) 0.232

Sample Size 112

There is no statistically significant relationship, p = 0.114, between the comfortability to

intervene if students from different backgrounds struggle to get along and the ease to make a

particularly overweight student feel like a part of the class.

Table 29

Chi-Square Test for Questions 19 and 22

(Component 4 of CRSL)

P Value 0.00503

Effect Size (Cramér’s V) 0.276

Sample Size 112

There is a statistically significant relationship, p = 0.00503, between being

knowledgeable about where to find resources for working with students who have unique

learning needs and comfortability with having conversations about race with their students in

response to events that might occur in the world.

Demographic Data for Component One of the CRSL Model. The data from Table B1

(See Appendix B) illustrates the association of years taught at the current school and the

teachers’ belief of their critical self-reflection regarding readiness to educate all students. The

136

112 teachers scored an overall mean of 3.9. This indicates they felt quite [4] critically self-

reflective pertaining to being ready to educate all students. Specifically, 39 teachers with 0 – 3

years of teaching experience had an overall mean of 3.8; 25 teachers with 4 – 6 years of teaching

experience had an overall mean of 3.7; 15 teachers with 7 – 9 years of teaching experience had

an overall mean of 4; 32 teachers with ten or more years of teaching experience had an overall

mean of 4. There was a participant who did not specify years at the current school. So, the data

was categorized as “Other”. The overall mean for “Other” was 3.5. The information reported as

“Other” was calculated in the overall mean, and the years of teaching experience at their current

campus reflected a belief in being between somewhat [3] and quite [4] critically self-reflective

regarding teacher readiness to educate all students.

Table B2 (See Appendix B) illustrates the gender of the teachers represented in this study

and the belief in their critical self-reflection in relation to teacher readiness to educate all

students. The 111 male and female teachers scored an overall mean of 3.9. This indicates they

felt quite confident [4] in their critical self-reflection regarding educating all students.

Specifically, the male and female teachers had the same mean as the overall mean of 3.9.

Table B3 (See Appendix B) illustrates the ethnicity of the study participants and their

belief in their critical self-reflection in relation to teacher readiness to educate all students. The

111 teachers scored an overall mean of 3.9. This indicates they felt quite [4] critically self-

reflective as it relates to being ready to educate all students. Specifically, two American Indian or

Alaska Native teachers had an overall mean of 3.5; four African American or Black teachers had

an overall mean of 4.1; and 105 White teachers had an overall mean of 3.9. There were no Asian

and Native Hawaiian, or Other Pacific Islander teachers in the study participants.

137

The data in Table B4 (See Appendix B) signifies where the Christian private schools are

located. There were 20 states represented in this study. Table B4 identifies each state by its two-

letter abbreviation. There were two teachers who indicated responses that did not align with a

specific state; therefore, their responses are listed under “Other”. The 112 teachers scored an

overall mean of 3.9. This indicates they felt quite [4] critically self-reflective about being ready

to educate all students. Specifically, 6 teachers in Arizona had an overall mean of 4; 19 teachers

in California had an overall mean of 3.8; 11 teachers in Florida had an overall mean of 4.2; 8

teachers in Georgia had an overall mean of 3.9; 9 teachers in Illinois had an overall mean of 3.8;

2 teachers in Iowa had an overall mean of 4; one teacher in Kentucky had an overall mean of 4;

34 teachers in Michigan had an overall mean of 3.9; one teacher in Maryland had an overall

mean of 3.5; two teachers in Minnesota had an overall mean of 3.7; one teacher in Montana had

an overall mean of 2; one teacher in North Dakota had an overall mean of 4; four teachers in

New Jersey had an overall mean of 3.7; one teacher in Oregon had an overall mean of 5; one

teacher in South Carolina had an overall mean of 2.5; one teacher in South Dakota had an overall

mean of 4; three teachers in Texas had an overall mean of 4.3; one teacher in Virginia had an

overall mean of 4; two teachers in Wisconsin had an overall mean of 4.2; two teachers in

Washington had an overall mean of 4; and two teachers that did not list a specific state had an

overall mean of 2. The information reported as “Other” was calculated in the overall mean.

Demographic Data for Component Two of the CRSL Model. The data from Table B5

(See Appendix B) illustrates the association of years taught at the current school and the

teachers’ belief of their development as a culturally responsive teacher in relation to teacher

readiness to educate all students. The 112 teachers scored an overall mean of 3.6. This indicates

they felt quite prepared [4] in their development as a culturally responsive teacher about being

138

ready to educate all students. Specifically, 39 teachers with 0 – 3 years of teaching experience

had an overall mean of 3.6; 25 teachers with 4 – 6 years of teaching experience had an overall

mean of 3.6; 15 teachers with 7 – 9 years of teaching experience had an overall mean of 3.6; 32

teachers with ten or more years of teaching experience had an overall mean of 3.6. There was a

participant who did not specify years at the current school. So, the data was categorized as

“Other”. The overall mean for “Other” was 3.6. The information reported as “Other” was

calculated in the overall mean, and the years of teaching experience at their current campus

reflected a belief in being between somewhat prepared [3] and prepared [4] in their development

as culturally responsive teachers about being ready to educate all students.

Table B6 (See Appendix B) illustrates the gender of the teachers represented in this study

and the belief in their development as a culturally responsive teacher about being ready to

educate all students. The 111 male and female teachers scored an overall mean of 3.6. This

indicates they felt quite confident [4] in their development as culturally responsive teachers

regarding educating all students. Specifically, 28 male teachers had an overall mean of 3.7, and

83 female teachers had an overall mean of 3.6.

Table B7 (See Appendix B) illustrates the ethnicity of the study participants and their

belief in their development as culturally responsive teachers regarding teacher readiness to

educate all students. The 111 teachers scored an overall mean of 3.6. This indicates they felt

quite [4] developed as a culturally responsive teacher as it relates to being ready to educate all

students. Specifically, two American Indian or Alaska Native teachers had an overall mean of 4;

four African American or Black teachers had an overall mean of 3.7; and 105 White teachers had

an overall mean of 3.6. There were no Asian and Native Hawaiian, or Other Pacific Islander

teachers in the study participants.

139

The data in Table B8 (See Appendix B) signifies where the Christian private schools are

located. There were 20 states represented in this study. Table B8 identifies each state by its two-

letter abbreviation. Two teachers indicated responses that did not align with a specific state;

therefore, their responses are listed under “Other”. The 112 teachers scored an overall mean of

3.6. This indicates they felt quite [4] developed as a culturally responsive teacher about being

ready to educate all students. Specifically, 6 teachers in Arizona had an overall mean of 4.3; 19

teachers in California had an overall mean of 3.6; 11 teachers in Florida had an overall mean of

3.8; 8 teachers in Georgia had an overall mean of 3.5; 9 teachers in Illinois had an overall mean

of 3.5; 2 teachers in Iowa had an overall mean of 3.5; one teacher in Kentucky had an overall

mean of 3.3; 34 teachers in Michigan had an overall mean of 3.4; one teacher in Maryland had an

overall mean of 3.6; two teachers in Minnesota had an overall mean of 3.8; one teacher in

Montana had an overall mean of 2.6; one teacher in North Dakota had an overall mean of 3.6;

four teachers in New Jersey had an overall mean of 3.3; one teacher in Oregon had an overall

mean of 4.3; one teacher in South Carolina had an overall mean of 3; one teacher in South

Dakota had an overall mean of 3.3; three teachers in Texas had an overall mean of 4.3; one

teacher in Virginia had an overall mean of 3.6; two teachers in Wisconsin had an overall mean of

3.8; two teachers in Washington had an overall mean of 3.8; and two teachers that did not list a

specific state had an overall mean of 2.6. The information reported as “Other” was calculated in

the overall mean.

Demographic Data for Component Three of the CRSL Model. The data from Table

B9 (See Appendix B) illustrates the association of years taught at the current school and the

teachers’ belief of their development as culturally responsive teachers in relation to teacher

readiness to educate all students. The 112 teachers scored an overall mean of 4.1. This indicates

140

they felt quite [4] equipped to promote a culturally responsive/inclusive school environment

related to being ready to educate all students. Specifically, 39 teachers with 0 – 3 years of

teaching experience had an overall mean of 4.1; 25 teachers with 4 – 6 years of teaching

experience had an overall mean of 3.9; 15 teachers with 7 – 9 years of teaching experience had

an overall mean of 4; 32 teachers with ten or more years of teaching experience had an overall

mean of 4.2. There was a participant who did not specify years at the current school. So, the data

was categorized as “Other”. The overall mean for “Other” was 4.5. The information reported as

“Other” was calculated in the overall mean. The years of teaching experience at their current

campus reflected a belief of being between prepared [4] and extremely prepared [5] to promote a

culturally responsive/inclusive school environment regarding readiness to educate all students.

Table B10 (See Appendix B) illustrates the gender of the teachers in this study and their

belief in promoting a culturally responsive/inclusive school environment in relation to readiness

to educate all students. The 111 male and female teachers scored an overall mean of 4.1. This

indicates they felt quite [4] ready to promote a culturally responsive/inclusive school

environment regarding teacher readiness to educate all students. Specifically, 28 male teachers

had an overall mean of 4.1, and 83 female teachers had an overall mean of 4.

Table B11 (See Appendix B) illustrates the ethnicity of the study participants and their

belief in promoting a culturally responsive/inclusive school environment about teacher readiness

to educate all students. The 111 teachers scored an overall mean of 4.1. This indicates they felt

quite [4] prepared to promote a culturally responsive/inclusive school environment related to

being ready to educate all students. Specifically, two American Indian or Alaska Native teachers

had an overall mean of 4.7; four African American or Black teachers had an overall mean of 4.1;

141

and 105 White teachers had an overall mean of 4.0. There were no Asian and Native Hawaiian,

or Other Pacific Islander teachers in the study participants.

The data in Table B12 (See Appendix B) signifies where the Christian private schools are

located. There were 20 states represented in this study. Table B12 identifies each state by its two-

letter abbreviation. Two teachers indicated responses that did not align with a specific state;

therefore, their responses are listed under “Other”. The 112 teachers scored an overall mean of

4.1. This indicates they felt quite [4] equipped to promote a culturally responsive/inclusive

school environment related to being ready to educate all students. Specifically, 6 teachers in

Arizona had an overall mean of 4.5; 19 teachers in California had an overall mean of 4; 11

teachers in Florida had an overall mean of 4; 8 teachers in Georgia had an overall mean of 4; 9

teachers in Illinois had an overall mean of 3.9; 2 teachers in Iowa had an overall mean of 4.2;

one teacher in Kentucky had an overall mean of 4.5; 34 teachers in Michigan had an overall

mean of 4.1; one teacher in Maryland had an overall mean of 4; two teachers in Minnesota had

an overall mean of 4.4; one teacher in Montana had an overall mean of 3.5; one teacher in North

Dakota had an overall mean of 4; four teachers in New Jersey had an overall mean of 3.8; one

teacher in Oregon had an overall mean of 5; one teacher in South Carolina had an overall mean

of 4; one teacher in South Dakota had an overall mean of 4; three teachers in Texas had an

overall mean of 4.5; one teacher in Virginia had an overall mean of 3.5; two teachers in

Wisconsin had an overall mean of 3.7; two teachers in Washington had an overall mean of 3.7;

and two teachers that did not list a specific state had an overall mean of 4.2. The information

reported as “Other” was calculated in the overall mean.

Demographic Data for Component Four of the CRSL Model. The data from Table

B13 (See Appendix B) illustrates the association of years taught at the current school and the

142

belief in engaging students, parents, and indigenous contexts with teacher readiness to educate

all students. The 112 teachers scored an overall mean of 3.5. This indicates they felt somewhat

[3] or quite engaged with students, parents, and indigenous contexts pertaining to being ready to

educate all students. Specifically, 39 teachers with 0 – 3 years of teaching experience had an

overall mean of 3.4; 25 teachers with 4 – 6 years of teaching experience had an overall mean of

3.2; 15 teachers with 7 – 9 years of teaching experience had an overall mean of 3.3; 32 teachers

with ten or more years of teaching experience had an overall mean of 3.8. There was a

participant who did not specify years at the current school. So, the data was categorized as

“Other”. The overall mean for “Other” was 4. The information reported as “Other” was

calculated in the overall mean. The years of teaching experience at their current campus reflected

a belief of being quite [4] engaged with students, parents, and indigenous contexts regarding

teacher readiness to educate all students.

Table B14 (See Appendix B) illustrates the gender of the teachers in this study and their

belief in engaging students, parents, and indigenous contexts about teacher readiness to educate

all students. The 111 male and female teachers scored an overall mean of 3.5. This indicates they

felt somewhat [3] engaged or quite [4] engaged with students, parents, and indigenous contexts

regarding teacher readiness to educate all students. Specifically, 28 male teachers had an overall

mean of 3.6, and 83 female teachers had an overall mean of 3.4.

Table B15 (See Appendix B) illustrates the ethnicity of the study participants and their

belief in engaging students, parents, and indigenous contexts concerning teacher readiness to

educate all students. The 111 teachers scored an overall mean of 3.5. This indicates they felt

somewhat [3] engaged or quite [4] engaged with students, parents, and indigenous contexts

regarding teacher readiness for educating all students. Specifically, two American Indian or

143

Alaska Native teachers had an overall mean of 4; four African American or Black teachers had

an overall mean of 3.5; and 105 White teachers had an overall mean of 3.5. There were no Asian

and Native Hawaiian, or Other Pacific Islander teachers in the study participants.

The data in Table B16 (See Appendix B) signifies where the Christian private schools are

located. There were 20 states represented in this study. Table B16 identifies each state by its two-

letter abbreviation. Two teachers indicated responses that did not align with a specific state;

therefore, their responses are listed under “Other”. The 112 teachers scored an overall mean of

3.5. This indicates they felt somewhat [3] or quite [4] engaged with students, parents, and

indigenous contexts regarding teacher readiness for educating all students. Specifically, 6

teachers in Arizona had an overall mean of 4.2; 19 teachers in California had an overall mean of

3.7; 11 teachers in Florida had an overall mean of 3.7; 8 teachers in Georgia had an overall mean

of 3.3; 9 teachers in Illinois had an overall mean of 3.2; 2 teachers in Iowa had an overall mean

of 2.7; one teacher in Kentucky had an overall mean of 4; 34 teachers in Michigan had an overall

mean of 3.3; one teacher in Maryland had an overall mean of 4; two teachers in Minnesota had

an overall mean of 3.5; one teacher in Montana had an overall mean of 2; one teacher in North

Dakota had an overall mean of 3; four teachers in New Jersey had an overall mean of 2.9; one

teacher in Oregon had an overall mean of 4.5; one teacher in South Carolina had an overall mean

of 3.5; one teacher in South Dakota had an overall mean of 3.5; three teachers in Texas had an

overall mean of 4.1; one teacher in Virginia had an overall mean of 3; two teachers in Wisconsin

had an overall mean of 4.2; two teachers in Washington had an overall mean of 3.5; and two

teachers that did not list a specific state had an overall mean of 2.5. The information reported as

“Other” was calculated in the overall mean.

144

Research Question Three

RQ3. What relationship, if any, exists between the culturally responsive school

leadership development model and equity-focused professional learning opportunities?

The relationship between the CRSL model and equity-focused professional learning

opportunities were examine using participants scores generated by Qualtrics from the Culturally

Responsive Christian School Leadership Survey. The teacher’s equity-focused professional

learning opportunities response was measured by 112 participants’ answers to the last 4

questions on the survey (i.e., #s 26-29), which are listed under the Professional Learning About

Equity section of the CRCSL Survey (see Table 30). Table 31 shows that these 4 questions are

categorized as being logically associated with the second component of the CRSL model, which

is labeled as “develops culturally responsive teachers” in Table 31. After examining the

summary data (i.e., Table 32) yielded from the 112 participants on these 4 questions, it seemed

clear to this researcher that the information yielded by Chi-square data on pairs of questions that

are associated with component 2 of the CRSL model certainly could determine whether these

teachers’ equity-focused professional learning opportunities responses could be significantly

related to the CRSL framework (See Tables 33-34); thus, Pearson's chi-square analyses were

used.

Table 30

Descriptive Statistics for Equity-Focused Professional Learning Opportunities

Question

At your school, how

valuable are the

equity-focused

professional

2.6

1.1

112

145

development

opportunities?

When it comes to

promoting culturally

responsive practices,

how helpful are your

colleagues' ideas for

improving your

practice?

2.8

1.1

112

How often do

professional

development

opportunities help

you explore new

ways to promote

equity in your

practice?

2.4

1.0

112

Overall, how

effective has your

school

administration been

in helping you

advance student

equity?

2.8

1.1

112

Overall Mean

2.6

The data obtained from study participants in their responses to survey questions 26-29

disclosed an overall mean of 2.6 (see Table 30). These questions used a five-point Likert scale.

The Likert scale options were: [1] –not at all; [2] –slightly; [3] –somewhat; [4] –quite; [5] –

extremely. The Likert scale captured the participants' opinions, attitudes, behaviors, and

experiences (Leedy & Ormrod, 2019).

The survey questions were defined using the CRSL framework (Khalifa et al., 2016). As

previously shared, the four components of the Culturally Responsive School Leadership model

146

are critically self-reflects on leadership behaviors, developing culturally responsive teachers,

promoting culturally responsive/inclusive school environments, and engaging students, parents,

and indigenous contexts (Khalifa et al., 2016). The specific questions from the survey defined by

each component of the CRSL framework are outlined Table 31.

Table 31

Components of the Culturally Responsive School Leadership Development

Model and Equity-Focused Professional Learning Opportunities

Critically self-

reflects on

leadership

behaviors

Develops

culturally

responsive

teachers

Promotes culturally

responsive/inclusive

school

environments

Engages

students,

parents, and

Indigenous

contexts

At your school,

how valuable are

the equity-

focused

professional

development

opportunities?

When it comes

to promoting

culturally

responsive

practices, how

helpful are your

colleagues' ideas

for improving

your practice?

147

How often do

professional

development

opportunities

help you explore

new ways to

promote equity

in your practice?

Overall, how

effective has

your school

administration

been in helping

you advance

student equity?

The data disclosed that most study participants believed they were slightly [2] or

somewhat [3] equipped through equity-focused professional learning opportunities. Specifically,

Table 32 highlighted that 25.9% of teachers felt slightly [2] prepared and 34.2% of teachers

believed they were somewhat [3] prepared through equity-focused professional learning

opportunities with regard to being developed as a culturally responsive teacher. This portion of

the survey did not have any questions that addressed the other three components of the CRSL

model.

Table 32

Responses to Component 2 of the CRSL Model: Develops Culturally Responsive Teachers

Question

Number

Question [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Total

26 At your

school, how

valuable are

the equity-

focused

professional

22.3%

(N = 25)

23.2%

(N = 26)

32.1%

(N = 36)

19.6%

(N = 22)

2.7%

(N = 3)

112

148

development

opportunities?

27 When it

comes to

promoting

culturally

responsive

practices, how

helpful are

your

colleagues'

ideas for

improving

your practice?

14.3%

(N = 16)

23.2%

(N = 26)

34.8%

(N = 39)

22.3%

(N = 25)

5.4%

(N = 6)

112

28 How often do

professional

development

opportunities

help you

explore new

ways to

promote

equity in your

practice?

23.2%

(N = 26)

31.3%

(N = 35)

33.9%

(N = 38)

9.8%

(N = 11)

1.8%

(N = 2)

112

29 Overall, how

effective has

your school

administration

been in

helping you

advance

student

equity?

12.5%

(N = 14)

25.9%

(N = 29)

35.7%

(N = 40)

17.9%

(N = 20)

(N = 9)

112

Total 18%

(N = 81)

25.9%

(N = 116)

34.2%

(N = 153)

17.4%

(N = 78)

4.4%

(N = 20)

Correlational Analyses

The data analysis method recommended by Creswell and Creswell (2018) as well as by

Biswal (2023) also was chosen for the third research questions analysis. The identification of

significant statistical correlations that emerge between the individual questions that are only part

of the measurement of the broader labeled concepts and variables within this research may yield

149

valuable information that could stimulate future research and/or interest in this type of

categorical data collection.

Two Chi-square tests of teacher responses to the questions that are associated with

component 2 of the CRSL model are reported next. The Pearson Chi-square probability values

are shown in Tables 33 and 34.

Table 33

Chi-Square Test for Questions 26 and 27

(Component 2 of CRSL)

P Value < 0.00001

Effect Size (Cramér’s V) 0.414

Sample Size 112

There is a strong statistically significant relationship, p = 0.00001, between how valuable

teachers believe the equity-focused professional development opportunities are and how helpful

they believe their colleagues’ ideas are for improving their culturally responsive practices.

Table 34

Chi-Square Test for Questions 28 and 29

(Component 2 of CRSL)

P Value < 0.00001

Effect Size (Cramér’s V) 0.542

Sample Size 112

There is a strong statistically significant relationship, p = 0.00001, between the frequency

of professional development opportunities helping teachers explore new ways to promote equity

150

in their practices and the effectiveness of the school administration in helping them advance

student equity.

Demographic Data for Component Two of the CRSL Model. The data from Table C1

(See Appendix C) illustrates the association of years taught at the current school and the

teachers’ belief in their critical self-reflection regarding readiness to educate all students. The

112 teachers scored an overall mean of 2.6. This indicates they felt slightly [2] or somewhat [3]

prepared in their development as a culturally responsive teacher through equity-focused

professional learning opportunities. Specifically, 39 teachers with 0 – 3 years of teaching

experience had an overall mean of 2.6; 25 teachers with 4 – 6 years of teaching experience had

an overall mean of 2.96; 15 teachers with 7 – 9 years of teaching experience had an overall mean

of 2.3; 32 teachers with ten or more years of teaching experience had an overall mean of 2.9.

There was a participant who did not specify years at the current school. So, the data was

categorized as “Other”. The overall mean for “Other” was 3.7. The information reported as

“Other” was calculated in the overall mean, and the years of teaching experience at their current

campus reflected a belief in being between somewhat prepared [3] and prepared [4] in their

development as culturally responsive teachers through equity-focused professional learning

opportunities.

Table C2 (See Appendix C) illustrates the gender of the teachers represented in this study

and the belief in their development as a culturally responsive teacher through equity-focused

professional learning opportunities. The 111 male and female teachers scored an overall mean of

2.6. This indicates they felt slightly confident [2] and somewhat [3] confident in their

development as culturally responsive teachers regarding equity-focused professional learning

151

opportunities. Specifically, 28 male teachers had an overall mean of 2.9, and 83 female teachers

had an overall mean of 2.5.

Table C3 (See Appendix C) illustrates the ethnicity of the study participants and their

belief in their development as culturally responsive teachers regarding equity-focused

professional learning opportunities. The 111 teachers scored an overall mean of 2.6. This

indicates they felt slightly [2] developed as a culturally responsive teacher as it relates equity-

focused professional learning opportunities. Specifically, two American Indian or Alaska Native

teachers had an overall mean of 3.2; four African American or Black teachers had an overall

mean of 1.8; and 105 White teachers had an overall mean of 2.6. There were no Asian and

Native Hawaiian, or Other Pacific Islander teachers in the study participants.

The data in Table C4 (See Appendix C) signifies where the Christian private schools are

located. There were 20 states represented in this study. Table C4 identifies each state by its two-

letter abbreviation. Two teachers indicated responses that did not align with a specific state;

therefore, their responses are listed under “Other”. The 112 teachers scored an overall mean of

2.6. This indicates they felt either slightly [2] or somewhat [3] developed as a culturally

responsive teacher through equity-focused professional learning opportunities. Specifically, 6

teachers in Arizona had an overall mean of 3.1; 19 teachers in California had an overall mean of

2.6; 11 teachers in Florida had an overall mean of 2.6; 8 teachers in Georgia had an overall mean

of 2.6; 9 teachers in Illinois had an overall mean of 2.5; 2 teachers in Iowa had an overall mean

of 2.5; one teacher in Kentucky had an overall mean of 4.2; 34 teachers in Michigan had an

overall mean of 2.4; one teacher in Maryland had an overall mean of 3; two teachers in

Minnesota had an overall mean of 4.5; one teacher in Montana had an overall mean of 3.7; one

teacher in North Dakota had an overall mean of 3.2; four teachers in New Jersey had an overall

152

mean of 2.9; one teacher in Oregon had an overall mean of 4; one teacher in South Carolina had

an overall mean of 2.2; one teacher in South Dakota had an overall mean of 1.7; three teachers in

Texas had an overall mean of 2.1; one teacher in Virginia had an overall mean of 2; two teachers

in Wisconsin had an overall mean of 3; two teachers in Washington had an overall mean of 2.2;

and two teachers that did not list a specific state had an overall mean of 1.8. The information

reported as “Other” was calculated in the overall mean.

Null Hypotheses Analysis

H₀1: There is a statistical correlation for culturally responsive school leadership and

cultural awareness. The results of the Chi-square correlation suggested a statistically significant

relationship with the development of culturally responsive teachers and cultural awareness. The

p value was 0.00587. The Chi-square correlation suggested that there was a strong statistically

significant relationship with promoting culturally responsive/inclusive school environments and

engaging students, parents, and indigenous contexts with cultural awareness. The p values were

<0.00001; 0.00127; 0.0000511; 0.000408, and <0.00001, respectively. The first component of

the CRSL framework, critically self-reflects on leadership behaviors, had no statistical

significance with cultural awareness. The p value was 0.144. The null hypothesis that there was

no correlation between culturally responsive school leadership and cultural awareness was

rejected.

H₀2: There is a statistical correlation found for culturally responsive school leadership

and teacher readiness for educating all students. The results of the Chi-square correlation

suggested a statistically significant relationship with critical self-reflection on leadership

behaviors, developing culturally responsive teachers, and engaging students, parents, and

indigenous contexts. The p values were 0.0115; <0.00001; 0.00385; and 0.00503, respectively.

153

Specific to developing culturally responsive teachers, there was no statistical significance

between the comfortability of incorporating new material about people from different

backgrounds into the curriculum and the ease of teaching a class with groups of students from

very different religions from each other. The p value was 0.214. There was no statistical

significance regarding the third component of the CRSL framework, which was promoting a

culturally responsive/inclusive school environment. The p value was 0.114. The null hypothesis

that there was no correlation between culturally responsive school leadership and teacher

readiness for educating all students was rejected.

H ₀3: There is a strong statistical correlation found for culturally responsive school

leadership and equity-focused professional learning opportunities. The results of the Chi-square

correlation suggested a statistically significant relationship with developing culturally responsive

teachers. The p value was <0.00001. The null hypothesis that there was no correlation between

culturally responsive school leadership and equity-focused professional learning opportunities

was rejected.

Evaluation of the Research Design

This study used a quantitative correlational analysis design. Specifically, a survey design

method was utilized to determine if a relationship existed between multiple variables (Leedy &

Ormrod, 2019). The quantitative data collected for this study considered culturally responsive

school leadership, cultural awareness, teacher readiness to address diversity issues, and equity-

focused professional learning opportunities. The independent variable for this study was

culturally responsive school leadership, and the dependent variables were cultural awareness,

teacher readiness to educate all students, and equity-focused professional learning opportunities.

154

Qualtrics was used to collect the data and store the survey. It was also used to provide

statistical analysis. An email was the method of distribution to prospective participants. The

Culturally Responsive Christian School Leadership survey was adapted from Panorama

Education’s Equity and Inclusion survey (Panorama Equity and Inclusion User Guide, n.d.). This

researcher secured permission to use the survey, and a statement of evidence of permission is

provided in the appendices. The survey instrument used a 5-point Likert scale. The population

for this study was PK-12 Christian private schools in the United States of America. More

specifically, teachers at these educational institutions have at least one year of teaching

experience. The statistical analysis method selected for this research study was Pearson’s chi-

square because this method is used when survey responses have categorical data (Biswal, 2023).

As previously mentioned, Creswell and Creswell (2018) and Leedy and Ormrod (2019)

recommend using chi-square tests when the scores are categorical. This test assessed whether the

variables were related. The research design was preferred due to the appropriateness of

categorical data; therefore, this researcher does not have any proposals for revisions or

improvements.

One weakness of the study was the participants’ lack of survey completion. There were

1,718 surveys sent with only 198 recorded responses; however, there were only 112 completed

surveys. This gave a response rate of 11.52% and a completion rate of 6.58%. The surveys were

sent out twice through email and were anonymous. So, this researcher could not determine why

surveys were not completed. The information sheet and recruitment email gave permission to

discontinue the survey at any time.

A positive point of reflection was the demographic portion of the survey having a variety

of responses from multiple states within the United States of America. Their answers revealed

155

participants from at least 20 states throughout the country. This is significant in the analysis

because it presented evidence that Christian private school teachers across the country are aware

of cultural responsiveness.

Chapter Summary

Chapter Four reported the data collected, analysis, and results of this correlational

research. This chapter included the demographics represented in the study, including years taught

at their current school, gender, ethnicity, and the school's location. The data also included

descriptive statistics, including means, percentages, and standard deviations for the survey

questions. The data identified and defined components of the CRSL framework and revealed

statistical significance for culturally responsive school leadership and cultural awareness, teacher

readiness for educating all students, and equity-focused professional learning opportunities.

Chapter Five will discuss the conclusions, implications, and future recommendations.

156

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS

Overview

This chapter provides a summary of the research purpose and considers the research

questions and findings. The researcher discusses the implications and limitations of the study and

provides recommendations for future research. The chapter ends with a summary and conclusion.

Research Purpose

The purpose of this quantitative correlational study was to understand the relationship

between culturally responsive school leadership, cultural awareness, teacher readiness for

educating all students, and professional learning opportunities about diversity, controlling for

Christian private schools located in the United States of America. There was a gap in the

literature regarding this aspect of CRSL within Christian private schools. The research aimed to

provide a solution to address the increasing diversity within education, specific to Christian

private schools. Furthermore, the study utilized a framework developed to assist educators in

working toward consistent acceptance and inclusion of all students. The Christian private school

setting was selected to bring attention to the need for professional development regarding

awareness and implementation of culturally responsive school leadership practices.

This research study was guided by the Culturally Responsive School Leadership

framework and uniquely applied to a Christian private school environment. The study used a

preexisting survey to focus on the areas of cultural awareness, teacher readiness for educating all

students, and equity-focused professional learning opportunities. This approach allowed for a

deeper understanding of Christian private schools' distinctive challenges and opportunities in

implementing culturally responsive school leadership practices. The four components of the

CRSL model that were used to examine the possible relationship were critically self-reflects on

157

leadership behaviors, develops culturally responsive teachers, promotes culturally

responsive/inclusive school environments, and engages students, parents, and indigenous

contexts (Khalifa and Delpit, 2018).

Several key definitions guided this study. First, culturally responsive school leadership

was defined as educational leadership practices that promote the creation of learning

environments that are respectful of and responsive to the cultural backgrounds of all students

(Khalifa, Gooden, & Davis, 2016). Second, diversity was defined as "the representation or

composition of various social identity groups in a workgroup, organization, or community"

(American Psychological Association, 2021, p. 12). It is the presence of different and multiple

characteristics that make up individual and collective identities (Nakintu & Biting-Isreal, 2022).

Third, equity was defined as the process of identifying and removing the barriers that create

disparities in the access to resources and means, and the achievement of fair treatment and equal

opportunities to thrive (Nakintu & Bitanga-Israel, 2022, p.2).

Moreover, this researcher used operational definitions to define the use of the terms

mentioned above based on the virtues and values intrinsic to the Christian faith. First, culturally

responsive Christian school leadership was defined as an approach that combines the principles

of culturally responsive leadership with the values and beliefs of the Christian faith. It involves

creating a learning environment that authentically and respectfully recognizes and values the

diversity of students while also promoting the love and teachings of Jesus Christ. Second,

diversity in the Christian school was defined as the presence of various backgrounds and

perspectives among students, teachers, and the broader school community. This diversity can

include cultural diversity and socioeconomic diversity. Third, equity in the Christian school was

defined as the fair and just treatment of students, parents, and staff, regardless of their

158

background or abilities. Christian schools aim to provide equal opportunities for all individuals

to thrive academically, socially, and spiritually while promoting the values and teachings of the

Christian faith.

Research Questions

The following research questions guided this study.

RQ1. What relationship, if any, exists between the culturally responsive school

leadership development model and cultural awareness?

RQ2. What relationship, if any, exists between the culturally responsive school

leadership development model and teacher readiness for educating all students?

RQ3. What relationship, if any, exists between the culturally responsive school

leadership development model and equity-focused professional learning opportunities?

Research Hypotheses

H₀1: There is no statistical correlation found for culturally responsive school leadership

and cultural awareness.

H₀2: There is no statistical correlation found for culturally responsive school leadership

and teacher readiness for educating all students.

H ₀3: There is no statistical correlation found for culturally responsive school leadership

and equity-focused professional learning opportunities.

Research Conclusions, Implications, and Applications

Research Question One (RQ1)

Research question one investigated whether there was any relationship between the

culturally responsive school leadership development model and cultural awareness. According to

the correlational analyses, statistically significant relationships emerged for Chi-square

comparisons of responses to the questions designated as measuring cultural awareness.

Specifically, statistically strong relationships did emerge within the third and fourth components

of the CRSL framework. These components are promoting culturally responsive/inclusive school

environments and engaging students, parents, and indigenous contexts. Descriptive statistics

159

revealed an overall mean of 3.1, representing an average support for faculty, staff, and students

in learning about, discussing, and confronting race, ethnicity, and culture issues. Most study

participants believed they were sometimes supported or frequently supported in learning about,

discussing, and confronting race, ethnicity, and culture issues.

The demographic statistics were comparable. The first three components of the CRSL

framework yielded results that aligned with the overall mean. Regardless of years of teaching

experience at the current school, gender, ethnicity, or where the school was located, the teachers

felt their schools sometimes supported them in learning about, discussing, and confronting race,

ethnicity, and culture issues. The results of the fourth component of the CRSL framework

revealed a slightly lower mean than the others. Specific to engaging students, parents, and

indigenous contexts, study participants felt slightly supported in learning about, discussing, and

confronting race, ethnicity, and culture issues.

Empirical and Theoretical Literature

Prior research by Collins et al. (2016) found that school leaders' cultural intelligence

significantly influenced their multicultural students, directly influencing student achievement. A

key finding was the importance of school leaders having multicultural exposure (p. 483). This

research's findings confirm the need for educational leaders to be culturally aware. There was a

significant statistical relationship between CRSL and cultural awareness. School leaders who are

highly culturally intelligent integrate student experiences into the classroom. Teachers must

commit to continuous learning of cultural knowledge and contexts (Gardiner & Enomoto, 2006).

One way to ensure the learning of cultural knowledge and contexts is through school support in

learning about, discussing, and confronting race, ethnicity, and culture issues. Most of the study

participants felt supported in their endeavors to have important conversations about diverse

160

cultures, even when they might be uncomfortable. They also felt encouraged to teach about

people from different races, ethnicities, or cultures and to think more deeply about multi-

culturally related topics.

Hesbol et al. (2020) encourage school leaders to inspect the condition of their cultural

school climate and awareness to inform and implement educational practices that support

multicultural students. The CRSL is a framework to promote mutual opportunities for cultural

growth and engagement (Campos-Moreira et al., 2020). The framework is not considered a

strategy but a process for educators to work toward. Christian school leaders should use the

CRSL framework to guide them in their process of becoming more culturally conscious and

fostering an inclusive learning environment.

Implications

This study's findings reflect teachers' belief in their school's support in learning about,

discussing, and confronting race, ethnicity, and cultural issues, resulting in implications related

to CRSL and encouraging teachers to be culturally aware. School leaders must be intentional

about learning about diverse cultures and expanding their capacity for cultural responsiveness

(Khalifa et al., 2016). The literature review proved that critical self-reflection is not foreign to

Christians. The Apostle Paul encourages Christians in 1 Corinthians 11 to examine themselves.

The examination of Christian educators includes the discovery of potential biases and ignorance

concerning marginalized students. This practice is stressed in the CRSL framework and

encourages self-awareness.

Bennis (1989/2000) discussed effective leadership being hinged on self-reflection. The

power of authenticity and transparency is the willingness to critically self-reflect. Christian

instructional leaders should acknowledge where there is a need for development through

161

introspection. The study demonstrated that CRSL and cultural awareness have a significant

relationship; therefore, the implication is for Christian leaders to be intentional in their continued

growth and development regarding cultural differences. Consequently, classroom teachers

require the support of their school to initiate, implement, and sustain culturally responsive

practices within the classroom. As teachers and administrators align in their efforts to cultivate

an ongoing culturally responsive school environment, the students will have a greater sense of

belonging (Khalifa & Delpit, 2018).

Applications

Christian educational leaders encompass more than the teachers in the classroom.

Superintendents, Heads of Schools, and Administrators are all stakeholders in sustaining CRSL

within the Christian private school environment. Brown et al. (2019) determined that distributed

culturally responsive leadership is necessary to impact the school culturally. All school personnel

must buy in to foster cultural understanding and minimize possible exclusionary practices, such

as shaming students or not allowing students to incorporate their experiences into the lesson

(Khalifa & Delpit, 2018). Data-driven CRSL practices are recommended to promote cultural

awareness (Skrla et al., 2004). Practically, equity audits may be necessary to measure the current

state of CRSL practices. These audits would consider the disparities in trends, policies, practices,

cultures, and gaps (Khalifa & Delpit, 2018).

Another recommendation is for Christian private schools to develop a parent, teacher, and

student association focused on promoting and celebrating multicultural holidays and events. Any

opportunities this committee provides and supports will align with Christian and biblical

principles. This committee can conduct monthly meetings and invite diverse students to share

their personal cultures and experiences. The committee can use the information learned from

162

students and families to highlight times throughout the year to celebrate a particular culture. For

example, the school can celebrate or acknowledge Hispanic Heritage Month by allowing

students a dress-up day to show Hispanic cultural traditions through clothing.

Survey results showed a mean of 2.4, the lowest score, when the participants responded

to the frequency of having important conversations amongst themselves about diverse cultures,

even when they might be uncomfortable. Teachers felt slightly encouraged to have ongoing

discussions confronting race, ethnicity, and cultural issues in relation to having important

conversations about diverse cultures with each other, even when they might be uncomfortable.

The highest score was a mean of 3.8 regarding the participants’ comfortability with discussing

diverse culturally related topics with their students. This emphasizes that even though teachers

may not have frequent dialogue with their colleagues regarding discussions confronting race,

ethnicity, and culture issues, they still feel very comfortable having conversations with their

students.

School leaders should prioritize modeling effective strategies, such as learning about the

faculty’s backgrounds and how they impact their approach to teaching, for teachers to engage in

meaningful conversations regarding diverse cultures, even when such discussions may be

uncomfortable. By exemplifying a commitment to conducting continual, respectful, and

understanding dialogues surrounding uncomfortable topics related to diverse cultures, school

leaders set a precedent for fostering open communication within the educational environment.

This entails cultivating a school culture that encourages the utilization of both student and

educator voices in discussions and values continuous conversations aimed at promoting self-

reflection and embracing varied cultural experiences. Additionally, professional development

163

sessions can be tailored to enhance cultural competence and facilitate open dialogues, allowing

educators to share their own cultural perspectives and experiences with one another.

Research Question Two (RQ2)

Research question two investigated whether there was any relationship between the

culturally responsive school leadership development model and teacher readiness for educating

all students. The correlational analyses show statistically significant relationships did emerge for

Chi-square comparisons of responses to some of the questions designated as measuring those

concepts. Specifically, six Chi-square comparisons were conducted on the questions used to

measure components one through four of the CRSL model.

Four of these six Chi-square analyses were significant when two specific questions

regarding components one (i.e. critical self-reflection on leadership behaviors) were subjected to

this analysis. Similarly, component four (i.e. engaging students, parents, and indigenous

contexts) yielded one significant finding also. While two significant findings were found for

component two (i.e. developing culturally responsive teachers). Responses related to the CRSL

model for component one related to one’s ease in interacting with others from other cultures and

comfort working with students who cannot communicate well because their family’s language is

unique. Regarding component four, there was a significant relationship between being

knowledgeable about finding resources to work with students with unique learning needs and

comfort in having conversations about race with students in response to events happening in the

world. For component two, there is a strong relationship between comfort in incorporating new

material about people of different backgrounds and religions into the curriculum and easily

thinking about ways to address sensitive diversity issues that may arise in classrooms. In

164

addition, thinking about ways to address diversity in class is statistically related to one’s ease in

teaching a class with students from very different religions.

Descriptive statistics revealed an overall mean of 3.8, representing a confident belief in

teachers' readiness for educating all students. Most study participants believed they were quite

ready to educate all students through addressing issues of diversity. The demographic statistics

proved analogous. The first component of the CRSL framework was precisely the same as the

overall mean. The second and fourth components of the CRSL model were slightly lower than

the overall mean at 3.6 and 3.5, respectively. The third component of the CRSL model had a

mean higher than the overall mean at 4.1. The research conveyed that most Christian private

school teachers feel very prepared to educate all students. Based on the overall mean of

component three of the CRSL framework, Christian private school teachers believe they are

quite ready to educate all students by promoting a culturally responsive/inclusive school

environment.

Empirical and Theoretical Literature

Genao (2016) and Williams (2018) expose the need for higher education leadership

preparation programs to serve as a foundational training ground for school leaders to be equipped

to educate diverse student populations. Genao (2016) concluded educational leadership programs

can promote culturally responsive teaching practices and leadership behaviors. This study

extended previous research by underlining the Christian school setting and corroborating

previous literature and studies that indicate the connection between teacher readiness to address

issues of diversity and the perception and confidence in educating all students. Educators who

understand the importance of increasing their human, social, and educational capital are more

prepared to interact with and teach students from different backgrounds, incorporate new

165

material about people from diverse cultures, or have conversations about diversity issues that

may arise (Genao, 2016). The study participants felt equipped with knowledge on finding the

appropriate resources for working with students with unique learning needs.

Teacher preparation and educational leader programs serve as vital pieces in the process

of training Christian educational leaders for culturally responsive practices. Minkos et al. (2017)

emphasize the need for educators to be prepared to support the needs of diverse students. The

study participants shared their perspectives on feeling very prepared to educate all of their

students based on promoting a culturally responsive/inclusive school environment. A culturally

responsive/inclusive school environment begins with school leaders creating a safe space and

guiding educators to support their students.

Implications

This study's findings reflect teachers' perception of their readiness to educate all students

through addressing issues of diversity, resulting in implications related to promoting a culturally

responsive/inclusive school environment. The literature review found that trust between

instructional coaches, administrators, teachers, and superintendents needs to be strong for equity

work to be impactful and align with culturally responsive leadership practices (Marshall &

Khalifa, 2018). Meaningful relationships among faculty, staff, students, and families provide

confidence in having difficult conversations centered around culturally diverse experiences

(Khalifa, 2018). Building relationships with students helps to reduce anxiety that may exist due

to cultural differences. The research participants shared their comfort in interacting with diverse

students and cultivating a culture of belonging.

Christian educators must see beyond the surface of who students are to create a nurturing

environment regardless of differences. Mason (2021) stresses the value of mankind being the

166

investment of God himself into creation. The implication of Genesis 1 and 2 (New American

Standard Bible, 1960/1995) is the dignity and respect of all students. The literature review

evidenced the incorporation of student voice in the practice of culturally responsive school

leadership. Students can share their life experiences and provide cultural insight to educators and

other students who do not share the same background; therefore, if trust and meaningful

relationships are not established, students will not feel comfortable sharing their personal

experiences. So, the responsibility to create and sustain a culturally responsive/inclusive school

environment rests upon the shoulders of school leadership.

Applications

Minkos et al. (2017) recommend eight factors for educational leaders to consider. Of

these eight elements, the ones discussed are best associated with this study's results. The first

element supports and echoes the first component of the CRSL framework, which is

understanding culture and context. This study demonstrated teachers' belief that Christian private

schools support learning about, discussing, and confronting race, ethnicity, and cultural issues.

The Christian private school must continue creating meaningful relationships with students and

families because these relationships encourage inclusivity. Relationship building stimulates open

communication that reveals students' background information, educational history, challenges,

and strengths.

The second factor to consider is recognizing diversity as an opportunity to learn (Minkos

et al., 2017). Christian school leaders can grow and gain insight into other cultures and

backgrounds through moments of difference. It begins with the faculty and staff promoting a

culture of belonging and allowing students the freedom to share their ideas and experiences.

167

Christian leaders should support students in expressing their opinions and values. Actions that

motivate student involvement enhance growth moments for teachers and students.

The third element to consider is confronting bias. This factor is linked to the study

participants' responses, which show they are ready to educate all students by promoting a

culturally responsive/inclusive school environment. Confronting bias is a purposeful behavior

that sustains a culturally responsive/inclusive school environment. Christian private schools can

use a culturally responsive leaders rating scale to self-identify any thoughts and practices that

exclude all students. The rating scale can also provide characteristics of a culturally responsive

leader. Christian educational leaders can use the scale to bring awareness and stay conscious of

culturally responsive practices and behaviors. For example, teachers can have a checklist located

on their desks to consistently refer to as a quick reference of actionable, culturally responsive

behaviors.

Based on the survey results, educational leaders believed they were well-prepared to

interact with students from different cultural backgrounds and to make an overweight student

feel like a part of the class. These examples received the highest score, with a mean of 4.2. On

the contrary, teachers did not believe they were as knowledgeable in knowing where to find

resources to work with students who have unique learning needs, with a mean of 3.4. These

results reveal teachers believe they are not as prepared to meet the educational needs of students

with various learning needs; however, they are confident in their ability to teach diverse students.

Consequently, Christian educational leaders should be compelled to ensure inclusive practices

regarding diverse learning needs, including varying learning styles.

A suggested approach to enhance the preparedness of educators in addressing the diverse

learning needs of their students entails the provision of readily available and easily accessible

168

resources catering to a spectrum of learning needs. For instance, an effective strategy could be

establishing a dedicated resource reference hub within the teacher workroom, containing pre-

designed exemplars. Furthermore, these resources could be actively integrated into professional

development sessions and departmental meetings, facilitating their implementation through

guided practice and instructional support.

Research Question Three (RQ3)

Research question three investigated whether there was any relationship between the

culturally responsive school leadership development model and equity-focused professional

learning opportunities. The study was conducted using participants’ scores generated by

Qualtrics from the Culturally Responsive Christian School Leadership (CRCSL) Survey;

specifically questions 26-29. These four questions are categorized as being logically associated

with only the second component of the CRSL model. The Chi-square data analyses examined

what significant relationships exist among the questions that are focused on the second

component of the CRSL model, which is developing culturally responsive teachers. Descriptive

statistics revealed an overall mean of 2.6, representing slight confidence in the school's ability to

provide quality and quantity equity-focused professional learning opportunities. Most study

participants believed they were slightly or somewhat equipped through equity-focused

professional learning opportunities. The demographic statistics clarify that regardless of years

taught at their particular schools, gender, ethnicity, or school location, they believed they

received little to minimal equity-focused learning opportunities.

The Chi-square tests on the four survey questions revealed only one statistically

significant relationship, which was very strong as indicated by a probability value of less than

0.00001. It is clear that the frequency of professional development opportunities that help

169

teachers explore new ways to promote equity in their classroom practices is strongly associated

with how they perceive the effectiveness of the school administration in helping them advance

student equity.

Empirical and Theoretical Literature

This research sheds light on the CRSL framework informing the topic of equity-focused

professional learning opportunities in the Christian private school setting. The literature review

conveys the previous research on CRSL studied in public schools; however, this study's results

yield insight into Christian private school teachers' belief in their opportunities to be trained and

developed in culturally responsive practices. Viloria (2017) and Ham et al. (2020) determined

the significance of providing professional learning opportunities for educators. Specifically, Ham

et al. (2020) concluded that empowering school leaders breeds accountability.

Continual improvement is a process that preserves the success of an organization.

Educationally, success can be characterized by the opportunities for professional development

provided to equip school leaders with the necessary strategies and practices to support students.

The confidence to continually incorporate students' cultures into teaching and promote equity in

instructional practices comes from school leadership providing professional learning

opportunities. Tanase (2020) determined that teachers can incorporate their students' culture into

teaching by eliminating language barriers, using students' interests to teach specific content, or

using role models that relate to the students to connect the content.; however, this is not

something that may come naturally for all teachers; therefore, culturally responsive training is

needed to help teachers explore various ways to eliminate language barriers and learn about

different cultural backgrounds. The strong statistical relationship between the CRSL model and

170

equity-focused professional learning opportunities confirms the requirement for Christian private

schools to utilize culturally responsive training and development for continual improvement.

Implications

The research's findings reflect teachers' perception of the quantity and quality of equity-

focused professional learning opportunities available to faculty and staff, resulting in

implications for developing culturally responsive teachers. The literature review substantiated

school leaders' need to model cultural competence (Williams, 2018). The desire and expectation

for teachers to be culturally responsive is birthed and developed through example and practice.

Teacher capacities for culturally responsive practices and pedagogy are developed through

professional growth opportunities (Marshall & Khalifa, 2018).

Prior research exists for professional learning opportunities focused on student

achievement and classroom management (Khalifa & Delpit, 2018); therefore, this research

implies a need for equity-focused professional learning opportunities in the Christian private

school. The study participants revealed they have minimal equity-focused professional learning

opportunities of value. They shared that they receive few valued professional development

opportunities to help them explore new ways to promote equity in their practice.

Applications

Marshall and Khalifa (2018) concluded that instructional coaches improved and learned

more about culturally responsive leadership when they participated in professional development

with cultural and community liaisons (p. 537). A cultural liaison is a person responsible for

understanding the needs of students and families, specifically culturally marginalized students. A

recommendation aligned with Marshall and Khalifa's (2018) findings is for Christian private

schools to have ongoing professional development led by individuals representing various

171

cultures who can speak to culturally responsive practices that extend and promote equity-driven

behaviors. The professional learning opportunities should include moments of practical

application through role play and modeling from school leaders who have implemented

consistent culturally responsive practices into their classrooms and curriculum.

Another recommendation is that heads of schools, superintendents, and administrators

create a parent and family engagement committee and a school advisory committee that meets

the needs of students and families based on monthly informational meetings. In particular, these

committees will consist of administration, teachers, parents, and community members and

discuss school data, including disparities in academic and disciplinary trends and academic,

cultural gaps in achievement, enrichment, and remedial services (Skrla et al., 2004). The

committees will be responsible for creating possible solutions to meet their students' direct and

immediate needs. A specific consideration is to provide students and families with an instrument

that measures culturally responsive teaching and practices (Dickson et al., 2016). This can give

insight to the school on how students and families perceive the presence or absence of diverse

teaching practices or cultural engagement.

The research yielded information for school leaders that helps in evaluating equity-

focused professional learning opportunities. Teachers believed they were at least somewhat

equipped through equity-focused training to enhance their development as culturally responsive

teachers. The researcher noticed an inconsistency because the study participants felt confident in

their cultural awareness and their abilities to educate all students, but they did not believe their

schools provided valuable professional development. Specifically, teachers selected the lowest

rating, a mean of 2.4, regarding their belief that professional development opportunities help

them explore new ways to promote equity in their practice.

172

Additionally, educators exhibited a diminished perception of the significance of

professional development opportunities centered on equity, with a mean score of 2.6. This

underscores the imperative for leaders to prioritize high-quality, culturally responsive training.

Christian educational leaders can conduct post-training evaluations of their faculty, enabling the

immediate collection of feedback regarding the efficacy and relevance of the training sessions.

Overall, notwithstanding the availability of equity-focused training initiatives, Christian

educational leaders must prioritize valuable professional development regarding diversity, rather

than viewing such endeavors as mere compliance measures to fulfill procedural obligations.

Research Limitations

The research and its findings were limited to a population of PK-12 teachers with at least

one year of teaching experience at a Christian private school in the United States of America. It

did not include educational leaders with less than one year of teaching experience or private

schools not classified as Christian. The research was further delimited to include Christian

private schools listed on the Niche (n.d) website with a diversity rating of A, B, or C. The school

self-identified the rating through survey responses from students and parents on school culture

and diversity. Furthermore, this study was limited to schools associated with a specific Christian

private school membership and organization. This resulted in limited external validity. The study

may not be applicable to other populations, including the public school setting or other types of

private schools.

Additionally, the study used a preexisting instrument created by Panorama Education

(n.d.), which focused on equity and inclusion. The survey was a self-assessment instrument in

which participants were asked about their perceptions of cultural awareness (teacher focus),

cultural awareness (student focus), teacher readiness for educating all students, and professional

173

learning about equity. This resulted in limited validity. This limitation could have impacted the

study because some questions focused on more than just cultural issues. Specifically, one

question asked about the comfortability of teaching students from different religions. This

question may have skewed the results regarding teacher readiness for educating all students

because the population worked at Christian private schools. More than likely, the students and

teachers at the Christian private schools are of the same religion. It should also be noted that

there was a question about learning needs and image. Lastly, the survey method employed a

Likert scale, which can be acknowledged for its potential for bias (Kusmaryono et al, 2022;

Westland, 2022); however, the widespread utilization of Likert scale surveys persists as a

fundamental tool for collecting data aimed at investigating individual perspectives, attitudes,

behaviors, or encounters (Leedy & Ormrod, 2019; Creswell & Creswell, 2018).

Further Research

Further research in the area of CRSL and Christian instructional leaders is needed to

address the growing diversity within the Christian private school setting.

1. A qualitative study by interview and focus group of teachers for a more in-depth

approach to collecting data on culturally responsive school leadership in the

Christian private school.

2. A qualitative study of heads of schools, superintendents, school board members,

and administrators is needed for a more in-depth approach to collecting data on

culturally responsive school leadership in Christian private schools.

3. A quantitative study limiting the sample of analyses to specific regions in the

United States.

174

These recommendations would further contribute to and increase knowledge about CRSL in the

Christian private school environment.

Summary

This research study aimed to inform educators’ professional development and heighten

their awareness of culturally responsive practices within Christian private schools. The study

examined the relationship between culturally responsive school leadership, cultural awareness,

teacher readiness for educating all students, and equity-focused professional learning

opportunities. The results of this research study are based on significant Chi-square analyses,

which show numerous strong relationships between Likert scale item means that show primary

factors that illuminate teacher perceptions of the major concepts under investigation. In addition,

the data analyses show connections between specific items that reveal how teachers perceive

themselves as well as things they observe and experience in their school settings. The data

revealed that teachers at Christian private schools feel somewhat supported or frequently

supported in learning about, discussing, and confronting race, ethnicity, and culture issues. Most

study participants believed they were quite ready to educate all students through addressing

issues of diversity. Regarding equity-focused professional learning opportunities, there was a

slight confidence in the school's ability to provide quality and quantity equity-focused

professional learning opportunities. This discrepancy was noted by the researcher because the

study participants felt confident in their cultural awareness and their abilities to educate all

students; however, their schools may have yet to consistently provide professional development

that is seen as valuable in training them to improve their practices.

Christian school leaders need to be equipped and have the opportunity to increase their

cultural capacity by exploring and learning relevant ways to include students of varying

175

backgrounds. As Christian educational leaders, self-examination and culturally responsive

professional development are practical approaches to continual improvement. All stakeholders,

including heads of schools, superintendents, and community members, must be responsible for

promoting a culturally responsive/inclusive school environment.

176

REFERENCES

American Psychological Association. (2021). Equity, diversity, and inclusion framework.

American Psychological Association. https://www.apa.org/about/apa/equity-diversity-

inclusion

Anthony, M. J., & Benson, W. S. (2011). Exploring the history & philosophy of Christian

education: principles for the 21st century. Wipf & Stock.

Bachrach, T. (2021). Venturing outside the Bounds of IDEIA in Search of Inclusive Christian

Education: An Autoethnographic Account. Journal of Research on Christian Education,

30(1), 4–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/10656219.2021.1883490.

Baldwin, T. A. (2015). Culturally Responsive Pedagogy: A Transformative Tool for CCCU

Educators in Multicultural Classrooms. Christian Education Journal: Research on

Educational Ministry, 12(1), 97–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/073989131501200108

Bennis, W. G. (1989/2009). On becoming a leader. Basic Books, a member of the Perseus Books

Group.

Biswal, A. (2023, June 7). What is a chi-square test? formula, Examples & Uses: Simplilearn.

Simplilearn.com. https://www.simplilearn.com/tutorials/statistics-tutorial/chi-square-test.

Blitz, L. V., Yull, D., & Clauhs, M. (2020). Bringing Sanctuary to School: Assessing School

Climate as a Foundation for Culturally Responsive Trauma-Informed Approaches for

Urban Schools. Urban Education, 55(1), 95–124.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085916651323

Blomberg, C. L. (1992). Matthew. Broadman Press.

Bonner, P. J., Warren, S. R., & Jiang, Y. H. (2018). Voices From Urban Classrooms: Teachers'

Perceptions on Instructing Diverse Students and Using Culturally Responsive Teaching.

Education and Urban Society, 50(8), 697–726.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124517713820

Bossman, D. M. (1995). Paul's Mediterranean Gospel: Faith, Hope, Love. Biblical Theology

Bulletin: Journal of Bible and Culture, 25(2), 71–78.

https://doi.org/10.1177/014610799502500204.

Breese, L. (2019, March 18). Introducing the panorama teacher survey. Panorama Education.

https://www.panoramaed.com/blog/introducing-panorama-teacher-survey.

Brown, M., McNamara, G., O'Hara, J., Hood, S., Burns, D., & Kurum, G. (2019). Evaluating the

impact of distributed culturally responsive leadership in a disadvantaged rural primary

https://www.apa.org/about/apa/equity-diversity-inclusion

https://doi.org/10.1177/073989131501200108

https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085916651323

https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124517713820

177

school in Ireland. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 47(3), 457–

474. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143217739360

Buckle, J. (2022, August 23). 34 survey questions for teachers and staff about equity, inclusion,

and cultural competency. Panorama Education.

https://www.panoramaed.com/blog/questions-teachers-staff-equity-inclusion-cultural-

competency.

Bullitt-Jonas, M. (2021). Preaching when life depends on it: Climate crisis and Gospel hope.

Anglican Theological Review, 103(2), 208–219.

https://doi.org/10.1177/00033286211007431.

Cameron, C. (2005). An Introduction to Theological Anthropology. Evangel, 23(2).

Campos-Moreira, L. D., Cummings, M. I., Grumbach, G., Williams, H. E., & Hooks, K. (2020).

Making a case for culturally humble leadership practices through a culturally responsive

leadership framework. Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership &

Governance, 44(5), 407–414. https://doi.org/10.1080/23303131.2020.1822974

Chiu, C.Y.C., Balkundi, P., & Weinberg, F. J. (2017). When managers become leaders: The role

of manager network centralities, social power, and followers' perception of

leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(2), 334–348.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.05.004.

Christian school ratings and Statistics. Niche. (n.d.). https://www.niche.com/k12/search/best-

christian-schools/?diversityGrade=c&type=private

Collins, K. S., Duyar, I., & Pearson, C. L. (2016). Does cultural intelligence matter?: Effects of

principal and teacher cultural intelligence on Latino student achievement. Journal for

Multicultural Education, 10(4), 465–488. https://doi.org/10.1108/JME-07-2015-0026

Cloud, Henry. (2006). Integrity: The courage to meet the demands of reality. New York, NY:

HaperCollins Publishers. ISBN: 9780060849696.

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed

methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage Publications.

DeMatthews, D. E., & Izquierdo, E. (2020). Supporting Mexican American Immigrant Students

on the Border: A Case Study of Culturally Responsive Leadership in a Dual Language

Elementary School. Urban Education, 55(3), 362–393.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085918756715

Dickson, G. L., Chun, H., & Fernandez, I. T. (2015). The development and initial validation of

the student measure of culturally responsive teaching. Assessment for Effective

Intervention, 41(3), 141–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508415604879

https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143217739360

https://doi.org/10.1177/00033286211007431

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.05.004

https://doi.org/10.1108/JME-07-2015-0026

https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085918756715

178

Dreher, R. (2017). The Benedict option: A strategy for Christians in a post-Christian nation.

Sentinel.

Duchesneau, N. (2020). Social, Emotional, and Academic Development through an equity lens.

Edtrust.org. Retrieved April 9, 2022, from https://edtrust.org/wp-

content/uploads/2014/09/Social-Emotional-and-Academic-Development-Through-an-

Equity-Lens-August-6-2020.pdf

Earley, P.C. and Ang, S. (2003), Cultural Intelligence: Individual Interactions Across Cultures,

Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.

Ee, J., Orfield, G., Jennifer, & Teitell. (2018). Private schools in american education: A small

sector still lagging in diversity. Private Schools in American Education: A Small Sector

Still Lagging in Diversity - The Civil Rights Project at UCLA. Retrieved April 6, 2022,

from https://www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-education/integration-and-

diversity/private-schools-in-american-education-a-small-sector-still-lagging-in-diversity

Estep, J. R., Anthony, M. J., & Allison, G. R. (2008). A theology for christian education. B & H

Academic.

Feinberg, C. L. (1972). The Image of God. Bibliotheca Sacra, 129, 235–246.

Friedman, R. E. (2003). Commentary on the Torah: with a new English translation.

HarperCollins.

Gardiner, M. E., & Enomoto, E. K. (2006). Urban School principals and their role as

multicultural leaders. Urban Education, 41(6), 560–584.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085906294504

Genao, S. (2016). Culturally responsive pedagogy: Reflections on mentoring by educational

leadership candidates. Issues in Educational Research, 26(3), 431-445.

Genao, S. (2021). Doing it for Culturally Responsive School Leadership: Utilizing Reflexivity

from Preparation to Practice. Journal of Research on Leadership Education,

194277512110022. https://doi.org/10.1177/19427751211002226

Graves, P. (n.d.). Faith and VALUES: JESUS challenged religious, political status quo of his

time – and ours. Google. Retrieved September 22, 2021, from

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.spokesman.com/stories/2019/dec/23/faith-and-

values-jesus-challenged-religious-politi/%3famp-content=amp.

Grudem, W. (1994). Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Zondervan.

Hajisoteriou, C., Karousiou, C., & Angelides, P. (2018). Successful components of school

improvement in culturally diverse schools. School Effectiveness and School

Improvement, 29(1), 91–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2017.1385490

https://edtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Social-Emotional-and-Academic-Development-Through-an-Equity-Lens-August-6-2020.pdf

https://www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-education/integration-and-diversity/private-schools-in-american-education-a-small-sector-still-lagging-in-diversity

https://doi.org/10.1177/19427751211002226

https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2017.1385490

179

Ham, S.-H., Kim, J., & Lee, S. (2020). Which schools are in greater need of culturally responsive

leaders? A pedagogical uncertainty management perspective. Multicultural Education

Review, 12(4), 250–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/2005615X.2020.1842653

Hesbol, K. A., Bartee, J. S., & Amiri, F. (2020). Activism in Practice: The Influence of a Rural

School Leader's Beliefs and Practices in Disrupting Historical Patterns of

Underachievement in Traditionally Marginalized Students. Impacting Education: Journal

on Transforming Professional Practice, 5(2), 33–42. https://doi.org/10.5195/ie.2020.134

Hilaski, D. (2020). Addressing the mismatch through culturally responsive literacy instruction.

Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 20(2), 356–384.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798418765304

Hobson, G. (2019). Imago Dei: Man/woman created in the image of God : implications for

theology, pastoral care, Eucharist, apologetics, aesthetics. Wipf & Stock.

Hoch, R. E., & Smith, D. P. (2011). Old School, new clothes: The cultural blindness of christian

education. Wipf & Stock.

Hollowell, C. (2019). Culturally Responsive School Leadership: How Principals Use Culturally

Responsive Leadership Strategies to Develop Engaging and Inclusive School

Environments for All Students.

Horton, D. (2006). The Portable Seminary: A master's level overview in one volume. Bethany

House Publishers.

Hull, J. M. (1976). Christian theology and educational theory: Can there be connections? British

Journal of Educational Studies, 24(2), 127–143.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.1976.9973461

Hutchison, Laveria F., & White, Cameron S. (2020). Integrating Culturally Responsive and

Social Justice Pedagogy: A Case Study of an Online Doctorate of Education Degree

Program for Instructional and Professional Leadership. Journal of Higher Education

Theory and Practice, 20(2). https://doi.org/10.33423/jhetp.v20i2.2845

Imes, C. J. (2023). Being God’s image: Why creation still matters. IVP Academic, an imprint of

InterVarsity Press.

Johnson, L. (2014). Culturally Responsive Leadership for Community Empowerment.

Multicultural Education Review, 6(2), 145–170.

https://doi.org/10.1080/2005615X.2014.11102915.

Khalifa, M. A., & Delpit, L. (2018). Culturally responsive school leadership. Harvard Education

Press.

https://doi.org/10.1080/2005615X.2020.1842653

https://doi.org/10.5195/ie.2020.134

https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798418765304

https://doi.org/10.33423/jhetp.v20i2.2845

https://doi.org/10.1080/2005615X.2014.11102915

180

Khalifa, M. A., Gooden, M. A., & Davis, J. E. (2016). Culturally Responsive School Leadership:

A Synthesis of the Literature. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1272–1311.

https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316630383

Kilner, J. F. (2015). Dignity and destiny: Humanity in the image of God. Eerdmans Pub.

Company.

Krasnoff, B. (2016). Culturally responsive teaching - education northwest.

Educationnorthwest.org. Retrieved April 9, 2022, from

https://educationnorthwest.org/sites/default/files/resources/culturally-responsive-

teaching.pdf

Kusmaryono, I., Wijayanti, D., & Maharani, H. R. (2022). Number of response options,

reliability, validity, and potential bias in the use of the Likert Scale Education and Social

Science Research: A literature review. International Journal of Educational Methodology,

8(4), 625–637. https://doi.org/10.12973/ijem.8.4.625

LeBar, L. E., & Plueddemann, J. (1998). Education that is Christian. David C. Cook.

Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2019). Practical research: Planning and design. Pearson. Levitan, J. (2020). Incorporating Participant Voice in Culturally Responsive Leadership: A Case

Study. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 19(3), 390–406.

https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2019.1585546

Little, S. (1990). Theology and education. In I. V. Cully & K. B. Cully (Eds.), Harper's

Dictionary of religious education (pp. 649-655). New York: Harper & Row

Livermore, D. A. (2009). Cultural intelligence: Improving your CQ to engage our multicultural

world. Baker Academic.

Lopez, A. E. (2016). Culturally responsive and socially just leadership in diverse contexts: From

theory to action. Palgrave Macmillan.

Malamat, A. (1990). "Love your neighbor as yourself"-what it really means. The

BAS Library. https://www.baslibrary.org/biblical-archaeology-review/16/4/9.

Marshall, S. L., & Khalifa, M. A. (2018). Humanizing school communities: Culturally

responsive leadership in the shaping of curriculum and instruction. Journal of

Educational Administration, 56(5), 533–545. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-01-2018-0018

Mason, E. (Ed.). (2021). Urban apologetics: Restoring Black dignity with the gospel. Zondervan.

McCracken, V., Dombrowski, D. A., & Jewell, J. (2014). Christian faith and Social Justice: Five

Views. Bloomsbury.

https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316630383

https://educationnorthwest.org/sites/default/files/resources/culturally-responsive-teaching.pdf

https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2019.1585546

https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-01-2018-0018

181

McNeal, R. B. (2015). Parent involvement and student performance: the influence of school

context. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 14(2), 153–167.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-014-9167-7

Minkos, M. L., Sassu, K. A., Gregory, J. L., Patwa, S. S., Theodore, L. A., & Femc-Bagwell, M.

(2017). Culturally responsive practice and the role of school administrators. Psychology

in the Schools, 54(10), 1260–1266. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22072

Morris, L. (1985). The First epistle of Paul to the Corinthians: An introduction and commentary.

Inter-Varsity Press ; Eerdmans.

Mustian, A. L., Lee, R. E., Nelson, C., Gamboa-Turner, V., & Roule, L. (2017). Jumping Into

the Deep End: Developing Culturally Responsive Urban Teachers Through Community-

Immersive Partnerships. The Educational Forum, 81(4), 467–481.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2017.1350239

Nakintu, S., & Bitanga-Isreal, O. (2022, November 10). Diversity, equity and inclusion: Key

terms and definitions. NACo. https://www.naco.org/resources/featured/key-terms-

definitions-diversity-equity-inclusion

National Center for Education Statistics. (2022). Private School Enrollment. Condition of

Education. US Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved April

6, 2022, from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cgc.

Panorama Equity and Inclusion User Guide. (n.d.).

https://go.panoramaed.com/hubfs/Panorama%20Equity%20and%20Inclusion%20User%20

Guide.pdf.

Pazmiño, R. W. (2008). Foundational issues in Christian education an introduction in

evangelical perspective. Baker Academic.

Peppiatt, L. (2022). Imago Dei: humanity made in the image of god. CASCADE BOOKS.

Perttula, K. H. (2000). A lifetime of generous company. Journal of Management Inquiry, 9(4),

353–360. https://doi.org/10.1177/105649260000900405.

Petkovska, V. (2015). Coping with Marginalized Students Inclusion in EL Teacher Training .

Journal of Education and Practice, 6(18).

Profiles of USA Private Schools. Private School Review. (n.d.).

https://www.privateschoolreview.com/.

Ravelo, C. (2022, November 29). How to determine sample size from G*Power. Statistics

Solutions. https://www.statisticssolutions.com/how-to-determine-sample-size-from-

gpower/#:~:text=G*power%20is%20a%20free,determine%20the%20sample%20size%20n

eeded.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-014-9167-7

https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22072

https://doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2017.1350239

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cgc

https://doi.org/10.1177/105649260000900405

https://www.privateschoolreview.com/

182

Reliability and validity of the Panorama Equity and Inclusion Survey. (n.d.).

https://go.panoramaed.com/hubfs/Validity-Report-Equity-Inclusion-Survey.pdf.

Robinson, D. (2011). Understanding the “imago dei” the thought of Barth, von Balthasar and

Moltmann. Taylor and Francis.

Rosner, B. S., & Ciampa, R. E. (2010). First letter to the Corinthians. Apollos.

Samuels, A. J. (2018). Exploring Culturally Responsive Pedagogy: Teachers' Perspectives on

Fostering Equitable and Inclusive Classrooms. SRATE Journal, 27 (1), 22–30.

Sanders-Smith, S. C., Smith-Bonahue, T. M., & Soutullo, O. R. (2020). 'The parents are locked

out': policies, practices, and perspectives undermining family engagement. International

Studies in Sociology of Education, 29(3), 250–273.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09620214.2020.1768881

Skrla, L., Scheurich, J. J., Garcia, J., & Nolly, G. (2004). Equity audits: A practical leadership

tool for developing equitable and excellent schools. Educational Administration

Quarterly, 40(1), 133–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x03259148

Smith, C., & Denton, M. L. (2009). Soul searching: The religious and spiritual lives of American

teenagers. Oxford University Press.

Spears, L. C. (2018). A Personal Remembrance of Warren Bennis. The International Journal of

Servant-Leadership, 12(1), 41–56.

Stanley, C. (2021, April 23). What was the symbolism of the last supper? Its meaning and

significance. Christianity.com. Retrieved September 17, 2021, from

https://www.christianity.com/jesus/following-jesus/communion/the-symbolism-of-the-last-

supper.html.

Simpkins, S. D., Riggs, N. R., Ngo, B., Vest Ettekal, A., & Okamoto, D. (2017). Designing

Culturally Responsive Organized After-School Activities. Journal of Adolescent

Research, 32(1), 11–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558416666169

Tanase, M. (2020). Is good teaching culturally responsive? Journal of Pedagogical

Research, 4(3), 187–202. https://doi.org/10.33902/jpr.2020063333

Taylor, M. E. (2014). 1 Corinthians. Broadman & Holman.

The Lockman Foundation. (1995). Holy Bible: New American Standard. (Original work

published1960)

Thiselton, A. C. (2000). The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A commentary on the Greek text.

W.B. Eerdmans.

https://go.panoramaed.com/hubfs/Validity-Report-Equity-Inclusion-Survey.pdf

https://doi.org/10.1080/09620214.2020.1768881

https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558416666169

https://doi.org/10.33902/jpr.2020063333

183

Viloria, M. de L. (2017). Culturally responsive leadership practices: A principal's reflection.

Journal of Latinos and Education, 18(2), 171–177.

https://doi.org/10.1080/15348431.2017.1371604

Wang, Y. (2019). Pulling at Your Heartstrings: Examining Four Leadership Approaches From

the Neuroscience Perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 55(2), 328–359.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X18799471

Westland, J. C. (2022). Information loss and bias in Likert survey responses. PLOS ONE,

17(7). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0271949

Whittington, J.L. (2015). Biblical perspective on leadership and organizations [PDF].

doi: 10.1057/9781137478085.

Wilhoit, J. (1991). Christian education and the search for meaning. (2nd ed). Baker Book

House.

https://doi.org/10.1080/15348431.2017.1371604

https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X18799471

184

APPENDICES

Appendix A

Research Question One Demographic Tables

Table A1

Years Taught at Current School Responses to Component 1 of the CRSL Model: Critically Self-

Reflect on Leadership Behaviors

Years Taught at Current School Responses

(Component 1 of CRSL)

Question

Total 0-3

Years

4-6

Years

7-9

Years

10 +

Years

Other

Q2: How often do

you think about

what colleagues of

different races,

ethnicities, or

cultures

experience?

Total 112.0 39.0 25.0 15.0 32.0 1.0

[1] 5.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 4.5% 2.6% 8.0% 6.7% 3.1% 0.0%

[2] 16.0 4.0 6.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 14.3% 10.3% 24.0% 20.0% 9.4% 0.0%

[3] 35.0 11.0 9.0 2.0 12.0 1.0 31.3% 28.2% 36.0% 13.3% 37.5% 100.0%

[4] 50.0 21.0 8.0 8.0 13.0 0.0 44.6% 53.8% 32.0% 53.3% 40.6% 0.0%

[5] 6.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 5.4% 5.1% 0.0% 6.7% 9.4% 0.0%

M 3.3 3.5 2.9 3.3 3.4 3.0

SD 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.1 0.9 0.0

Q4: How often do

adults at your

school have

important

conversations

about diverse

cultures, even

when they might

be uncomfortable?

Total 0-3

Years

4-6

Years

7-9

Years

10 +

Years

Other

Total 112.0 39.0 25.0 15.0 32.0 1.0

[1] 22.0 7.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 0.0 19.6% 17.9% 20.0% 26.7% 18.8% 0.0%

[2] 36.0 18.0 8.0 5.0 5.0 0.0 32.1% 46.2% 32.0% 33.3% 15.6% 0.0%

[3] 36.0 9.0 9.0 5.0 13.0 0.0 32.1% 23.1% 36.0% 33.3% 40.6% 0.0%

[4] 18.0 5.0 3.0 1.0 8.0 1.0

185

16.1% 12.8% 12.0% 6.7% 25.0% 100.0%

[5] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

M 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.2 2.7 4.0

SD 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.9 1.1 0.0

Q7: How

comfortable are

you discussing

diverse culturally

related topics

with your

colleagues?

Total American

Indian or

Alaska

Native

Asian Black or

African

American

Native

Hawaiian

or Other

Pacific

Islander

White

Total 111.0 2.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 105.0

[1] 6.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 5.0 5.4% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 0.0% 4.8%

[2] 13.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.0 11.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 12.4%

[3] 24.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 23.0 21.6% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 0.0% 21.9%

[4] 49.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 46.0 44.1% 50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 43.8%

[5] 19.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.0 17.1% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 17.1%

M 3.6 4.5

3.0

3.6

SD 1.1 0.7

1.4

1.1

Q10: How often

do you think

about what

students of

different races,

ethnicities, or

Total American

Indian or

Alaska

Native

Asian Black or

African

American

Native

Hawaiian

or Other

Pacific

Islander

White

Total 111.0 2.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 105.0

190

cultures

experience?

[1] 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0%

[2] 7.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 6.3% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.7%

[3] 35.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 33.0 31.5% 50.0% 0.0% 25.0% 0.0% 31.4%

[4] 52.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 50.0 46.8% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 47.6%

[5] 16.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 15.0 14.4% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 0.0% 14.3%

M 3.7 2.5

4.0

3.7

SD 0.8 0.7

0.8

Overall

Mean

3.2 2.8 0 3.2 0 3.2

Table A4

School Location Responses to Component 1 of the CRSL Model: Critically Self-Reflect on

Leadership Behaviors

School Location Responses (Component 1 of CRSL)

Question State Total AZ CA FL GA IL IA

Q2: How

often do you

think about

what

colleagues

of different

races,

ethnicities,

or cultures

experience?

Total 112.0 6.0 19.0 11.0 8.0 9.0 2.0

[1] 5.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0

4.5% 16.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 11.1% 0.0%

[2] 16.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0

14.3

16.7% 15.8% 0.0% 0.0% 22.2% 50.0%

[3] 35.0 0.0 10.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 0.0

31.3

0.0% 52.6% 27.3% 37.5% 11.1% 0.0%

[4] 50.0 4.0 4.0 7.0 5.0 5.0 1.0

44.6

66.7% 21.1% 63.6% 62.5% 55.6% 50.0%

[5] 6.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

5.4% 0.0% 10.5% 9.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

191

M 3.3 3.2 3.3 3.8 3.6 3.1 3.0

SD 0.9 1.3 0.9 0.6 0.5 1.2 1.4

Q2: How

often do you

think about

what

colleagues

of different

races,

ethnicities,

or cultures

experience?

State KY MI MD MN MT ND NJ

Total 1.0 34.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 4.0

[1] 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0% 5.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[2] 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0

0.0% 17.6% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0

0.0% 0.0%

[3] 0.0 14.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0

0.0% 41.2% 100.0

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0%

[4] 0.0 11.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 3.0

0.0% 32.4% 0.0% 100.0

0.0% 100.0

75.0%

[5] 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

100.0

2.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

M 5.0 3.1 3.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 3.8

SD 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5

Q2: How

often do you

think about

what

colleagues

of different

races,

ethnicities,

or cultures

experience?

State OR SC SD TX VA WI WA Other

Total 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

[1] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0

[2] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0

0.0% 0.0%

[3] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0

0.0% 0.0% 50.0

[4] 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 100.0

100.0

66.7% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0

0.0%

[5] 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

192

M 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.3 3.0 2.0 4.0 2

SD 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4

School Location Responses (Component 1 of CRSL)

State Total AZ CA FL GA IL IA

Q4: How

often do

adults at

your school

have

important

conversation

s about

diverse

cultures,

even when

they might

uncomfort-

able?

Total 112.0 6.0 19.0 11.0 8.0 9.0 2.0

[1] 22.0 1.0 5.0 4.0 0.0 3.0 0.0

19.6% 16.7% 26.3% 36.4% 0.0% 33.3% 0.0%

[2] 36.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0

32.1% 50.0% 10.5% 18.2% 37.5% 22.2% 100.0

[3] 36.0 2.0 8.0 3.0 5.0 3.0 0.0

32.1% 33.3% 42.1% 27.3% 62.5% 33.3% 0.0%

[4] 18.0 0.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 0.0

16.1% 0.0% 21.1% 18.2% 0.0% 11.1% 0.0%

[5] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

M 2.4 2.2 2.6 2.3 2.6 2.2 2.0

SD 1.0 0.8 1.1 1.2 0.5 1.1 0.0

Q4: How

often do

adults at

your school

have

important

conversation

s about

diverse

cultures,

even when

they might

State KY MI MD MN MT ND NJ

Total 1.0 34.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 4.0

[1] 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0

0.0% 11.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0%

[2] 0.0 16.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0

0.0% 47.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0

25.0%

[3] 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0

0.0% 29.4% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0

0.0% 25.0%

[4] 1.0 4.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.0

193

uncomfort-

able?

100.0

11.8% 100.0

100.0

0.0% 0.0% 25.0%

[5] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

M 4.0 2.4 4.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 2.5

SD 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3

Q4: How

often do

adults at

your school

have

important

conversation

s about

diverse

cultures,

even when

they might

uncomfor-

table?

State OR SC SD TX VA WI WA Other

Total 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

[1] 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0% 0.0% 100.0

0.0% 100.0

50.0% 0.0% 50.0

[2] 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 66.7% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 0.0%

[3] 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0

[4] 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

100.0

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[5] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

M 4.0 4.0 1.0 2.3 1.0 1.5 2.5 2.0

SD 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.7 0.7 1.4

School Location Responses (Component 1 of CRSL)

State Total AZ CA FL GA IL IA

Q7: How

comfortable

are you

discussing

diverse

culturally

related topics

Total 112.0 6.0 19.0 11.0 8.0 9.0 2.0

[1] 7.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.0

6.3% 0.0% 0.0% 18.2

0.0% 0.0% 50.0

[2] 13.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0

11.6% 16.7% 15.8% 9.1% 12.5

11.1% 0.0%

194

with your

colleagues?

[3] 24.0 1.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0

21.4% 16.7% 21.1% 18.2

25.0

22.2% 50.0

[4] 49.0 2.0 11.0 4.0 3.0 5.0 0.0

43.8% 33.3% 57.9% 36.4

37.5

55.6% 0.0%

[5] 19.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 0.0

17.0% 33.3% 5.3% 18.2

25.0

11.1% 0.0%

M 3.5 3.8 3.5 3.3 3.8 3.7 2.0

SD 1.1 1.2 0.8 1.4 1.0 0.9 1.4

Q7: How

comfortable

are you

discussing

diverse

culturally

related topics

with your

colleagues?

State KY MI MD MN MT ND NJ

Total 1.0 34.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 4.0

[1] 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0

0.0% 2.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0

[2] 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0% 14.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[3] 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0

0.0% 23.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0

[4] 0.0 13.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

0.0% 38.2% 100.0

50.0

100.

100.0

25.0

[5] 1.0 7.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0

100% 20.6% 0.0% 50.0

0.0% 0.0% 25.0

M 5.0 3.6 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 3.3

SD 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 1.7

Q7: How

comfortable

are you

discussing

diverse

culturally

State OR SC SD TX VA WI WA Other

Total 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

[1] 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 33.3

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0%

[2] 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

195

related topics

with your

colleagues?

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 33.3

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[3] 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 100.0

0.0% 100.

0.0% 50.0

0.0%

[4] 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 100.0

100.0

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0

50.0

50.0%

[5] 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 33.3

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

M 4.0 4.0 3.0 2.7 3.0 4.0 3.5 2.5

SD 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.7 2.1

School Location Responses (Component 1 of CRSL)

State Total AZ CA FL GA IL IA

Q10: How

often do

you think

about what

students of

different

races,

ethnicities,

or cultures

experience?

Total 112.0 6.0 19.0 11.0 8.0 9.0 2.0

[1] 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

6.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[2] 13.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0

11.6

0.0% 5.3% 0.0% 0.0% 11.1% 0.0%

[3] 24.0 3.0 8.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 1.0

21.4

50.0% 42.1% 27.3

25.0% 22.2% 50.0%

[4] 49.0 2.0 8.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 0.0

43.8

33.3% 42.1% 54.5

75.0% 55.6% 0.0%

[5] 19.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 1.0

17.0

16.7% 10.5% 18.2

0.0% 11.1% 50.0%

M 3.5 3.7 3.6 3.9 3.8 3.7 4.0

196

SD 1.1 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.9 1.4

Overall

Mean

3.2 3.2 3.8 3.4 3.1 2.7

Q10: How

often do

you think

about what

students of

different

races,

ethnicities,

or cultures

experience?

State KY MI MD MN MT ND NJ

Total 1.0 34.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 4.0

[1] 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0% 2.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[2] 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0

0.0% 5.9% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0

0.0% 0.0%

[3] 0.0 14.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0% 41.2% 100.0

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[4] 1.0 13.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 3.0

100.0

38.2% 0.0% 50.0

0.0% 100.0

75.0%

[5] 0.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0

0.0% 11.8% 0.0% 50.0

0.0% 0.0% 25.0%

M 4.0 3.5 3.0 4.5 2.0 4.0 4.3

SD 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.5

Overall

Mean

4.5 3.1 3.5 4.2 2.7 3.5 3.4

Q10: How

often do

you think

about what

students of

different

races,

ethnicities,

or cultures

experience?

State OR SC SD TX VA WI WA Other

Total 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

[1] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0

[2] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0

0.0% 0.0% 50.0

[3] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[4] 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

100.0

66.7

0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[5] 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 33.3

0.0% 0.0% 100.0

0.0%

197

M 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.3 2.0 3.5 5.0 1.5

SD 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.7

Overall

Mean

3.2 4 4 4 3.4 2.2 2.7 3.7 2

Table A5

Years Taught at Current School Responses to Component 2 of the CRSL Model: Develops

Culturally Responsive Teachers

Years Taught at Current School Responses

(Component 2 of CRSL)

Question

Total 0-3

Years

4-6

Years

7-9

Years

10 +

Years

Other

Q8: How well does

your school help staff

speak out against the

exclusion of people

based on race,

ethnicity, or culture?

Total 112.0 39.0 25.0 15.0 32.0 1.0

[1] 18.0 6.0 3.0 3.0 6.0 0.0 16.1% 15.4% 12.0% 20.0% 18.8% 0.0%

[2] 21.0 11.0 5.0 3.0 2.0 0.0 18.8% 28.2% 20.0% 20.0% 6.3% 0.0%

[3] 36.0 11.0 9.0 3.0 13.0 0.0 32.1% 28.2% 36.0% 20.0% 40.6% 0.0%

[4] 24.0 8.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 1.0 21.4% 20.5% 20.0% 26.7% 18.8% 100.0

[5] 13.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 5.0 0.0 11.6% 7.7% 12.0% 13.3% 15.6% 0.0%

M 2.9 2.8 3.0 2.9 3.1 4.0

SD 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.3 0.0

Q15: How comfortable

are you discussing

diverse culturally

related topics?

Total 112.0 39.0 25.0 15.0 32.0 1.0

[1] 16.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 14.3

12.8% 16.0% 20.0% 12.5% 0.0%

[2] 33.0 12.0 9.0 6.0 6.0 0.0 29.5

30.8% 36.0% 40.0% 18.8% 0.0%

[3] 38.0 11.0 7.0 5.0 14.0 1.0

205

33.9

28.2% 28.0% 33.3% 43.8% 100.0

[4] 17.0 9.0 2.0 1.0 5.0 0.0 15.2

23.1% 8.0% 6.7% 15.6% 0.0%

[5] 8.0 2.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 7.1% 5.1% 12.0% 0.0% 9.4% 0.0%

M 2.7 2.8 2.6 2.3 2.9 3.0

SD 1.1 1.1 1.2 0.9 1.1 0.0

Q6: How confident are

you that adults at your

school can have

honest conversations

with each other about

different cultures?

Total 112.0 39.0 25.0 15.0 32.0 1.0

[1] 11.0 5.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 0.0 9.8% 12.8% 4.0% 13.3% 9.4% 0.0%

[2] 24.0 10.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 21.4

25.6% 20.0% 26.7% 15.6% 0.0%

[3] 23.0 8.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 0.0 20.5

20.5% 20.0% 33.3% 15.6% 0.0%

[4] 41.0 14.0 10.0 2.0 14.0 1.0 36.6

35.9% 40.0% 13.3% 43.8% 100.0

[5] 13.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 5.0 0.0 11.6

5.1% 16.0% 13.3% 15.6% 0.0%

M 3.2 2.9 3.4 2.9 3.4 4.0

SD 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.2 0.0

Q9: How often are

students given

opportunities to learn

about people from

different races,

ethnicities, or

cultures?

Total 112.0 39.0 25.0 15.0 32.0 1.0

[1] 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7% 5.1% 4.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[2] 12.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 0.0 10.7

12.8% 8.0% 13.3% 9.4% 0.0%

[3] 40.0 12.0 12.0 5.0 11.0 0.0

206

35.7

30.8% 48.0% 33.3% 34.4% 0.0%

[4] 50.0 17.0 9.0 7.0 17.0 0.0 44.6

43.6% 36.0% 46.7% 53.1% 0.0%

[5] 7.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 6.3% 7.7% 4.0% 6.7% 3.1% 100.0

M 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.5 3.5 5.0

SD 0.9 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.0

Q11: At your school,

how often are students

encouraged to think

more deeply about

multi-culturally

related topics?

Total 112.0 39.0 25.0 15.0 32.0 1.0

[1] 5.0 3.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5% 7.7% 8.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[2] 23.0 8.0 4.0 3.0 8.0 0.0 20.5

20.5% 16.0% 20.0% 25.0% 0.0%

[3] 50.0 18.0 12.0 7.0 13.0 0.0 44.6

46.2% 48.0% 46.7% 40.6% 0.0%

[4] 32.0 10.0 6.0 5.0 10.0 1.0 28.6

25.6% 24.0% 33.3% 31.3% 100.0

[5] 2.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.8% 0.0% 4.0% 0.0% 3.1% 0.0%

M 3.0 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.1 4.0

SD 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.7 0.8 0.0

Q16: How well does

your school help

students speak out

against the exclusion

of people based on

race, ethnicity, or

culture?

Total 112.0 39.0 25.0 15.0 32.0 1.0

[1] 17.0 6.0 4.0 1.0 6.0 0.0 15.2

15.4% 16.0% 6.7% 18.8% 0.0%

[2] 21.0 7.0 7.0 5.0 2.0 0.0 18.8

17.9% 28.0% 33.3% 6.3% 0.0%

207

[3] 44.0 14.0 10.0 3.0 17.0 0.0 39.3

35.9% 40.0% 20.0% 53.1% 0.0%

[4] 24.0 11.0 1.0 4.0 7.0 1.0 21.4

28.2% 4.0% 26.7% 21.9% 100.0

[5] 6.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 5.4% 2.6% 12.0% 13.3% 0.0% 0.0%

M 2.8 2.8 2.7 3.1 2.8 4.0

SD 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.0 0.0 Overall

Mean

2.9 2.8 2.9 2.9 3.1 3.8

Table A10

Gender Responses to Component 3 of the CRSL Model: Promotes

Culturally Responsive/Inclusive School Environment

Gender Responses (Component 3 of CRSL)

Question

Total Male Female Prefer Not to Say

Q1: How often do school

leaders encourage you to

teach about people from

different races, ethnicities, or

cultures?

Total 111.0 28.0 83.0 0.0

[1] 14.0 4.0 10.0 0.0 12.6% 14.3% 12.0% 0.0%

[2] 32.0 8.0 24.0 0.0 28.8% 28.6% 28.9% 0.0%

[3] 39.0 9.0 30.0 0.0 35.1% 32.1% 36.1% 0.0%

[4] 21.0 6.0 15.0 0.0

18.9% 21.4% 18.1% 0.0%

[5] 5.0 1.0 4.0 0.0 4.5% 3.6% 4.8% 0.0%

M 2.7 2.7 2.7

SD 1.1 1.1 1.0

208

Q3: At your school, how often

are you encouraged to think

more deeply about multi-

culturally related topics?

Total 111.0 28.0 83.0 0.0

[1] 15.0 2.0 13.0 0.0 13.5% 7.1% 15.7% 0.0%

[2] 33.0 4.0 29.0 0.0 29.7% 14.3% 34.9% 0.0%

[3] 38.0 15.0 23.0 0.0

34.2% 53.6% 27.7% 0.0%

[4] 17.0 4.0 13.0 0.0 15.3% 14.3% 15.7% 0.0%

[5] 8.0 3.0 5.0 0.0 7.2% 10.7% 6.0% 0.0%

M 2.7 3.1 2.6

SD 1.1 1.0 1.1

Q6: How confident are you

that adults at your school can

have honest conversations

with each other about

different cultures?

Total 111.0 28.0 83.0 0.0

[1] 10.0 1.0 9.0 0.0 9.0% 3.6% 10.8% 0.0%

[2] 24.0 3.0 21.0 0.0

21.6% 10.7% 25.3% 0.0%

[3] 23.0 3.0 20.0 0.0 20.7% 10.7% 24.1% 0.0%

[4] 41.0 16.0 25.0 0.0 36.9% 57.1% 30.1% 0.0%

[5] 13.0 5.0 8.0 0.0 11.7% 17.9% 9.6% 0.0%

M 3.2 3.8 3.0

SD 1.2 1.0 1.2

Q9: How often are students

given opportunities to learn

about people from different

races, ethnicities, or cultures?

Total 111.0 28.0 83.0 0.0

[1] 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0

1.8% 0.0% 2.4% 0.0%

209

[2] 12.0 2.0 10.0 0.0 10.8% 7.1% 12.0% 0.0%

[3] 40.0 13.0 27.0 0.0

36.0% 46.4% 32.5% 0.0%

[4] 50.0 10.0 40.0 0.0 45.0% 35.7% 48.2% 0.0%

[5] 7.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 6.3% 10.7% 4.8% 0.0%

M 3.4 3.5 3.4

SD 0.8 0.8 0.9

Q11: At your school, how

often are students encouraged

to think more deeply about

multi-culturally related

topics?

Total 111.0 28.0 83.0 0.0

[1] 4.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 3.6% 0.0% 4.8% 0.0%

[2] 23.0 3.0 20.0 0.0

20.7% 10.7% 24.1% 0.0%

[3] 50.0 14.0 36.0 0.0 45.0% 50.0% 43.4% 0.0%

[4] 32.0 10.0 22.0 0.0 28.8% 35.7% 26.5% 0.0%

[5] 2.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.8% 3.6% 1.2% 0.0%

M 3.0 3.3 3.0

SD 0.8 0.7 0.9

Q16: How well does your

school help students speak out

against the exclusion of

people based on race,

ethnicity, or culture?

Total 111.0 28.0 83.0 0.0

[1] 17.0 1.0 16.0 0.0

15.3% 3.6% 19.3% 0.0%

[2] 20.0 5.0 15.0 0.0 18.0% 17.9% 18.1% 0.0%

[3] 44.0 11.0 33.0 0.0 39.6% 39.3% 39.8% 0.0%

[4] 24.0 9.0 15.0 0.0

210

21.6% 32.1% 18.1% 0.0%

[5] 6.0 2.0 4.0 0.0 5.4% 7.1% 4.8% 0.0%

M 2.8 3.2 2.7

SD 1.1 1.0 1.1

Overall

Mean

2.9 3.2 2.9

Table A11

Ethnicity Responses to Component 3 of the CRSL Model: Promotes

Culturally Responsive/Inclusive School Environment

Ethnicity Responses (Component 3 of CRSL)

Question

Total American

Indian or

Alaska

Native

Asian Black or

African

American

Native

Hawaiian

or Other

Pacific

Islander

White

Q1: How often do

school leaders

encourage you to

teach about people

from different races,

ethnicities, or

cultures?

Total 111.0 2.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 105.0

[1] 14.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 11.0 12.6% 100.0% 0.0% 25.0% 0.0% 10.5

[2] 32.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 29.0 28.8% 0.0% 0.0% 75.0% 0.0% 27.6

[3] 39.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 39.0 35.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 37.1

[4] 21.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.0 18.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0

[5] 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 4.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.8%

M 2.7 1.0

1.8

2.8

211

SD 1.1 0.0

0.5

1.0

Q3: At your school,

how often are you

encouraged to think

more deeply about

multi-culturally

related topics?

Total 111.0 2.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 105.0

[1] 15.0 1.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 11.0 13.5% 50.0% 0.0% 75.0% 0.0% 10.5

[2] 33.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 32.0 29.7% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 0.0% 30.5

[3] 38.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.0 34.2% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 35.2

[4] 17.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.0 15.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 16.2

[5] 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 7.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.6%

M 2.7 2.0

1.3

2.8

SD 1.1 1.4

0.5

1.1

Q6: How confident

are you that adults at

your school can

have honest

conversations with

each other about

different cultures?

Total 111.0 2.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 105.0

[1] 10.0 1.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 6.0 9.0% 50.0% 0.0% 75.0% 0.0% 5.7%

[2] 24.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.0 21.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 22.9

[3] 23.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.0 20.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 21.9

[4] 41.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 40.0 36.9% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 0.0% 38.1

[5] 13.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.0 11.7% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 11.4

M 3.2 3.0

1.8

3.3

212

SD 1.2 2.8

1.5

1.1

Q9: How often are

students given

opportunities to

learn about people

from different races,

ethnicities, or

cultures?

Total 111.0 2.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 105.0

[1] 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.9%

[2] 12.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.0 10.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 11.4

[3] 40.0 1.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 36.0 36.0% 50.0% 0.0% 75.0% 0.0% 34.3

[4] 50.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 48.0 45.0% 50.0% 0.0% 25.0% 0.0% 45.7

[5] 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 6.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.7%

M 3.4 3.5

3.3

3.4

SD 0.8 0.7

0.5

0.9

Q11: At your school,

how often are

students encouraged

to think more deeply

about multi-

culturally related

topics?

Total 111.0 2.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 105.0

[1] 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 3.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.8%

[2] 23.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 22.0 20.7% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 0.0% 21.0

[3] 50.0 2.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 45.0 45.0% 100.0% 0.0% 75.0% 0.0% 42.9

[4] 32.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.0 28.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 30.5

[5] 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.9%

M 3.0 3.0

2.8

3.1

213

SD 0.8 0.0

0.5

0.9

Q16: How well does

your school help

students speak out

against the exclusion

of people based on

race, ethnicity, or

culture?

Total 111.0 2.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 105.0

[1] 17.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 15.0 15.3% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 14.3

[2] 20.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 19.0 18.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 0.0% 18.1

[3] 44.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 43.0 39.6% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 0.0% 41.0

[4] 24.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.0 21.6% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 21.9

[5] 6.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 5.4% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.8%

M 2.8 4.5

1.8

2.8

SD 1.1 0.7

1.0

1.1 Overall

Mean

2.9 2.8

2.1

Table A12

School Location Responses to Component 3 of the CRSL Model: Promotes

Culturally Responsive/Inclusive School Environment

School Location Responses (Component 3 of CRSL)

Question State Total AZ CA FL GA IL IA

Q1: How

often do

school

leaders

encourage

you to teach

about

people from

Total 112.0 6.0 19.0 11.0 8.0 9.0 2.0

[1] 14.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

12.5% 16.7% 5.3% 36.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[2] 33.0 2.0 7.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 0.0

29.5% 33.3% 36.8% 18.2% 25.0% 44.4% 0.0%

[3] 39.0 2.0 7.0 4.0 6.0 3.0 1.0

214

different

races,

ethnicities,

or cultures?

34.8% 33.3% 36.8% 36.4% 75.0% 33.3% 50.0%

[4] 21.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0

18.8% 16.7% 5.3% 9.1% 0.0% 11.1% 50.0%

[5] 5.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0

4.5% 0.0% 15.8% 0.0% 0.0% 11.1% 0.0%

M 2.7 2.5 2.9 2.2 2.8 2.9 3.5

SD 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 0.5 1.1 0.7

Q1: How

often do

school

leaders

encourage

you to teach

about

people from

different

races,

ethnicities,

or cultures?

State KY MI MD MN MT ND NJ

Total 1.0 34.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 4.0

[1] 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0% 14.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[2] 0.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0

0.0% 26.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0

50.0%

[3] 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0

0.0% 29.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0%

[4] 1.0 10.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0

100.0

29.4% 100.0

100.0

0.0% 0.0%

[5] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0%

M 4.0 2.7 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 3.0

SD 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4

Q1: How

often do

school

leaders

encourage

you to teach

about

people from

different

races,

State OR SC SD TX VA WI WA Other

Total 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

[1] 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0% 100.0

0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0%

[2] 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0% 0.0% 100.0

0.0% 100.0

0.0% 50.0% 50.0%

[3] 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 0.0

215

ethnicities,

or cultures?

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 66.7% 0.0% 100.0

50.0% 0.0%

[4] 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[5] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

M 4.0 1.0 2.0 2.3 2.0 3.0 2.5 1.5

SD 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.7

Q3: At your

school, how

often are

you

encouraged

to think

more deeply

about multi-

culturally

topics?

State Total AZ CA FL GA IL IA

Total 112.0 6.0 19.0 11.0 8.0 9.0 2.0

[1] 16.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 0.0 2.0 0.0

14.3% 33.3% 10.5% 36.4% 0.0% 22.2% 0.0%

[2] 33.0 2.0 6.0 3.0 4.0 1.0 0.0

29.5% 33.3% 31.6% 27.3% 50.0% 11.1% 0.0%

[3] 38.0 0.0 6.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 1.0

33.9% 0.0% 31.6% 18.2% 37.5% 33.3% 50.0%

[4] 17.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 1.0

15.2% 33.3% 5.3% 18.2% 12.5% 33.3% 50.0%

[5] 8.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

7.1% 0.0% 21.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

M 2.7 2.3 2.9 2.2 2.6 2.8 3.5

SD 1.1 1.4 1.3 1.2 0.7 1.2 0.7

Q3: At your

school, how

often are

you

encouraged

to think

more deeply

about multi-

culturally

topics?

State KY MI MD MN MT ND NJ

Total 1.0 34.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 4.0

[1] 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0% 11.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[2] 0.0 11.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0

0.0% 32.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0%

[3] 0.0 14.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.0

0.0% 41.2% 100.0

0.0% 100.0

100.0

50.0%

[4] 1.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

216

100.0

11.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[5] 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.0

0.0% 2.9% 0.0% 100.0

0.0% 0.0% 25.0%

M 4.0 2.6 3.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 3.3

SD 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3

Q3: At your

school, how

often are

you

encouraged

to think

more deeply

about multi-

culturally

topics?

State OR SC SD TX VA WI WA Other

Total 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

[1] 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0%

[2] 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 100.0

33.3% 100.0

50.0% 50.0% 0.0%

[3] 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0% 100.0

0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0%

[4] 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[5] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

M 4.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.5 2.0

SD 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.4 0.7 1.4

Q6: How

confident

are you that

adults at

your school

can have

honest

conversatio

ns with each

other about

different

cultures?

State Total AZ CA FL GA IL IA

Total 112.0 6.0 19.0 11.0 8.0 9.0 2.0

[1] 11.0 0.0 2.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 1.0

9.8% 0.0% 10.5% 27.3% 0.0% 11.1% 50.0%

[2] 24.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 0.0

21.4% 33.3% 10.5% 18.2% 12.5% 11.1% 0.0%

[3] 23.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0.0

20.5% 33.3% 21.1% 18.2% 37.5% 44.4% 0.0%

[4] 41.0 1.0 11.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 1.0

36.6% 16.7% 57.9% 27.3% 37.5% 22.2% 50.0%

[5] 13.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0

217

11.6% 16.7% 0.0% 9.1% 12.5% 11.1% 0.0%

M 3.2 3.2 3.3 2.7 3.5 3.1 2.5

SD 1.2 1.2 1.0 1.4 0.9 1.2 2.1

Q6: How

confident

are you that

adults at

your school

can have

honest

conversatio

ns with each

other about

different

cultures?

State KY MI MD MN MT ND NJ

Total 1.0 34.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 4.0

[1] 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0% 2.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[2] 0.0 11.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0

0.0% 32.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0%

[3] 0.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0% 20.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[4] 0.0 8.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0

0.0% 23.5% 100.0

50.0% 100.0

100.0

75.0%

[5] 1.0 7.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

100.0

20.6% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

M 5.0 3.3 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 3.5

SD 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 1.0

Q6: How

confident

are you that

adults at

your school

can have

honest

conversatio

ns with each

other about

different

cultures?

State OR SC SD TX VA WI WA Other

Total 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

[1] 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0

[2] 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 100.0

33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0

0.0%

[3] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[4] 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

100.0

0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0

0.0% 0.0%

[5] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

218

M 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.3 3.0 4.0 2.0 1.0

SD 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Q9: How

often are

students

given

opportunitie

s to learn

about

people from

different

races,

ethnicities,

or cultures?

State

AZ CA FL GA IL IA

Total 112.0 6.0 19.0 11.0 8.0 9.0 2.0

[1] 3.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

2.7% 0.0% 0.0% 9.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[2] 12.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 0.0

10.7% 33.3% 5.3% 9.1% 0.0% 22.2% 0.0%

[3] 40.0 1.0 9.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 1.0

35.7% 16.7% 47.4% 27.3% 50.0% 22.2% 50.0%

[4] 50.0 3.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 0.0

44.6% 50.0% 42.1% 54.5% 50.0% 44.4% 0.0%

[5] 7.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0

6.3% 0.0% 5.3% 0.0% 0.0% 11.1% 50.0%

M 3.4 3.2 3.5 3.3 3.5 3.4 4.0

SD 0.9 1.0 0.7 1.0 0.5 1.0 1.4

Q9: How

often are

students

given

opportunitie

s to learn

about

people from

different

races,

ethnicities,

or cultures?

State KY MI MD MN MT ND NJ

Total 1.0 34.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 4.0

[1] 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0% 2.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[2] 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0% 14.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[3] 0.0 11.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0

0.0% 32.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0%

[4] 1.0 14.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0

100.0

41.2% 100.0

50.0% 100.0

100.0

50.0%

[5] 0.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0% 8.8% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

M 4.0 3.4 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 3.5

SD 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.6

219

Q9: How

often are

students

given

opportunitie

s to learn

about

people from

different

races,

ethnicities,

or cultures?

State OR SC SD TX VA WI WA Other

Total 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

[1] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0%

[2] 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[3] 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0% 100.0

100.0

66.7% 100.0

0.0% 50.0% 50.0%

[4] 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 100.0

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0

50.0% 0.0%

[5] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

M 4.0 3.0 3.0 2.7 3.0 4.0 3.5 2.0

SD 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.7 1.4

Q11: At

your school,

how often

are students

encouraged

to think

more deeply

about multi-

culturally

topics?

State Total AZ CA FL GA IL IA

Total 112.0 6.0 19.0 11.0 8.0 9.0 2.0

[1] 5.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

4.5% 0.0% 0.0% 9.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[2] 23.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0

20.5% 50.0% 15.8% 9.1% 12.5% 22.2% 0.0%

[3] 50.0 2.0 11.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 1.0

44.6% 33.3% 57.9% 54.5% 62.5% 44.4% 50.0%

[4] 32.0 1.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 1.0

28.6% 16.7% 21.1% 27.3% 25.0% 33.3% 50.0%

[5] 2.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1.8% 0.0% 5.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

M 3.0 2.7 3.2 3.0 3.1 3.1 3.5

SD 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.6 0.8 0.7

Q11: At

your school,

how often

State KY MI MD MN MT ND NJ

Total 1.0 34.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 4.0

220

are students

encouraged

to think

more deeply

about multi-

culturally

topics?

[1] 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0% 8.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[2] 0.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0

0.0% 20.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0%

[3] 0.0 11.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.0

0.0% 32.4% 100.0

0.0% 100.0

100.0

50.0%

[4] 1.0 12.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.0

100.0

35.3% 0.0% 100.0

0.0% 0.0% 25.0%

[5] 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0% 2.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

M 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

SD 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8

Q11: At

your school,

how often

are students

encouraged

to think

more deeply

about multi-

culturally

topics?

State OR SC SD TX VA WI WA Other

Total 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

[1] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0%

[2] 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 100.0

0.0% 100.0

50.0% 100.0

0.0%

[3] 0.0 1.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0% 100.0

0.0% 100.0

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0%

[4] 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[5] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

M 4.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0

SD 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 1.4

Q16: How

well does

your school

help

State Total AZ CA FL GA IL IA

Total 112.0 6.0 19.0 11.0 8.0 9.0 2.0

[1] 17.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 0.0 2.0 0.0

221

students

speak out

against the

exclusion of

people

based on

race,

ethnicity, or

culture?

15.2% 16.7% 10.5% 27.3% 0.0% 22.2% 0.0%

[2] 21.0 0.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 1.0

18.8% 0.0% 10.5% 27.3% 25.0% 11.1% 50.0%

[3] 44.0 2.0 10.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 1.0

39.3% 33.3% 52.6% 27.3% 37.5% 44.4% 50.0%

[4] 24.0 1.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 0.0

21.4% 16.7% 21.1% 18.2% 25.0% 11.1% 0.0%

[5] 6.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0

5.4% 33.3% 5.3% 0.0% 12.5% 11.1% 0.0%

M 2.8 3.5 3.0 2.4 3.3 2.8 2.5

SD 1.1 1.5 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.3 0.7

Overall

Mean

2.9 3.1 2.6 3.1 3.0 3.2

Q16: How

well does

your school

help

students

speak out

against the

exclusion of

people

based on

race,

ethnicity, or

culture?

State KY MI MD MN MT ND NJ

Total 1.0 34.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 4.0

[1] 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0

0.0% 17.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0%

[2] 0.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0% 20.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[3] 1.0 15.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0

100.0

44.1% 100.0

0.0% 100.0

0.0% 50.0%

[4] 0.0 6.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0

0.0% 17.6% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0

25.0%

[5] 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

M 3.0 2.6 3.0 4.5 3.0 4.0 2.8

SD 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 1.3

Overall

Mean

4.0 2.9 3.5 4.4 3.5 3.3 3.1

Q16: How

well does

your school

help

students

State OR SC SD TX VA WI WA Other

Total 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

[1] 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0%

222

speak out

against the

exclusion of

people

based on

race,

ethnicity, or

culture?

[2] 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0% 100.0

100.0

0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0%

[3] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[4] 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 100.0

0.0% 0.0% 66.7% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 50.0%

[5] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

M 4.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.5 3.0

SD 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 1.4 0.7 1.4

Overall

Mean

2.9 4.0 2.6 2.1 2.5 2.5 3.3 2.3 1.9

Table A13

Years Taught at Current School Responses to Component 4 of the CRSL Model: Engages

Students, Parents, and Indigenous Contexts

Years Taught at Current School Responses (Component

4 of CRSL)

Question

Total 0-3 Years 4-6

Years

7-9

Years

10 +

Years

Other

Q5: When there are

major news events

related to diverse

cultures, how often do

adults at your school

talk about them with

each other?

Total 112.0 39.0 25.0 15.0 32.0 1.0

[1] 19.0 9.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 0.0 17.0

23.1% 16.0% 13.3% 12.5% 0.0%

[2] 24.0 9.0 5.0 3.0 7.0 0.0 21.4

23.1% 20.0% 20.0% 21.9% 0.0%

[3] 40.0 13.0 9.0 8.0 9.0 1.0 35.7

33.3% 36.0% 53.3% 28.1% 100.0

[4] 24.0 8.0 6.0 1.0 9.0 0.0 21.4

20.5% 24.0% 6.7% 28.1% 0.0%

[5] 5.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 0.0

223

4.5% 0.0% 4.0% 6.7% 9.4% 0.0%

M 2.8 2.5 2.8 2.7 3.0 3.0

SD 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.2 0.0

Q12: How often do

students at your school

have important

conversations about

diverse cultures, even

when they might be

uncomfortable?

Total 112.0 39.0 25.0 15.0 32.0 1.0

[1] 14.0 6.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 0.0 12.5

15.4% 12.0% 13.3% 9.4% 0.0%

[2] 30.0 14.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 0.0 26.8

35.9% 24.0% 26.7% 18.8% 0.0%

[3] 49.0 13.0 12.0 8.0 16.0 0.0 43.8

33.3% 48.0% 53.3% 50.0% 0.0%

[4] 17.0 5.0 4.0 1.0 6.0 1.0 15.2

12.8% 16.0% 6.7% 18.8% 100.0

[5] 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.8% 2.6% 0.0% 0.0% 3.1% 0.0%

M 2.7 2.5 2.7 2.5 2.9 4.0

SD 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.0

Q13: When there are

major news events

related to diverse

cultures, how often do

adults at your school

talk about them with

each other?

Total 112.0 39.0 25.0 15.0 32.0 1.0

[1] 14.0 8.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 0.0 12.5

20.5% 4.0% 13.3% 9.4% 0.0%

[2] 26.0 10.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 0.0 23.2

25.6% 24.0% 33.3% 15.6% 0.0%

[3] 45.0 16.0 13.0 4.0 11.0 1.0 40.2

41.0% 52.0% 26.7% 34.4% 100.0

[4] 22.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 10.0 0.0 19.6

12.8% 16.0% 20.0% 31.3% 0.0%

224

[5] 5.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 4.5% 0.0% 4.0% 6.7% 9.4% 0.0%

M 2.8 2.5 2.9 2.7 3.2 3.0

SD 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.2 1.1 0.0

Q14: How confident are

you that adults at your

school can have honest

conversations with

students about different

cultures?

Total 112.0 39.0 25.0 15.0 32.0 1.0

[1] 12.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 5.0 0.0 10.7

7.7% 8.0% 13.3% 15.6% 0.0%

[2] 12.0 5.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 0.0 10.7

12.8% 8.0% 20.0% 6.3% 0.0%

[3] 40.0 16.0 9.0 5.0 9.0 1.0 35.7

41.0% 36.0% 33.3% 28.1% 100.0

[4] 38.0 12.0 9.0 3.0 14.0 0.0 33.9

30.8% 36.0% 20.0% 43.8% 0.0%

[5] 10.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 8.9% 7.7% 12.0% 13.3% 6.3% 0.0%

M 3.2 3.2 3.4 3.0 3.2 3.0

SD 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.2 0.0 Overall

Mean

2.8 2.6 2.9 2.7 3 3.2

225

Table A14

Gender Responses to Component 4 of the CRSL Model: Engages

Students, Parents, and Indigenous Contexts

Gender Responses (Component 4 of CRSL)

Question

Total Male Female Prefer Not to Say

Q5: When there are major

news events related to

diverse cultures, how often

do adults at your school talk

about them with each other?

Total 111.0 28.0 83.0 0.0

[1] 19.0 1.0 18.0 0.0

17.1% 3.6% 21.7% 0.0%

[2] 24.0 6.0 18.0 0.0 21.6% 21.4% 21.7% 0.0%

[3] 40.0 11.0 29.0 0.0 36.0% 39.3% 34.9% 0.0%

[4] 23.0 9.0 14.0 0.0 20.7% 32.1% 16.9% 0.0%

[5] 5.0 1.0 4.0 0.0

4.5% 3.6% 4.8% 0.0%

M 2.7 3.1 2.6

SD 1.1 0.9 1.1

Q12: How often do students

at your school have

important conversations

about diverse cultures, even

when they might be

uncomfortable?

Total 111.0 28.0 83.0 0.0

[1] 14.0 0.0 14.0 0.0

12.6% 0.0% 16.9% 0.0%

[2] 29.0 7.0 22.0 0.0

26.1% 25.0% 26.5% 0.0%

[3] 49.0 17.0 32.0 0.0 44.1% 60.7% 38.6% 0.0%

[4] 17.0 2.0 15.0 0.0 15.3% 7.1% 18.1% 0.0%

[5] 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.8% 7.1% 0.0% 0.0%

226

M 2.7 3.0 2.6

SD 0.9 0.8 1.0

Q13: When there are major

news events related to

diverse cultures, how often

do adults at your school talk

about them with each other?

Total 111.0 28.0 83.0 0.0

[1] 13.0 1.0 12.0 0.0 11.7% 3.6% 14.5% 0.0%

[2] 26.0 7.0 19.0 0.0 23.4% 25.0% 22.9% 0.0%

[3] 45.0 10.0 35.0 0.0

40.5% 35.7% 42.2% 0.0%

[4] 22.0 9.0 13.0 0.0

19.8% 32.1% 15.7% 0.0%

[5] 5.0 1.0 4.0 0.0 4.5% 3.6% 4.8% 0.0%

M 2.8 3.1 2.7

SD 1.0 0.9 1.0

Q14: How confident are you

that adults at your school can

have honest conversations

with students about different

cultures?

Total 111.0 28.0 83.0 0.0

[1] 12.0 1.0 11.0 0.0 10.8% 3.6% 13.3% 0.0%

[2] 12.0 1.0 11.0 0.0 10.8% 3.6% 13.3% 0.0%

[3] 39.0 7.0 32.0 0.0 35.1% 25.0% 38.6% 0.0%

[4] 38.0 14.0 24.0 0.0

34.2% 50.0% 28.9% 0.0%

[5] 10.0 5.0 5.0 0.0

9.0% 17.9% 6.0% 0.0%

M 3.2 3.8 3.0

SD 1.1 0.9 1.1

227

Overall

Mean

2.8 3.2 2.7

Table A15

Ethnicity Responses to Component 4 of the CRSL Model: Engages

Students, Parents, and Indigenous Contexts

Ethnicity Responses (Component 4 of CRSL)

Question

Total American

Indian or

Alaska

Native

Asian Black or

African

American

Native

Hawaiian

or Other

Pacific

Islander

White

Q5: When there

are major news

events related to

diverse cultures,

how often do

adults at your

school talk about

them with each

other?

Total 111.0 2.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 105.0

[1] 19.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 17.0 17.1% 50.0% 0.0% 25.0% 0.0% 16.2%

[2] 24.0 1.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 20.0 21.6% 50.0% 0.0% 75.0% 0.0% 19.0%

[3] 40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.0 36.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 38.1%

[4] 23.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.0 20.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 21.9%

[5] 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 4.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.8%

M 2.7 1.5

1.8

2.8

SD 1.1 0.7

0.5

1.1

Q12: How often

do students at

your school have

important

conversations

about diverse

cultures, even

when they might

Total 111.0 2.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 105.0

[1] 14.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 12.0 12.6% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 11.4%

[2] 29.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 27.0 26.1% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 25.7%

[3] 49.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 48.0

228

uncomfortable?

44.1% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 45.7%

[4] 17.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.0 15.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 16.2%

[5] 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.8% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0%

M 2.7 4.0

1.5

2.7

SD 0.9 1.4

0.6

0.9

Q13: When there

are major news

events related to

diverse cultures,

how often do

adults at your

school talk about

them with each

other?

Total 111.0 2.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 105.0

[1] 13.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 10.0 11.7% 0.0% 0.0% 75.0% 0.0% 9.5%

[2] 26.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 23.4% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 23.8%

[3] 45.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 44.0 40.5% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 0.0% 41.9%

[4] 22.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.0 19.8% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0%

[5] 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 4.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.8%

M 2.8 3.0

1.5

2.9

SD 1.0 1.4

1.0

Q14: How

confident are you

that adults at your

school can have

honest

conversations

with students

about different

cultures?

Total 111.0 2.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 105.0

[1] 12.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 9.0 10.8% 0.0% 0.0% 75.0% 0.0% 8.6%

[2] 12.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.0 10.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 11.4%

[3] 39.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 39.0 35.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 37.1%

[4] 38.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 36.0 34.2% 50.0% 0.0% 25.0% 0.0% 34.3%

229

[5] 10.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 9.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8.6%

M 3.2 4.5

1.8

3.2

SD 1.1 0.7

1.5

1.0 Overall

Mean

2.8 3.2 0 1.6 0 2.9

Table A16

School Location Responses to Component 4 of the CRSL Model: Engages

Students, Parents, and Indigenous Contexts

School Location Responses (Component 4 of CRSL)

Question State Total AZ CA FL GA IL IA

Q5: When

there are

major news

events related

to diverse

cultures, how

often do

adults at your

school talk

about them

with each

other?

Total 112.

6.0 19.0 11.0 8.0 9.0 2.0

[1] 19.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 0.0 3.0 1.0

17.0

16.7% 15.8% 18.2% 0.0% 33.3% 50.0%

[2] 24.0 3.0 6.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 0.0

21.4

50.0% 31.6% 0.0% 12.5% 22.2% 0.0%

[3] 40.0 2.0 4.0 8.0 5.0 4.0 0.0

35.7

33.3% 21.1% 72.7% 62.5% 44.4% 0.0%

[4] 24.0 0.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0

21.4

0.0% 26.3% 9.1% 12.5% 0.0% 50.0%

[5] 5.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0

4.5% 0.0% 5.3% 0.0% 12.5% 0.0% 0.0%

M 2.8 2.2 2.7 2.7 3.3 2.1 2.5

SD 1.1 0.8 1.2 0.9 0.9 0.9 2.1

Q5: When

there are

State KY MI MD MN MT ND NJ

Total 1.0 34.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 4.0

230

major news

events related

to diverse

cultures, how

often do

adults at your

school talk

about them

with each

other?

[1] 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0

0.0% 17.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0%

[2] 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0% 23.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[3] 0.0 10.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0% 29.4% 100.0

50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[4] 1.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 3.0

100.

23.5% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0

100.0

75.0%

[5] 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0% 5.9% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

M 4.0 2.8 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.3

SD 0.0 1.2 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 1.5

Q5: When

there are

major news

events related

to diverse

cultures, how

often do

adults at your

school talk

about them

with each

other?

State OR SC SD TX VA WI WA Other

Total 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

[1] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 50.0%

[2] 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 100.0

66.7% 100.0

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[3] 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0% 100.0

0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 50.0% 100.0

0.0%

[4] 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 100.

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0%

[5] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

M 4.0 3.0 2.0 2.3 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.5

SD 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 1.4 0.0 2.1

Q12: How

often do

students at

your school

State Total AZ CA FL GA IL IA

Total 112.

6.0 19.0 11.0 8.0 9.0 2.0

[1] 14.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 3.0 0.0

231

have

important

conversations

about diverse

cultures, even

when they

might be

uncomfort-

able?

12.5

33.3% 5.3% 18.2% 0.0% 33.3% 0.0%

[2] 30.0 1.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0

26.8

16.7% 31.6% 18.2% 25.0% 22.2% 50.0%

[3] 49.0 3.0 9.0 3.0 6.0 3.0 1.0

43.8

50.0% 47.4% 27.3% 75.0% 33.3% 50.0%

[4] 17.0 0.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 0.0

15.2

0.0% 15.8% 36.4% 0.0% 11.1% 0.0%

[5] 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

M 2.7 2.2 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.2 2.5

SD 0.9 1.0 0.8 1.2 0.5 1.1 0.7

Q12: How

often do

students at

your school

have

important

conversations

about diverse

cultures, even

when they

might be

uncomfort-

able?

State KY MI MD MN MT ND NJ

Total 1.0 34.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 4.0

[1] 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0% 14.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[2] 0.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

0.0% 26.5% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0

100.0

25.0%

[3] 1.0 14.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0

100.

41.2% 100.0

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0%

[4] 0.0 5.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.0

0.0% 14.7% 0.0% 100.0

0.0% 0.0% 25.0%

[5] 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0% 2.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

M 3.0 2.6 3.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 3.0

SD 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8

Q12: How

often do

students at

State OR SC SD TX VA WI WA Other

Total 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

[1] 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

232

your school

have

important

conversations

about diverse

cultures, even

when they

might be

uncomfort-

able?

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[2] 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0% 0.0% 100.0

33.3% 100.0

0.0% 0.0% 50.0%

[3] 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0% 100.0

0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0

100.0

0.0%

[4] 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[5] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0%

M 4.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.5

SD 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1

Q13: When

there are

major news

events related

to diverse

cultures, how

often do

adults at your

school talk

about them

with each

other?

State Total AZ CA FL GA IL IA

Total 112.

6.0 19.0 11.0 8.0 9.0 2.0

[1] 14.0 0.0 3.0 1.0 0.0 3.0 0.0

12.5

0.0% 15.8% 9.1% 0.0% 33.3% 0.0%

[2] 26.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

23.2

66.7% 15.8% 27.3% 12.5% 11.1% 50.0%

[3] 45.0 2.0 8.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 1.0

40.2

33.3% 42.1% 45.5% 62.5% 44.4% 50.0%

[4] 22.0 0.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 0.0

19.6

0.0% 21.1% 18.2% 12.5% 11.1% 0.0%

[5] 5.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0

4.5% 0.0% 5.3% 0.0% 12.5% 0.0% 0.0%

M 2.8 2.3 2.8 2.7 3.3 2.3 2.5

SD 1.0 0.5 1.1 0.9 0.9 1.1 0.7

Q13: When

there are

State KY MI MD MN MT ND NJ

Total 1.0 34.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 4.0

233

major news

events related

to diverse

cultures, how

often do

adults at your

school talk

about them

with each

other?

[1] 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0

0.0% 11.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0%

[2] 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0% 29.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[3] 1.0 10.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0

100.

29.4% 100.0

50.0% 100.0

0.0% 0.0%

[4] 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 3.0

0.0% 23.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0

75.0%

[5] 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0% 5.9% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

M 3.0 2.8 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.3

SD 0.0 1.1 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 1.5

Q13: When

there are

major news

events related

to diverse

cultures, how

often do

adults at your

school talk

about them

with each

other?

State OR SC SD TX VA WI WA Other

Total 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

[1] 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0%

[2] 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 100.0

33.3% 100.0

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[3] 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0% 100.0

0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0

100.0

0.0%

[4] 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 100.

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0%

[5] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

M 4.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.5

SD 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1

Q14: How

confident are

you that

adults at your

State

AZ CA FL GA IL IA

Total 112.

6.0 19.0 11.0 8.0 9.0 2.0

[1] 12.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0

234

school can

have honest

conversations

with students

about

different

cultures?

10.7

0.0% 10.5% 18.2% 0.0% 22.2% 0.0%

[2] 12.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0

10.7

16.7% 0.0% 9.1% 0.0% 11.1% 0.0%

[3] 40.0 2.0 10.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 1.0

35.7

33.3% 52.6% 36.4% 50.0% 55.6% 50.0%

[4] 38.0 2.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 1.0

33.9

33.3% 31.6% 36.4% 50.0% 0.0% 50.0%

[5] 10.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0

8.9% 16.7% 5.3% 0.0% 0.0% 11.1% 0.0%

M 3.2 3.5 3.2 2.9 3.5 2.7 3.5

SD 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.1 0.5 1.2 0.7

Overall

Mean

2.5 2.8 2.7 3.2 2.3 2.7

Q14: How

confident are

you that

adults at your

school can

have honest

conversations

with students

about

different

cultures?

State KY MI MD MN MT ND NJ

Total 1.0 34.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 4.0

[1] 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0% 11.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[2] 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0

0.0% 14.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0%

[3] 0.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0

0.0% 26.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0%

[4] 1.0 13.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

100.

38.2% 100.0

50.0% 100.0

100.0

25.0%

[5] 0.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0

0.0% 8.8% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0%

M 4.0 3.2 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 3.5

SD 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 1.3

Overall

Mean

3.5 2.8 3.2 4.1 3.2 3.5 3.2

Q14: How

confident are

State OR SC SD TX VA WI WA Other

Total 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

235

you that

adults at your

school can

have honest

conversations

with students

about

different

cultures?

[1] 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0%

[2] 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 100.0

33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0%

[3] 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0% 100.0

0.0% 0.0% 100.0

50.0% 0.0% 50.0%

[4] 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.

0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[5] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 50.0%

M 4.0 3.0 2.0 2.3 3.0 4.0 1.5 4.0

SD 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 1.4 0.7 1.4

Overall

Mean

2.8 4 3 2 3.4 2.2 3 2.6 3.1

236

Appendix B

Research Question Two Demographic Tables

Table B1

Years Taught at Current School Responses to Component 1 of the CRSL Model: Critically Self-

Reflect on Leadership Behaviors

Years Taught at Current School Responses (Component 1 of CRSL)

Question

Total 0-3

Years

4-6

Years

7-9

Years

10 + Years Other

Q17: How

easy do you

find

interacting

with students

at your

school who

are from a

different

cultural

background

than your

own?

Total 112.0 39.0 25.0 15.0 32.0 1.0

[1] 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

2.7% 5.1% 4.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[2] 3.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0

2.7% 2.6% 4.0% 0.0% 3.1% 0.0%

[3] 6.0 1.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 0.0

5.4% 2.6% 16.0% 0.0% 3.1% 0.0%

[4] 56.0 21.0 10.0 8.0 16.0 1.0

50.0% 53.8% 40.0% 53.3% 50.0% 100.0%

[5] 44.0 14.0 9.0 7.0 14.0 0.0

39.3% 35.9% 36.0% 46.7% 43.8% 0.0%

M 4.2 4.1 4.0 4.5 4.3 4.0

SD 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.7 0.0

Q24: How

comfortable

would you

be having a

student who

could not

communicate

well with

anyone in

class because

of his/her

Total 112.0 39.0 25.0 15.0 32.0 1.0

[1] 4.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0

3.6% 5.1% 4.0% 6.7% 0.0% 0.0%

[2] 10.0 5.0 3.0 2.0 0.0 0.0

8.9% 12.8% 12.0% 13.3% 0.0% 0.0%

[3] 37.0 8.0 9.0 6.0 13.0 1.0

33.0% 20.5% 36.0% 40.0% 40.6% 100.0%

[4] 39.0 16.0 8.0 1.0 14.0 0.0

34.8% 41.0% 32.0% 6.7% 43.8% 0.0%

237

home

language

was unique?

[5] 22.0 8.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 0.0

19.6% 20.5% 16.0% 33.3% 15.6% 0.0%

M 3.6 3.6 3.4 3.5 3.8 3.0

SD 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.3 0.7 0.0 Overall

Mean

3.9 3.8 3.7 4 4 3.5

Table B2

Gender Responses to Component 1 of the CRSL Model: Critically Self-

Reflect on Leadership Behaviors

Gender Responses (Component 1 of CRSL)

Question

Total Male Female Prefer

Not to

Say

Q17: How easy do you find

interacting with students at

your school who are from a

different cultural background

than your own?

Total 111.0 28.0 83.0 0.0

[1] 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.8% 0.0% 2.4% 0.0%

[2] 3.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 2.7% 3.6% 2.4% 0.0%

[3] 6.0 2.0 4.0 0.0

5.4% 7.1% 4.8% 0.0%

[4] 56.0 14.0 42.0 0.0

50.5% 50.0% 50.6% 0.0%

[5] 44.0 11.0 33.0 0.0

39.6% 39.3% 39.8% 0.0%

M 4.2 4.3 4.2

SD 0.8 0.8 0.8

Total 111.0 28.0 83.0 0.0

238

Q24: How comfortable would

you be having a student who

could not communicate well

with anyone in class because

of his/her home language was

unique?

[1] 4.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 0.0%

[2] 9.0 3.0 6.0 0.0 8.1% 10.7% 7.2% 0.0%

[3] 37.0 8.0 29.0 0.0

33.3% 28.6% 34.9% 0.0%

[4] 39.0 11.0 28.0 0.0

35.1% 39.3% 33.7% 0.0%

[5] 22.0 5.0 17.0 0.0

19.8% 17.9% 20.5% 0.0%

M 3.6 3.6 3.6

SD 1.0 1.0 1.0

Overall

Mean

3.9 3.9 3.9

Table B3

Ethnicity Responses to Component 1 of the CRSL Model: Critically Self-Reflect on Leadership

Behaviors

Ethnicity Responses (Component 1 of CRSL)

Question

Total American

Indian or

Alaska

Native

Asian Black or

African

American

Native

Hawaiia

n or

Other

Pacific

Islander

White

Q17: How easy do

you find interacting

with students at

your school who

are from a different

cultural background

than your own?

Total 111.0 2.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 105.0

[1] 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.9%

[2] 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 2.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.9%

[3] 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 5.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.7%

[4] 56.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 55.0

239

50.5

50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 52.4%

[5] 44.0 1.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 39.0 39.6

50.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 37.1%

M 4.2 4.5

5.0

4.2

SD 0.8 0.7

0.0

0.8

Q24: How

comfortable would

you be having a

student who could

not communicate

well with anyone in

class because of

his/her home

language was

unique?

Total 111.0 2.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 105.0

[1] 4.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.6% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.9%

[2] 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 8.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8.6%

[3] 37.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 34.0 33.3

0.0% 0.0% 75.0% 0.0% 32.4%

[4] 39.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 37.0 35.1

50.0% 0.0% 25.0% 0.0% 35.2%

[5] 22.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.0 19.8

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 21.0%

M 3.6 2.5

3.3

3.6

SD 1.0 2.1

0.5

1.0 Overall

Mean

3.9 3.5

4.1

3.9

240

Table B4

School Location Responses to Component 1 of the CRSL Model: Critically Self-Reflect on

Leadership Behaviors

School Location Responses (Component 1 of CRSL)

Question

Total AZ CA FL GA IL IA

Q17: How

easy do you

find

interacting

with

students at

your school

who are

from a

different

cultural

background

than your

own?

Total 112.0 6.0 19.0 11.0 8.0 9.0 2.0

[1] 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

2.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[2] 3.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0

2.7% 0.0% 5.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0%

[3] 6.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

5.4% 0.0% 5.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[4] 56.0 4.0 8.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 0.0

50.0% 66.7% 42.1% 45.5% 62.5% 55.6% 0.0%

[5] 44.0 2.0 9.0 6.0 3.0 4.0 1.0

39.3% 33.3% 47.4% 54.5% 37.5% 44.4% 50.0%

M 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.5 4.4 4.4 3.5

SD 0.9 0.5 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.1

KY MI MD MN MT ND NJ

Q17: How

easy do you

find

interacting

with

students at

your school

who are

from a

different

cultural

background

than your

own?

Total 1.0 34.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 4.0

[1] 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0% 5.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[2] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0

0.0% 0.0%

[3] 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0

0.0% 5.9% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0%

[4] 1.0 17.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0

100.0

50.0% 100.0

50.0% 0.0% 100.0

50.0%

[5] 0.0 13.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0

241

0.0% 38.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0%

M 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.5 2.0 4.0 4.0

SD 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.8

OR SC SD TX VA WI WA Other

Q17: How

easy do you

find

interacting

with

students at

your school

who are

from a

different

cultural

background

than your

own?

Total 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

[1] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0

[2] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[3] 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 100.0

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[4] 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 100.0

50.0% 100.0

50.0

[5] 1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

0.0% 100.0

66.7% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0%

M 5.0 3.0 5.0 4.7 4.0 4.5 4.0 2.5

SD 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.7 0.0 2.1

Total AZ CA FL GA IL IA

Q24: How

comfortable

would you

be having a

student who

could not

communica

te well with

anyone in

class

because of

his/her

home

Total 112.0 6.0 19.0 11.0 8.0 9.0 2.0

[1] 4.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

3.6% 0.0% 5.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[2] 10.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0

8.9% 16.7% 10.5% 0.0% 25.0% 22.2% 0.0%

[3] 37.0 1.0 9.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 0.0

33.0% 16.7% 47.4% 45.5% 37.5% 33.3% 0.0%

[4] 39.0 2.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0

34.8% 33.3% 21.1% 9.1% 12.5% 33.3% 50.0%

[5] 22.0 2.0 3.0 5.0 2.0 1.0 1.0

242

language

was

unique?

19.6% 33.3% 15.8% 45.5% 25.0% 11.1% 50.0%

M 3.6 3.8 3.3 4.0 3.4 3.3 4.5

SD 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.2 1.0 0.7

Overall

Mean

4 3.8 4.2 3.9 3.8 4

KY MI MD MN MT ND NJ

Q24: How

comfortable

would you

be having a

student who

could not

communica

te well with

anyone in

class

because of

his/her

home

language

was

unique?

Total 1.0 34.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 4.0

[1] 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0% 5.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[2] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0

0.0% 0.0%

[3] 0.0 12.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0

0.0% 35.3% 100.0

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0%

[4] 1.0 13.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 2.0

100.0

38.2% 0.0% 100.0

0.0% 100.0

50.0%

[5] 0.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0% 20.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

M 4.0 3.7 3.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 3.5

SD 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6

Overall

Mean

4 3.9 3.5 3.7 2 4 3.7

OR SC SD TX VA WI WA Other

Q24: How

comfortable

would you

be having a

student who

could not

communica

te well with

anyone in

class

Total 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

[1] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0

[2] 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0% 100.0

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0

[3] 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

243

because of

his/her

home

language

was

unique?

0.0% 0.0% 100.0

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[4] 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0

100.0

0.0%

[5] 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

M 5.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.5

SD 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7

Overall

Mean

3.9 5 2.5 4 4.3 4 4.2 4 2

Table B5

Years Taught at Current School Responses to Component 2 of the CRSL Model:

Develops Culturally Responsive Teachers

Years Taught at Current School Responses (Component 2 of

CRSL)

Question

Total 0-3

Years

4-6

Years

7-9

Years

10 +

Years

Other

Q18: How

comfortable would

you be in

incorporating new

material about

people from

different

backgrounds into

your curriculum?

Total 112.0 39.0 25.0 15.0 32.0 1.0

[1] 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7% 5.1% 4.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[2] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[3] 24.0 8.0 5.0 3.0 8.0 0.0 21.4

20.5% 20.0% 20.0% 25.0% 0.0%

[4] 54.0 17.0 11.0 10.0 15.0 1.0 48.2

43.6% 44.0% 66.7% 46.9% 100.0

[5] 31.0 12.0 8.0 2.0 9.0 0.0 27.7

30.8% 32.0% 13.3% 28.1% 0.0%

M 4.0 3.9 4.0 3.9 4.0 4.0

244

SD 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.7 0.0

Q21: How easy

would it be for you

to teach a class with

groups of students

from very different

religions from each

other?

Total 112.0 39.0 25.0 15.0 32.0 1.0

[1] 9.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 5.0 0.0 8.0% 5.1% 4.0% 6.7% 15.6% 0.0%

[2] 16.0 7.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 0.0 14.3

17.9% 16.0% 13.3% 9.4% 0.0%

[3] 39.0 14.0 10.0 3.0 11.0 1.0 34.8

35.9% 40.0% 20.0% 34.4% 100.0

[4] 30.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 9.0 0.0 26.8

20.5% 28.0% 40.0% 28.1% 0.0%

[5] 18.0 8.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 16.1

20.5% 12.0% 20.0% 12.5% 0.0%

M 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.5 3.1 3.0

SD 1.1 1.2 1.0 1.2 1.2 0.0

Q25: When a

sensitive issue of

diversity arises in

class, how easily

can you think of

strategies to address

the situation?

Total 112.0 39.0 25.0 15.0 32.0 1.0

[1] 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9% 2.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[2] 6.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 5.4% 5.1% 8.0% 6.7% 3.1% 0.0%

[3] 45.0 14.0 12.0 8.0 11.0 0.0 40.2

35.9% 48.0% 53.3% 34.4% 0.0%

[4] 47.0 16.0 8.0 5.0 17.0 1.0 42.0

41.0% 32.0% 33.3% 53.1% 100.0

[5] 13.0 6.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 11.6

15.4% 12.0% 6.7% 9.4% 0.0%

245

M 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.4 3.7 4.0

SD 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.0 Overall

Mean

3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6

Table B6

Gender Responses to Component 2 of the CRSL Model: Develops Culturally

Responsive Teachers

Gender Responses

(Component 2 of CRSL)

Question

Total Male Female Prefer Not to

Say

Q18: How comfortable

would you be in

incorporating new material

about people from different

backgrounds into your

curriculum?

Total 111.0 28.0 83.0 0.0

[1] 3.0 1.0 2.0 0.0

2.7% 3.6% 2.4% 0.0%

[2] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[3] 23.0 5.0 18.0 0.0

20.7% 17.9% 21.7% 0.0%

[4] 54.0 16.0 38.0 0.0

48.6% 57.1% 45.8% 0.0%

[5] 31.0 6.0 25.0 0.0

27.9% 21.4% 30.1% 0.0%

M 4.0 3.9 4.0

SD 0.9 0.9 0.9

Q21: How easy would it be

for you to teach a class with

groups of students from

Total 111.0 28.0 83.0 0.0

[1] 9.0 2.0 7.0 0.0

246

very different religions from

each other?

8.1% 7.1% 8.4% 0.0%

[2] 16.0 2.0 14.0 0.0

14.4% 7.1% 16.9% 0.0%

[3] 38.0 9.0 29.0 0.0

34.2% 32.1% 34.9% 0.0%

[4] 30.0 7.0 23.0 0.0

27.0% 25.0% 27.7% 0.0%

[5] 18.0 8.0 10.0 0.0

16.2% 28.6% 12.0% 0.0%

M 3.3 3.6 3.2

SD 1.1 1.2 1.1

Q25: When a sensitive issue

of diversity arises in class,

how easily can you think of

strategies to address the

situation?

Total 111.0 28.0 83.0 0.0

[1] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[2] 6.0 0.0 6.0 0.0

5.4% 0.0% 7.2% 0.0%

[3] 45.0 13.0 32.0 0.0

40.5% 46.4% 38.6% 0.0%

[4] 47.0 11.0 36.0 0.0

42.3% 39.3% 43.4% 0.0%

[5] 13.0 4.0 9.0 0.0

11.7% 14.3% 10.8% 0.0%

M 3.6 3.7 3.6

SD 0.8 0.7 0.8

Overall

Mean

3.6 3.7 3.6

247

Table B7

Ethnicity Responses to Component 2 of the CRSL Model: Develops Culturally

Responsive Teachers

Ethnicity Responses (Component 2 of CRSL)

Question

Total American

Indian or

Alaska

Native

Asian Black or

African

American

Native

Hawaiian

or Other

Pacific

Islander

White

Q18: How

comfortable

would you be in

incorporating

new material

about people

from different

backgrounds into

your curriculum?

Total 111.0 2.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 105.0

[1] 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 2.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.9%

[2] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[3] 23.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.0 20.7

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 21.9

[4] 54.0 1.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 49.0 48.6

50.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 46.7

[5] 31.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 27.9

50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 28.6

M 4.0 4.5

4.0

SD 0.9 0.7

0.0

0.9

Q21: How easy

would it be for

you to teach a

class with groups

of students from

very different

religions from

each other?

Total 111.0 2.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 105.0

[1] 9.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 8.1% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.6%

[2] 16.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.0 14.4

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 15.2

[3] 38.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 35.0

248

34.2

0.0% 0.0% 75.0% 0.0% 33.3

[4] 30.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 27.0

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 28.6

[5] 18.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 16.0 16.2

50.0% 0.0% 25.0% 0.0% 15.2

M 3.3 3.0

3.5

3.3

SD 1.1 2.8

1.0

1.1

Q25: When a

sensitive issue of

diversity arises in

class, how easily

can you think of

strategies to

address the

situation?

Total 111.0 2.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 105.0

[1] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[2] 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 5.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.7%

[3] 45.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 44.0 40.5

0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 0.0% 41.9

[4] 47.0 1.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 43.0 42.3

50.0% 0.0% 75.0% 0.0% 41.0

[5] 13.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.0 11.7

50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 11.4

M 3.6 4.5

3.8

3.6

SD 0.8 0.7

0.5

0.8 Overall

Mean

3.6 4

3.7

3.6

249

Table B8

School Location Responses to Component 2 of the CRSL Model: Develops Culturally

Responsive Teachers

School Location Responses (Component 2 of CRSL)

Question

Total AZ CA FL GA IL IA

Q18: How

comfortable

would you

be in

incorporatin

g new

material

about people

from

different

backgrounds

into your

curriculum?

Total 112.0 6.0 19.0 11.0 8.0 9.0 2.0

[1] 3.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

2.7% 0.0% 0.0% 9.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[2] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[3] 24.0 0.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0

21.4

0.0% 21.1% 18.2% 25.0% 11.1% 50.0%

[4] 54.0 2.0 11.0 3.0 4.0 6.0 0.0

48.2

33.3% 57.9% 27.3% 50.0% 66.7% 0.0%

[5] 31.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 1.0

27.7

66.7% 21.1% 45.5% 25.0% 22.2% 50.0%

M 4.0 4.7 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 4.0

SD 0.9 0.5 0.7 1.3 0.8 0.6 1.4

KY MI MD MN MT ND NJ

Q18: How

comfortable

would you

be in

incorporatin

g new

material

about people

from

different

backgrounds

Total 1.0 34.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 4.0

[1] 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0% 5.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[2] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[3] 0.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0

0.0% 26.5% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0

0.0% 50.0%

[4] 1.0 13.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0

250

into your

curriculum?

100.0

38.2% 100.0

50.0% 0.0% 100.0

50.0%

[5] 0.0 10.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0% 29.4% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

M 4.0 3.9 4.0 4.5 3.0 4.0 3.5

SD 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.6

OR SC SD TX VA WI WA Other

Q18: How

comfortable

would you

be in

incorporatin

g new

material

about people

from

different

backgrounds

into your

curriculum?

Total 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

[1] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[2] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[3] 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0% 100.0

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0

[4] 0.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 0.0% 0.0% 100.0

100.0

50.0% 100.0

50.0

[5] 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0%

M 5.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 3.5

SD 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.7

Total AZ CA FL GA IL IA

Q21: How

easy would

it be for you

to teach a

class with

groups of

students

from very

different

religions

Total 112.0 6.0 19.0 11.0 8.0 9.0 2.0

[1] 9.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0

8.0% 16.7% 5.3% 0.0% 12.5% 0.0% 0.0%

[2] 16.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 1.0

14.3

0.0% 10.5% 9.1% 25.0% 33.3% 50.0%

[3] 39.0 0.0 9.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 1.0

34.8

0.0% 47.4% 27.3% 12.5% 22.2% 50.0%

251

from each

other?

[4] 30.0 1.0 3.0 6.0 3.0 3.0 0.0

26.8

16.7% 15.8% 54.5% 37.5% 33.3% 0.0%

[5] 18.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0

16.1

66.7% 21.1% 9.1% 12.5% 11.1% 0.0%

M 3.3 4.2 3.4 3.6 3.1 3.2 2.5

SD 1.1 1.6 1.1 0.8 1.4 1.1 0.7

KY MI MD MN MT ND NJ

Q21: How

easy would

it be for you

to teach a

class with

groups of

students

from very

different

religions

from each

other?

Total 1.0 34.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 4.0

[1] 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0% 11.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[2] 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0

0.0% 17.6% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0

0.0% 0.0%

[3] 1.0 13.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 3.0

100.0

38.2% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0

75.0%

[4] 0.0 7.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0

0.0% 20.6% 100.0

50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0%

[5] 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0% 11.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

M 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.5 2.0 3.0 3.3

SD 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.5

OR SC SD TX VA WI WA Other

Q21: How

easy would

it be for you

to teach a

class with

groups of

students

from very

different

Total 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

[1] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 50.0

[2] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[3] 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0

252

religions

from each

other?

0.0% 100.0

100.0

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0

[4] 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 100.0

0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 100.0

0.0% 50.0% 0.0%

[5] 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 66.7% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0%

M 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.7 4.0 3.0 3.5 2.0

SD 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 2.8 0.7 1.4

Total AZ CA FL GA IL IA

Q25: When

a sensitive

issue of

diversity

arises in

class, how

easily can

you think of

strategies to

address the

situation?

Total 112.0 6.0 19.0 11.0 8.0 9.0 2.0

[1] 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[2] 6.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0

5.4% 0.0% 5.3% 0.0% 12.5% 11.1% 0.0%

[3] 45.0 3.0 8.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 1.0

40.2

50.0% 42.1% 27.3% 12.5% 33.3% 50.0%

[4] 47.0 0.0 8.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 0.0

42.0

0.0% 42.1% 45.5% 75.0% 55.6% 0.0%

[5] 13.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 1.0

11.6

50.0% 10.5% 27.3% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0%

M 3.6 4.0 3.6 4.0 3.6 3.4 4.0

SD 0.8 1.1 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 1.4

Overall

Mean

4.3 3.6 3.8 3.5 3.5 3.5

KY MI MD MN MT ND NJ

Q25: When

a sensitive

issue of

diversity

arises in

Total 1.0 34.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 4.0

[1] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[2] 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

253

class, how

easily can

you think of

strategies to

address the

situation?

0.0% 8.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[3] 1.0 15.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 3.0

100.0

44.1% 100.0

50.0% 100.0

0.0% 75.0%

[4] 0.0 14.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0

0.0% 41.2% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0

25.0%

[5] 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0% 5.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

M 3.0 3.4 3.0 3.5 3.0 4.0 3.3

SD 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.5

Overall

Mean

3.3 3.4 3.6 3.8 2.6 3.6 3.3

OR SC SD TX VA WI WA Other

Q25: When

a sensitive

issue of

diversity

arises in

class, how

easily can

you think of

strategies to

address the

situation?

Total 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

[1] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0

[2] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[3] 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 100.0

100.0

0.0% 100.0

50.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[4] 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 100.0

0.0% 0.0% 66.7% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0

50.0

[5] 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0%

M 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.3 3.0 4.0 4.0 2.5

SD 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 1.4 0.0 2.1

Overall

Mean

3.6 4.3 3 3.3 4.3 3.6 3.8 3.8 2.6

254

Table B9

Years Taught at Current School Responses to Component 3 of the CRSL Model: Promotes

Culturally Responsive/Inclusive School Environment

Years Taught at Current School Responses (Component 3

of CRSL)

Question

Total 0-3

Years

4-6

Years

7-9

Years

10 +

Years

Other

Q20: If students from

different

backgrounds

struggled to get along

in your class, how

comfortable would

you be intervening?

Total 112.0 39.0 25.0 15.0 32.0 1.0

[1] 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9% 0.0% 4.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[2] 2.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.8% 0.0% 4.0% 6.7% 0.0% 0.0%

[3] 27.0 8.0 10.0 3.0 6.0 0.0 24.1

20.5% 40.0% 20.0% 18.8% 0.0%

[4] 53.0 22.0 8.0 9.0 14.0 0.0 47.3

56.4% 32.0% 60.0% 43.8% 0.0%

[5] 29.0 9.0 5.0 2.0 12.0 1.0 25.9

23.1% 20.0% 13.3% 37.5% 100.0

M 4.0 4.0 3.6 3.8 4.2 5.0

SD 0.8 0.7 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.0

Q23: How easily do

you think you could

make a particularly

overweight student

feel like a part of the

class?

Total 112.0 39.0 25.0 15.0 32.0 1.0

[1] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[2] 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9% 2.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[3] 17.0 7.0 3.0 2.0 5.0 0.0 15.2

17.9% 12.0% 13.3% 15.6% 0.0%

[4] 53.0 16.0 12.0 7.0 17.0 1.0

255

47.3

41.0% 48.0% 46.7% 53.1% 100.0

[5] 41.0 15.0 10.0 6.0 10.0 0.0 36.6

38.5% 40.0% 40.0% 31.3% 0.0%

M 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.0

SD 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.0 Overall

Mean

4.1 4.1 3.9 4 4.2 4.5

Table B10

Gender Responses to Component 3 of the CRSL Model: Promotes

Culturally Responsive/Inclusive School Environment

Gender Responses (Component 3 of

CRSL)

Question

Total Male Femal

Prefer Not to

Say

Q20: If students from

different backgrounds

struggled to get along

in your class, how

comfortable would

you be intervening?

Total 111.0 28.0 83.0 0.0

[1] 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.9% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0%

[2] 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.8% 0.0% 2.4% 0.0%

[3] 27.0 8.0 19.0 0.0 24.3

28.6

22.9% 0.0%

[4] 52.0 11.0 41.0 0.0 46.8

39.3

49.4% 0.0%

[5] 29.0 9.0 20.0 0.0 26.1

32.1

24.1% 0.0%

M 4.0 4.0 3.9

SD 0.8 0.8 0.8

256

Q23: How easily do

you think you could

make a particularly

overweight student

feel like a part of the

class?

Total 111.0 28.0 83.0 0.0

[1] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[2] 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.9% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0%

[3] 17.0 4.0 13.0 0.0 15.3

14.3

15.7% 0.0%

[4] 52.0 12.0 40.0 0.0 46.8

42.9

48.2% 0.0%

[5] 41.0 12.0 29.0 0.0 36.9

42.9

34.9% 0.0%

M 4.2 4.3 4.2

SD 0.7 0.7 0.7

Overall Mean 4.1 4.1 4

Table B11

Ethnicity Responses to Component 3 of the CRSL Model: Promotes

Culturally Responsive/Inclusive School Environment

Ethnicity Responses (Component 3 of CRSL)

Total American

Indian or

Alaska

Native

Asian Black or

African

American

Native

Hawaiian

or Other

Pacific

Islander

White

Q20: If students

from different

backgrounds

struggled to get

Total 111.0 2.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 105.0

[1] 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0%

257

along in your

class, how

comfortable

would you be

intervening?

[2] 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.9%

[3] 27.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.0 24.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.7

[4] 52.0 1.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 47.0 46.8% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 44.8

[5] 29.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.0 26.1% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 26.7

M 4.0 4.5

4.0

3.9

SD 0.8 0.7

0.0

0.8

Q23: How easily

do you think you

could make a

particularly

overweight

student feel like a

part of the class?

Total 111.0 2.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 105.0

[1] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[2] 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0%

[3] 17.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.0 15.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 16.2

[4] 52.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 49.0 46.8% 0.0% 0.0% 75.0% 0.0% 46.7

[5] 41.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 38.0 36.9% 100.0% 0.0% 25.0% 0.0% 36.2

M 4.2 5.0

4.3

4.2

SD 0.7 0.0

0.5

0.7 Overall

Mean

4.1 4.7

4.1

258

Table B12

School Location Responses to Component 3 of the CRSL Model: Promotes

Culturally Responsive/Inclusive School Environment

School Location Responses (Component 3 of CRSL)

Question

Total AZ CA FL GA IL IA

Q20: If

students

from

different

backgrounds

struggled to

get along in

your class,

how

comfortable

would you be

intervening?

Total 112.0 6.0 19.0 11.0 8.0 9.0 2.0

[1] 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[2] 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0

1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 11.1% 0.0%

[3] 27.0 0.0 6.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 0.0

24.1

0.0% 31.6% 27.3% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[4] 53.0 3.0 9.0 5.0 2.0 6.0 2.0

47.3

50.0

47.4% 45.5% 25.0% 66.7% 100.0

[5] 29.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 0.0

25.9

50.0

21.1% 27.3% 25.0% 22.2% 0.0%

M 4.0 4.5 3.9 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.0

SD 0.8 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.0

KY MI MD MN MT ND NJ

Q20: If

students

from

different

backgrounds

struggled to

get along in

your class,

how

comfortable

Total 1.0 34.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 4.0

[1] 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0% 2.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[2] 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0% 2.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[3] 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0

0.0% 23.5

0.0% 0.0% 100.0

0.0% 50.0%

[4] 1.0 14.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 1.0

259

would you be

intervening?

100.0

41.2

100.0

0.0% 100.0

25.0%

[5] 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0

0.0% 29.4

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0%

M 4.0 3.9 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.8

SD 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0

OR SC SD TX VA WI WA Other

Q20: If

students

from

different

backgrounds

struggled to

get along in

your class,

how

comfortable

would you be

intervening?

Total 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

[1] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[2] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[3] 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 100.

0.0% 0.0% 100.0

50.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[4] 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0% 0.0% 100.0

33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0

100.0

[5] 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

0.0% 0.0% 66.7% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0%

M 5.0 3.0 4.0 4.7 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

SD 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0

Total AZ CA FL GA IL IA

Q23: How

easily do you

think you

could make a

particularly

overweight

student feel

like a part of

the class?

Total 112.0 6.0 19.0 11.0 8.0 9.0 2.0

[1] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[2] 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.9% 0.0% 5.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[3] 17.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 4.0 0.0

15.2

16.7

10.5% 18.2% 12.5% 44.4% 0.0%

260

[4] 53.0 1.0 11.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 1.0

47.3

16.7

57.9% 27.3% 50.0% 33.3% 50.0%

[5] 41.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 3.0 2.0 1.0

36.6

66.7

26.3% 54.5% 37.5% 22.2% 50.0%

M 4.2 4.5 4.1 4.4 4.3 3.8 4.5

SD 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.7

Overall

Mean

4.5 4 4 4 3.9 4.2

KY MI MD MN MT ND NJ

Q23: How

easily do you

think you

could make a

particularly

overweight

student feel

like a part of

the class?

Total 1.0 34.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 4.0

[1] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[2] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[3] 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0

0.0% 8.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0%

[4] 0.0 17.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

0.0% 50.0

100.0

25.0%

[5] 1.0 14.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0

100.0

41.2

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0%

M 5.0 4.3 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.8

SD 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0

Overall

Mean

4.5 4.1 4 4 3.5 4 3.8

OR SC SD TX VA WI WA Other

Q23: How

easily do you

think you

could make a

particularly

overweight

student feel

Total 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

[1] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[2] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

261

like a part of

the class?

[3] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 0.0%

[4] 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0% 0.0% 100.0

66.7% 100.0

50.0% 50.0% 50.0%

[5] 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 100.0

100.

0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0%

M 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.3 4.0 3.5 3.5 4.5

SD 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.7

Overall

Mean

4.1 5 4 4 4.5 3.5 3.7 3.7 4.2

Table B13

Years Taught at Current School Responses to Component 4 of the CRSL Model: Engages

Students, Parents, and Indigenous Contexts

Years Taught at Current School Responses (Component

4 of CRSL)

Question

Total 0-3

Years

4-6

Years

7-9

Years

10 +

Years

Other

Q19: How

knowledgeable are

you regarding where

to find resources for

working with

students who have

unique learning

needs?

Total 112.0 39.0 25.0 15.0 32.0 1.0

[1] 6.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 5.4% 7.7% 4.0% 13.3% 0.0% 0.0%

[2] 15.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 2.0 0.0 13.4

12.8% 20.0% 20.0% 6.3% 0.0%

[3] 40.0 13.0 10.0 6.0 11.0 0.0 35.7

33.3% 40.0% 40.0% 34.4% 0.0%

[4] 33.0 12.0 6.0 2.0 12.0 1.0 29.5

30.8% 24.0% 13.3% 37.5% 100.0

[5] 18.0 6.0 3.0 2.0 7.0 0.0 16.1

15.4% 12.0% 13.3% 21.9% 0.0%

262

M 3.4 3.3 3.2 2.9 3.8 4.0

SD 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.2 0.9 0.0

Q22: In response to

events that might be

occurring in the

world, how

comfortable would

you be having

conversations about

race with your

students?

Total 112.0 39.0 25.0 15.0 32.0 1.0

[1] 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.7% 2.6% 4.0% 6.7% 0.0% 0.0%

[2] 6.0 2.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 5.4% 5.1% 12.0% 0.0% 3.1% 0.0%

[3] 39.0 12.0 12.0 4.0 11.0 0.0 34.8

30.8% 48.0% 26.7% 34.4% 0.0%

[4] 48.0 19.0 6.0 7.0 15.0 1.0 42.9

48.7% 24.0% 46.7% 46.9% 100.0

[5] 16.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 5.0 0.0 14.3

12.8% 12.0% 20.0% 15.6% 0.0%

M 3.6 3.6 3.3 3.7 3.8 4.0

SD 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.0 Overall

Mean

3.5 3.4 3.2 3.3 3.8 4

263

Table B14

Gender Responses to Component 4 of the CRSL Model: Engages

Students, Parents, and Indigenous Contexts

Gender Responses (Component 4 of CRSL)

Question

Total Male Female Prefer Not to Say

Q19: How

knowledgeable are

you regarding where

to find resources for

working with

students who have

unique learning

needs?

Total 111.0 28.0 83.0 0.0

[1] 5.0 0.0 5.0 0.0

4.5% 0.0% 6.0% 0.0%

[2] 15.0 6.0 9.0 0.0

13.5% 21.4% 10.8% 0.0%

[3] 40.0 10.0 30.0 0.0

36.0% 35.7% 36.1% 0.0%

[4] 33.0 9.0 24.0 0.0

29.7% 32.1% 28.9% 0.0%

[5] 18.0 3.0 15.0 0.0

16.2% 10.7% 18.1% 0.0%

M 3.4 3.3 3.4

SD 1.1 0.9 1.1

Q22: In response to

events that might be

occurring in the

world, how

comfortable would

you be having

conversations about

race with your

students?

Total 111.0 28.0 83.0 0.0

[1] 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0

2.7% 0.0% 3.6% 0.0%

[2] 5.0 2.0 3.0 0.0

4.5% 7.1% 3.6% 0.0%

[3] 39.0 6.0 33.0 0.0

35.1% 21.4% 39.8% 0.0%

[4] 48.0 13.0 35.0 0.0

43.2% 46.4% 42.2% 0.0%

[5] 16.0 7.0 9.0 0.0

264

14.4% 25.0% 10.8% 0.0%

M 3.6 3.9 3.5

SD 0.9 0.9 0.9

Overall Mean 3.5 3.6 3.4

Table B15

Ethnicity Responses to Component 4 of the CRSL Model: Engages

Students, Parents, and Indigenous Contexts

Ethnicity Responses (Component 4 of CRSL)

Question

Total American

Indian or

Alaska

Native

Asian Black or

African

American

Native

Hawaii

an or

Other

Pacific

Islander

White

Q19: How

knowledgeable

are you

regarding where

to find resources

for working with

students who

have unique

learning needs?

Total 111.

2.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 105.0

[1] 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 4.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.8%

[2] 15.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.0 13.5

50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 13.3%

[3] 40.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 37.0 36.0

0.0% 0.0% 75.0% 0.0% 35.2%

[4 33.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.0 29.7

50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 30.5%

[5] 18.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 17.0 16.2

0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 0.0% 16.2%

M 3.4 3.0

3.5

3.4

SD 1.1 1.4

1.0

1.1

265

Q22: In response

to events that

might be

occurring in the

world, how

comfortable

would you be

having

conversations

about race with

your students?

Total 111.

2.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 105.0

[1] 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 2.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.9%

[2] 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 4.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.8%

[3] 39.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 37.0 35.1

0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 35.2%

[4] 48.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 46.0 43.2

0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 43.8%

[5] 16.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.0 14.4

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 13.3%

M 3.6 5.0

3.5

3.6

SD 0.9 0.0

0.6

0.9 Overall

Mean

3.5 4

3.5

266

Table B16

School Location Responses to Component 4 of the CRSL Model: Engages

Students, Parents, and Indigenous Contexts

School Location Responses (Component 4 of CRSL)

Question

Total AZ CA FL GA IL IA

Q19: How

knowledgeab

le are you

regarding

where to find

resources for

working with

students who

have unique

learning

needs?

Total 112.0 6.0 19.0 11.0 8.0 9.0 2.0

[1] 6.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0

5.4% 0.0% 0.0% 18.2

25.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[2] 15.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

13.4% 0.0% 5.3% 0.0% 12.5% 11.1% 50.0%

[3] 40.0 2.0 9.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 1.0

35.7% 33.3% 47.4% 27.3

25.0% 44.4% 50.0%

[4] 33.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 0.0

29.5% 33.3% 21.1% 27.3

37.5% 44.4% 0.0%

[5] 18.0 2.0 5.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

16.1% 33.3% 26.3% 27.3

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

M 3.4 4.0 3.7 3.5 2.8 3.3 2.5

SD 1.1 0.9 0.9 1.4 1.3 0.7 0.7

KY MI MD MN MT ND NJ

Q19: How

knowledgeab

le are you

regarding

where to find

resources for

working with

students who

have unique

learning

needs?

Total 1.0 34.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 4.0

[1] 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0% 2.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[2] 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

0.0% 17.6% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0

100.0

25.0%

[3] 0.0 12.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 3.0

0.0% 35.3% 0.0% 50.0

0.0% 0.0% 75.0%

[4] 1.0 11.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

267

100.0

32.4% 100.0

50.0

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[5] 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0% 11.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

M 4.0 3.3 4.0 3.5 2.0 2.0 2.8

SD 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.5

OR SC SD TX VA WI WA Other

Q19: How

knowledgeab

le are you

regarding

where to find

resources for

working with

students who

have unique

learning

needs?

Total 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

[1] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0

[2] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0

0.0% 0.0% 50.0

[3] 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 100.0

100.0

33.3

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[4] 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 33.3

0.0% 0.0% 100.0

0.0%

[5] 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

0.0% 0.0% 33.3

0.0% 100.0

0.0% 0.0%

M 5.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 5.0 4.0 1.5

SD 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7

Total AZ CA FL GA IL IA

Q22: In

response to

events that

might be

occurring in

the world,

how

comfortable

Total 112.0 6.0 19.0 11.0 8.0 9.0 2.0

[1] 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0

2.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 11.1% 0.0%

[2] 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0

5.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 11.1% 0.0%

[3] 39.0 0.0 8.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 2.0

268

would you be

having

conversations

about race

with your

students?

34.8% 0.0% 42.1% 36.4

50.0% 33.3% 100.0

[4] 48.0 3.0 9.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 0.0

42.9% 50.0% 47.4% 36.4

25.0% 33.3% 0.0%

[5] 16.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0

14.3% 50.0% 10.5% 27.3

25.0% 11.1% 0.0%

M 3.6 4.5 3.7 3.9 3.8 3.2 3.0

SD 0.9 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.2 0.0

Overall

Mean

4.2 3.7 3.7 3.3 3.2 2.7

KY MI MD MN MT ND NJ

Q22: In

response to

events that

might be

occurring in

the world,

how

comfortable

would you be

having

conversations

about race

with your

students?

Total 1.0 34.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 4.0

[1] 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0% 5.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[2] 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0

0.0% 5.9% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0

0.0% 25.0%

[3] 0.0 12.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.0

0.0% 35.3% 0.0% 50.0

0.0% 0.0% 50.0%

[4] 1.0 15.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0

100.0

44.1% 100.0

50.0

0.0% 100.0

25.0%

[5] 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0% 8.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

M 4.0 3.4 4.0 3.5 2.0 4.0 3.0

SD 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.8

Overall

Mean

4 3.3 4 3.5 2 3 2.9

OR SC SD TX VA WI WA Other

Q22: In

response to

events that

Total 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

[1] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

269

might be

occurring in

the world,

how

comfortable

would you be

having

conversation

s about race

with your

students?

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[2] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0

[3] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 100.0

0.0%

[4] 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

100.0

66.7

100.0

50.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[5] 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 33.3

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0

M 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.3 4.0 3.5 3.0 3.5

SD 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.7 0.0 2.1

Overall

Mean

3.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 4.1 3 4.2 3.5 2.5

270

Appendix C

Research Question Three Demographic Tables

Table C1

Years Taught at Current School Responses to Component 2 of the CRSL Model:

Develops Culturally Responsive Teachers

Years Taught at Current School (Component 2 of CRSL)

Question

Total 0-3

Years

4-6

Years

7-9

Years

10+

years

Other

Q26: At your school,

how valuable are the

equity-focused

professional

development

opportunities?

Total 112.0 39.0 25.0 15.0 32.0 1.0

[1] 25.0 11.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 22.3

28.2% 20.0% 26.7% 15.6% 0.0%

[2] 26.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 8.0 0.0 23.2

15.4% 24.0% 40.0% 25.0% 0.0%

[3] 36.0 12.0 10.0 3.0 11.0 0.0 32.1

30.8% 40.0% 20.0% 34.4% 0.0%

[4] 22.0 10.0 2.0 2.0 7.0 1.0 19.6

25.6% 8.0% 13.3% 21.9% 100.0

[5] 3.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.7% 0.0% 8.0% 0.0% 3.1% 0.0%

M 2.6 2.5 2.6 2.2 2.7 4.0

SD 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.0 1.1 0.0

Q27: When it comes

to promoting

culturally responsive

practices, how helpful

are your colleagues'

Total 112.0 39.0 25.0 15.0 32.0 1.0

[1] 16.0 6.0 2.0 3.0 5.0 0.0 14.3

15.4% 8.0% 20.0% 15.6% 0.0%

[2] 26.0 6.0 7.0 5.0 8.0 0.0

271

ideas for improving

your practice?

23.2

15.4% 28.0% 33.3% 25.0% 0.0%

[3] 39.0 17.0 7.0 5.0 10.0 0.0 34.8

43.6% 28.0% 33.3% 31.3% 0.0%

[4] 25.0 9.0 7.0 1.0 7.0 1.0 22.3

23.1% 28.0% 6.7% 21.9% 100.0

[5] 6.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 5.4% 2.6% 8.0% 6.7% 6.3% 0.0%

M 2.8 2.8 3.0 2.5 2.8 4.0

SD 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 0.0

Q28: How often do

professional

development

opportunities help you

explore new ways to

promote equity in your

practice?

Total 112.0 39.0 25.0 15.0 32.0 1.0

[1] 26.0 8.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 0.0 23.2

20.5% 24.0% 40.0% 18.8% 0.0%

[2] 35.0 12.0 7.0 3.0 13.0 0.0 31.3

30.8% 28.0% 20.0% 40.6% 0.0%

[3] 38.0 14.0 9.0 4.0 10.0 1.0 33.9

35.9% 36.0% 26.7% 31.3% 100.0

[4] 11.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 9.8% 12.8% 8.0% 13.3% 6.3% 0.0%

[5] 2.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.8% 0.0% 4.0% 0.0% 3.1% 0.0%

M 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.1 2.3 3.0

SD 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.0

Q29: Overall, how

effective has your

school administration

been in helping you

advance student

equity?

Total 112.0 39.0 25.0 15.0 32.0 1.0

[1] 14.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 6.0 0.0 12.5

7.7% 8.0% 20.0% 18.8% 0.0%

[2] 29.0 13.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 0.0

272

25.9

33.3% 24.0% 26.7% 18.8% 0.0%

[3] 40.0 11.0 11.0 6.0 12.0 0.0 35.7

28.2% 44.0% 40.0% 37.5% 0.0%

[4] 20.0 9.0 4.0 1.0 5.0 1.0 17.9

23.1% 16.0% 6.7% 15.6% 100.0

[5] 9.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 8.0% 7.7% 8.0% 6.7% 9.4% 0.0%

M 2.8 2.9 2.9 2.5 2.8 4.0

SD 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.2 0.0 Overall

Mean

2.6 2.6 2.9 2.3 2.9 3.7

Table C2

Gender Responses to Component 2 of the CRSL Model: Develops Culturally

Responsive Teachers

Gender Responses

(Component 2 of CRSL)

Question

Total Male Female Prefer Not to

Say

Q26: At your school, how

valuable are the equity-

focused professional

development

opportunities?

Total 111.0 28.0 83.0 0.0

[1] 24.0 5.0 19.0 0.0

21.6% 17.9% 22.9% 0.0%

[2] 26.0 5.0 21.0 0.0

23.4% 17.9% 25.3% 0.0%

[3] 36.0 8.0 28.0 0.0

32.4% 28.6% 33.7% 0.0%

[4] 22.0 9.0 13.0 0.0

19.8% 32.1% 15.7% 0.0%

[5] 3.0 1.0 2.0 0.0

2.7% 3.6% 2.4% 0.0%

273

M 2.6 2.9 2.5

SD 1.1 1.2 1.1

Q27: When it comes to

promoting culturally

responsive practices, how

helpful are your

colleagues' ideas for

improving your practice?

Total 111.0 28.0 83.0 0.0

[1] 15.0 1.0 14.0 0.0

13.5% 3.6% 16.9% 0.0%

[2] 26.0 5.0 21.0 0.0

23.4% 17.9% 25.3% 0.0%

[3] 39.0 11.0 28.0 0.0

35.1% 39.3% 33.7% 0.0%

[4] 25.0 8.0 17.0 0.0

22.5% 28.6% 20.5% 0.0%

[5] 6.0 3.0 3.0 0.0

5.4% 10.7% 3.6% 0.0%

M 2.8 3.3 2.7

SD 1.1 1.0 1.1

Q28: How often do

professional development

opportunities help you

explore new ways to

promote equity in your

practice?

Total 111.0 28.0 83.0 0.0

[1] 25.0 4.0 21.0 0.0

22.5% 14.3% 25.3% 0.0%

[2] 35.0 7.0 28.0 0.0

31.5% 25.0% 33.7% 0.0%

[3] 38.0 15.0 23.0 0.0

34.2% 53.6% 27.7% 0.0%

[4] 11.0 2.0 9.0 0.0

9.9% 7.1% 10.8% 0.0%

[5] 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0

1.8% 0.0% 2.4% 0.0%

M 2.4 2.5 2.3

SD 1.0 0.8 1.0

274

Q29: Overall, how

effective has your school

administration been in

helping you advance

student equity?

Total 111.0 28.0 83.0 0.0

[1] 13.0 2.0 11.0 0.0

11.7% 7.1% 13.3% 0.0%

[2] 29.0 3.0 26.0 0.0

26.1% 10.7% 31.3% 0.0%

[3] 40.0 12.0 28.0 0.0

36.0% 42.9% 33.7% 0.0%

[4] 20.0 9.0 11.0 0.0

18.0% 32.1% 13.3% 0.0%

[5] 9.0 2.0 7.0 0.0

8.1% 7.1% 8.4% 0.0%

M 2.8 3.2 2.7

SD 1.1 1.0 1.1

Overall

Mean

2.6 2.9 2.5

Table C3

Ethnicity Responses to Component 2 of the CRSL Model: Develops Culturally

Responsive Teachers

Ethnicity Responses (Component 2 of CRSL)

Question

Total American

Indian or

Alaska

Native

Asian Black or

African

American

Native

Hawaiian

or Other

Pacific

Islander

White

Q26: At your school,

how valuable are the

equity-focused

professional

development

opportunities?

Total 111.0 2.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 105.0

[1] 24.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 21.0 21.6% 50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 20.0%

[2] 26.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 25.0 23.4% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 0.0% 23.8%

[3] 36.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 35.0 32.4% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 0.0% 33.3%

275

[4] 22.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.0 19.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 21.0%

[5] 3.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.7% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.9%

M 2.6 3.0

1.8

2.6

SD 1.1 2.8

1.0

1.1

Q27: When it comes

to promoting

culturally responsive

practices, how helpful

are your colleagues'

ideas for improving

your practice?

Total 111.0 2.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 105.0

[1] 15.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 13.0 13.5% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 12.4%

[2] 26.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 24.0 23.4% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 22.9%

[3] 39.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.0 35.1% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 36.2%

[4] 25.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.0 22.5% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 22.9%

[5] 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 5.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.7%

M 2.8 3.5

1.5

2.9

SD 1.1 0.7

0.6

1.1

Q28: How often do

professional

development

opportunities help you

explore new ways to

promote equity in

your practice?

Total 111.0 2.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 105.0

[1] 25.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 23.0 22.5% 50.0% 0.0% 25.0% 0.0% 21.9%

[2] 35.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 32.0 31.5% 0.0% 0.0% 75.0% 0.0% 30.5%

[3] 38.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.0 34.2% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 35.2%

[4] 11.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.0 9.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.5%

[5] 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.9%

276

M 2.4 2.0

1.8

2.4

SD 1.0 1.4

0.5

1.0

Q29: Overall, how

effective has your

school administration

been in helping you

advance student

equity?

Total 111.0 2.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 105.0

[1] 13.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 12.0 11.7% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 0.0% 11.4%

[2] 29.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 28.0 26.1% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 0.0% 26.7%

[3] 40.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 38.0 36.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 36.2%

[4] 20.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.0 18.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 18.1%

[5] 9.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 8.1% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.6%

M 2.8 4.5

2.3

2.8

SD 1.1 0.7

1.0

1.1 Overall

Mean

2.6 3.2

1.8

2.6

Table C4

School Location Responses to Component 2 of the CRSL Model: Develops Culturally

Responsive Teachers

School Location Responses (Component 2 of CRSL)

Question

Total AZ CA FL GA IL IA

Q26: At your

school, how

valuable are

the equity-

focused

professional

development

opportunities?

Total 112.0 6.0 19.0 11.0 8.0 9.0 2.0

[1] 25.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 0.0

22.3

33.3

10.5% 18.2

12.5% 22.2% 0.0%

[2] 26.0 1.0 6.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 1.0

23.2

16.7

31.6% 18.2

37.5% 22.2% 50.0%

277

[3] 36.0 0.0 9.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 1.0

32.1

0.0% 47.4% 36.4

37.5% 44.4% 50.0%

[4] 22.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 0.0

19.6

33.3

10.5% 18.2

12.5% 11.1% 0.0%

[5] 3.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

2.7% 16.7

0.0% 9.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

M 2.6 2.8 2.6 2.8 2.5 2.4 2.5

SD 1.1 1.7 0.8 1.3 0.9 1.0 0.7

KY MI MD MN MT ND NJ

Q26: At your

school, how

valuable are

the equity-

focused

professional

development

opportunities?

Total 1.0 34.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 4.0

[1] 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0

0.0% 29.4

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0%

[2] 0.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0% 20.6

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[3] 0.0 10.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0

0.0% 29.4

100.0

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0%

[4] 1.0 7.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

100.0

20.6

0.0% 50.0

100.0

25.0%

[5] 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

M 4.0 2.4 3.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 2.8

SD 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 1.3

OR SC SD TX VA WI WA Other

Q26: At your

school, how

valuable are

Total 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

[1] 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0

278

the equity-

focused

professional

development

opportunities?

0.0% 100.0

0.0% 33.3

0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 100.0

[2] 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 100.0

33.3

100.0

50.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[3] 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 33.3

0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0%

[4] 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[5] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

M 4.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 1.0

SD 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.4 1.4 0.0

Total AZ CA FL GA IL IA

Q27: When it

comes to

promoting

culturally

responsive

practices, how

helpful are

your

colleagues'

ideas for

improving

your practice?

Total 112.0 6.0 19.0 11.0 8.0 9.0 2.0

[1] 16.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 1.0

14.3

0.0% 10.5% 18.2

0.0% 11.1% 50.0%

[2] 26.0 1.0 5.0 2.0 5.0 4.0 0.0

23.2

16.7

26.3% 18.2

62.5% 44.4% 0.0%

[3] 39.0 0.0 9.0 5.0 2.0 3.0 0.0

34.8

0.0% 47.4% 45.5

25.0% 33.3% 0.0%

[4] 25.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

22.3

66.7

10.5% 18.2

12.5% 11.1% 50.0%

[5] 6.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

5.4% 16.7

5.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

M 2.8 3.8 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.5

SD 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.9 2.1

279

KY MI MD MN MT ND NJ

Q27: When it

comes to

promoting

culturally

responsive

practices, how

helpful are

your

colleagues'

ideas for

improving

your practice?

Total 1.0 34.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 4.0

[1] 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0% 23.5

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[2] 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0

0.0% 14.7

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0%

[3] 0.0 13.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0

0.0% 38.2

100.0

0.0% 0.0% 100.0

25.0%

[4] 1.0 7.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0

100.0

20.6

0.0% 50.0

100.0

0.0% 25.0%

[5] 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0

0.0% 2.9% 0.0% 50.0

0.0% 0.0% 25.0%

M 4.0 2.6 3.0 4.5 4.0 3.0 3.5

SD 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 1.3

OR SC SD TX VA WI WA Other

Q27: When it

comes to

promoting

culturally

responsive

practices, how

helpful are

your

colleagues'

ideas for

improving

your practice?

Total 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

[1] 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 33.3

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0%

[2] 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 100.0

0.0% 100.0

50.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[3] 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 33.3

0.0% 0.0% 100.0

50.0%

[4] 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

100.0

0.0% 33.3

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[5] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0%

280

M 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.7 2.0 3.5 3.0 2.0

SD 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 2.1 0.0 1.4

Total AZ CA FL GA IL IA

Q28: How

often do

professional

development

opportunities

help you

explore new

ways to

promote

equity in your

practice?

Total 112.0 6.0 19.0 11.0 8.0 9.0 2.0

[1] 26.0 2.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 0.0

23.2

33.3

5.3% 36.4

12.5% 11.1% 0.0%

[2] 35.0 2.0 8.0 1.0 4.0 4.0 2.0

31.3

33.3

42.1% 9.1% 50.0% 44.4% 100.0

[3] 38.0 1.0 9.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 0.0

33.9

16.7

47.4% 36.4

37.5% 22.2% 0.0%

[4] 11.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 0.0

9.8% 16.7

5.3% 9.1% 0.0% 22.2% 0.0%

[5] 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 9.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

M 2.4 2.2 2.5 2.5 2.3 2.6 2.0

SD 1.0 1.2 0.7 1.4 0.7 1.0 0.0

KY MI MD MN MT ND NJ

Q28: How

often do

professional

development

opportunities

help you

explore new

ways to

promote

equity in your

practice?

Total 1.0 34.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 4.0

[1] 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0

0.0% 29.4

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0%

[2] 0.0 12.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0% 35.3

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[3] 0.0 9.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 3.0

0.0% 26.5

100.0

0.0% 100.0

100.0

75.0%

[4] 1.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

100.0

8.8% 0.0% 50.0

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

281

[5] 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

M 4.0 2.1 3.0 4.5 3.0 3.0 2.5

SD 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 1.0

OR SC SD TX VA WI WA Other

Q28: How

often do

professional

development

opportunities

help you

explore new

ways to

promote

equity in your

practice?

Total 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

[1] 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0% 100.0

100.0

66.7

0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0%

[2] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0

50.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[3] 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 33.3

0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0%

[4] 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[5] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

M 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.7 2.0 2.5 2.0 2.0

SD 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.7 1.4 1.4

Total AZ CA FL GA IL IA

Q29: Overall,

how effective

has your

school

administration

been in

helping you

advance

student

equity?

Total 112.0 6.0 19.0 11.0 8.0 9.0 2.0

[1] 14.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 0.0

12.5

0.0% 0.0% 27.3

0.0% 11.1% 0.0%

[2] 29.0 2.0 5.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0

25.9

33.3

26.3% 18.2

12.5% 22.2% 50.0%

[3] 40.0 0.0 12.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 0.0

282

35.7

0.0% 63.2% 36.4

62.5% 55.6% 0.0%

[4] 20.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0

17.9

16.7

10.5% 9.1% 25.0% 11.1% 50.0%

[5] 9.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

8.0% 50.0

0.0% 9.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

M 2.8 3.8 2.8 2.5 3.1 2.7 3.0

SD 1.1 1.5 0.6 1.3 0.6 0.9 1.4

Overall

Mean

3.1 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.5

KY MI MD MN MT ND NJ

Q29: Overall,

how effective

has your

school

administration

been in

helping you

advance

student

equity?

Total 1.0 34.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 4.0

[1] 0.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0% 20.6

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[2] 0.0 12.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0

0.0% 35.3

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0%

[3] 0.0 6.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0

0.0% 17.6

100.0

0.0% 0.0% 100.0

50.0%

[4] 0.0 6.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0

0.0% 17.6

0.0% 50.0

100.0

0.0% 25.0%

[5] 1.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

100.0

8.8% 0.0% 50.0

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

M 5.0 2.6 3.0 4.5 4.0 3.0 3.0

SD 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.8

Overall

Mean

4.25 2.4 3 4.5 3.7 3.2 2.9

OR SC SD TX VA WI WA Other

Q29: Overall,

how effective

Total 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

283

has your

school

administration

been in

helping you

advance

student

equity?

[1] 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 33.3

0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0%

[2] 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 100.0

33.3

100.0

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

[3] 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0% 100.0

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0

50.0% 0.0%

[4] 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 100.0

0.0% 0.0% 33.3

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0%

[5] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

M 4.0 3.0 2.0 2.3 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.5

SD 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 1.4 2.1

Overall

Mean

2.6 4 2.2 1.7 2.1 2 3 2.2 1.8

284

Appendix D

Recruitment Email

January 15, 2024

Dear Participating School(s):

As a graduate student in the Rawlings School of Divinity at Liberty University, I am conducting

research as part of the requirements for a doctorate in philosophy (PhD). The title of my research

project is A Correlational Study of Culturally Responsive Christian School Leadership and its

Impact on Culturally Marginalized Students. The purpose of my research is to determine if a

relationship exists between culturally responsive school leadership, cultural awareness, educating

all students, and professional learning opportunities about diversity. I am writing to invite

eligible participants to join my study.

Participants must be 18 years of age or older. Participants need to be teachers and faculty at

PK/K-12 Christian schools who have been in their assignment for one year or more. Participants

will be asked to complete a survey by going to a secure webpage. The survey should take

approximately 10 minutes to complete. Participation will be completely anonymous, and no

personal, identifying information will be collected. To participate, please go to the following

https://liberty.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_dgIDoqyr7tH57RY to complete the study survey.

An information sheet is attached to this email. The information sheet contains additional

information about my research. After you have read the information sheet, please click the link

above to proceed to the survey. Doing so will indicate that you have read the information sheet

and would like to take part in the survey. Taking part in this study is completely voluntary, and

participants are welcome to discontinue participation by closing their browser window at any

time before submitting the survey.

Sincerely,

Denecia B. Anderson

Doctor of Philosophy Candidate

Banderson34@liberty.edu

https://liberty.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_dgIDoqyr7tH57RY

285

Appendix E

Permission Letter

January 15, 2024

Denecia B. Anderson

Christian Leadership Doctoral Candidate

Liberty University

1971 University Blvd.

Lynchburg, VA 24515

Dear Denecia B. Anderson:

After a careful review of your research proposal entitled A Correlational Study of Culturally

Responsive Christian School Leadership and Its Impact on Culturally Marginalized Students,

[I/we] have decided to grant you permission to contact our faculty/staff and invite them to

participate in your study.

Check the following boxes, as applicable:

[I/We] will provide our membership list to Denecia B. Anderson, and Denecia B. Anderson

may use the list to contact our members to invite them to participate in her research study.

[I/We] grant permission for Denecia B. Anderson to contact Heads of Schools/administrators

to invite their faculty/staff to participate in her research study.

[I/We] will not provide potential participant information to Denecia B. Anderson, but we

agree to provide her study information to our members on her behalf.

[I/We] are requesting a copy of the results upon study completion and/or publication.

Sincerely,

[Official’s Name]

[Official’s Title]

[Official’s Company/Organization]

286

Appendix F

Information Sheet

Title of the Project: A Correlational Study of Culturally Responsive Christian School

Leadership and Its Impact on Culturally Marginalized Students.

Principal Investigator: Denecia B. Anderson, Doctoral Candidate, John W. Rawlings School of

Divinity, Liberty University.

Invitation to be Part of a Research Study

You are invited to participate in a research study. To participate you must be at least 18 years of

age or older, a teacher or faculty member in a PK/K-12 Christian educational institution for over

one year or more of their assignment. Taking part in this research project is voluntary.

Please take time to read this entire form and ask questions before deciding whether to take part in

this research project.

What is the study about and why is it being done?

The purpose of this study is to determine if there is a relationship between culturally responsive

school leadership, cultural awareness, educating all students, and professional learning

opportunities about diversity in PK/K-12 Christian private schools in the United States of

America.

What will happen if you agree to be in this study?

If you agree to be in this study, I will ask you to do the following: Complete an anonymous

online survey that will take approximately 10 minutes.

How could you or others benefit from this study?

Participants should not expect to receive a direct benefit from taking part in this study. Benefits

to society include adding to the body of knowledge by providing guidance and understanding to

leadership preparation, professional development, and culturally responsive training to support

diverse student populations in Christian private schools.

What risks might you experience from being in this study?

The expected risks from participating in this study are minimal, which means they are equal to

the risks you would encounter in everyday life.

How will personal information be protected?

The records of this study will be kept private. Research records will be stored securely, and only

the researcher will have access to the records.

• Participant responses will be anonymous.

• Data will be stored on a password-locked computer and may be used for future presentations.

After three years, all electronic records will be deleted.

287

Is study participation voluntary?

Participation in this study is voluntary. Your decision whether to participate will not affect your

current or future relations with Liberty University. If you decide to participate, you are free to

not answer any question or withdraw at any time prior to submitting the survey without affecting

those relationships.

What should you do if you decide to withdraw from the study?

If you choose to withdraw from the study, please exit the survey and close your internet browser.

Your responses will not be recorded or included in the study.

Whom do you contact if you have questions or concerns about the study?

The researcher conducting this study is Denecia B. Anderson. You may ask any questions you

have now. If you have questions later, you are encouraged to contact her at

banderson34@liberty.edu. You may also contact the researcher’s faculty sponsor, Dr. Micheal

Pardue at mspardue@liberty.edu.

Whom do you contact if you have questions about your rights as a research participant?

If you have any questions or concerns regarding this study and would like to talk to someone

other than the researcher, you are encouraged to contact the IRB. Our physical address is

Institutional Review Board, 1971 University Blvd., Green Hall Ste. 2845, Lynchburg, VA

24515; our phone number is 434-592-5530, and our email address is irb@liberty.edu.

Disclaimer: The Institutional Review Board (IRB) is tasked with ensuring that human subjects

research will be conducted in an ethical manner as defined and required by federal regulations.

The topics covered and viewpoints expressed or alluded to by student and faculty researchers

are those of the researchers and do not necessarily reflect the official policies or positions of

Liberty University.

mailto:mspardue@liberty.edu

mailto:irb@liberty.edu

288

Appendix G

Culturally Responsive Christian School Leadership Survey

Culture Awareness and Action (Adult Focus)

Likert Scale: 1 = almost never; 2 = Once in a While; 3 = Sometimes; 4 = Frequently; 5 = Almost

Always

1. How often do school leaders encourage you to teach about people from different races,

ethnicities, or cultures? 1 2 3 4 5

2. How often do you think about what colleagues of different races, ethnicities, or cultures

experience? 1 2 3 4 5

3. At your school, how often are you encouraged to think more deeply about multi-culturally