Annotated Bibliography and Literature Review

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350591027

Families, Resources, and Community: Illuminating

the Structures of Culturally Relevant Education in

an Urban Early Childhood C....

Article  in  Education and Urban Society · April 2021

DOI: 10.1177/00131245211004573

CITATION

1 READS

53

4 authors:

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Coteaching in Preservice Teacher Education View project

Adult Literacy View project

Beth Wassell

Rowan University

35 PUBLICATIONS   344 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Natoya Coleman

Rowan University

3 PUBLICATIONS   4 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Susan Browne

Rowan University

14 PUBLICATIONS   77 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Xiufang Chen

Rowan University

17 PUBLICATIONS   509 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Xiufang Chen on 19 May 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

https://doi.org/10.1177/00131245211004573

Education and Urban Society 1 –22

© The Author(s) 2021 Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/00131245211004573

journals.sagepub.com/home/eus

Empirical Article

Families, Resources, and Community: Illuminating the Structures of Culturally Relevant Education in an Urban Early Childhood Center

Beth A. Wassell1 , Natoya Coleman1, Susan Browne1, and Xiufang Chen1

Abstract In this paper, we examine the enactment of culturally relevant education in an urban early childhood setting in the US. This descriptive case study used a sociocultural framework that emphasizes the relationship between structure and agency. The research question that guided the study was: How does an urban, non-profit early childhood educational center focused on the needs of culturally and linguistically diverse students and families enact culturally relevant education? The findings indicated that both tacit and tangible structures supported the agency of all school stakeholders. Tacit structures included multilingual and multimodal communication, continuous, responsive reflection, and a schema of valuing family engagement, which permeated the institution’s culture. Tangible structures included the school’s faculty, administrators, and staff, the students and families who were served by the school, and the financial resources that were creatively leveraged by the staff and administration. The article concludes with implications and recommendations for stakeholders in a variety of schooling contexts who strive to enact authentic, sustained culturally relevant education.

1Rowan University, Glassboro, NJ, USA

Corresponding Author: Beth A. Wassell, Rowan University, 201 Mullica Hill Road, Glassboro, NJ 08028, USA. Email: [email protected]

1004573EUSXXX10.1177/00131245211004573Education and Urban SocietyWassell et al. research-article2021

2 Education and Urban Society 00(0)

Keywords urban education, change, educational leaders, social justice, multicultural education

Nearly a quarter century after Ladson-Billings (1995a) introduced a frame- work for culturally relevant pedagogy, a number of scholars have contin- ued to examine and expand educational approaches and pedagogies that are culturally relevant (CRP) (Ladson Billings, 1995a; Ladson-Billings & Tate, 2016), culturally responsive (CRT) (Gay, 2010), or culturally sus- taining (CSP) (Paris & Alim, 2014). These approaches, which in this paper we refer to as culturally relevant education, or CRE (Aronson & Laughter, 2016), have been framed as a response to two significant, long-term issues in US schools: a lack of access and opportunity among groups of US stu- dents who have historically been marginalized; and as a way to rethink White, middle-class, monocultural and monolingual approaches to educa- tion (Aronson & Laughter, 2016). Despite the number of scholarly contri- butions that have contributed to theorizing on CRE approaches or are framed by CRE, there is still a significant need to educate teachers, educa- tional leaders, and other stakeholders, including families, about what CRE “means” and “looks like” in actual classrooms and schools (Sleeter, 2012). To date, much of the research on CRE is focused on teachers (e.g., Bonner et al., 2018) and on the school-age context (Durden et al., 2015). In addi- tion, we know little about how families play a role in contexts where CRE is being enacted. In response to these gaps in the research, the purpose of this case study was to examine the case of a school-wide approach to CRE. In this, we describe what CRE means and looks like in an urban early childhood and elementary context that has stated values of diversity, com- munity, collaboration, equity, and advocacy, and that has been lauded for its responsiveness to culturally diverse children and families. Analyzing a successful case of CRE is particularly important in light of recent calls to examine and respond to structural inequities in all of our nation’s institutions.

Research Questions and Theoretical Framework

The overarching question that guided our study was: How does an urban, non-profit early childhood educational center focused on the needs of cul- turally and linguistically diverse students and families enact culturally rel- evant education? However, to give further shape to the data collection, analysis, and theorizing around CRE at the school level, we grounded our

Wassell et al. 3

sub-questions in a sociocultural framework that emphasizes the duality of agency and structures (Sewell, 1992). According to Sewell’s (1992) concep- tualization, structure and agency exist dialectically. Agency is defined as how an individual or a collective accesses and appropriates resources to use to their advantage. Structures are “sets of mutually sustaining schema and resources that empower and constrain social action and that tend to be repro- duced by social action” (p. 16). Schemas can be “virtual,” or unseen and tacit, and could include school norms or unwritten rules. Resources are defined as “actual,” and more tangible, and include those that are human in nature, such as knowledge, or nonhuman objects that “shape and constrain” social life. In educational settings, resources could be actual or virtual and might include curricular materials, knowledgeable colleagues, professional development sessions, and written policies. In this paper, we use the dialec- tical relationship between structure and agency to consider the schema and resources that educators and families at Appletree School (pseudonym), the setting of this case study, regularly draw on, or consider. Most importantly, we examined both the virtual and actual institutional structures that shaped or were shaped by educators and families at Appletree. Thus, the more spe- cific research question that guided the case study were: What are the struc- tures in this context that support CRE? In the discussion, we advance a theoretical model that emphasizes how these structures were shaped by the agency of the educators, staff, and community, and how the structures also supported the agency of students and families.

Review of Literature

Since the early 1990s, researchers aimed to reimagine a holistic approach for meeting the needs of diverse learners by describing the expanding a variety of asset-based pedagogies, defined as approaches of teaching and learning that emphasize the strengths of students who have been histori- cally marginalized in schools (Paris & Alim, 2017). Paris and Alim (2014) described the historical evolution of foundational asset pedagogies con- tributed by scholars such as Nieto (1992), Garcia (1993), Ladson-Billings (1994), Lee (1995), and Valdes (1996). Situated among an even larger body of scholarship, the work of these scholars “repositioned the linguis- tic, literate, and cultural practices of working-class communities—specifi- cally poor communities of color—as resources and assets to honor, explore, and extend in accessing” (Paris & Alim, 2014, p. 4).

The first wave of theorizing and research on culturally relevant pedagogy focused primarily on teachers and teaching (Ladson-Billings, 1994, 1995). Culturally Relevant Pedagogy (CRP) focuses on academic achievement,

4 Education and Urban Society 00(0)

sociopolitical consciousness, and cultural competence, and claims that teach- ers must begin teaching with the students in mind (Ladson-Billings, 1995a, 1995b, 2006). Years later, Culturally Responsive Teaching (CRT) expanded this framework to include transformative strategic moves that teachers should make in order to enact emancipatory and liberatory practices from oppressive educational ideologies (Gay, 2010). Gay’s CRT incorporated four dynamic components that work together: caring, communication, curriculum, and instruction. Building on these frameworks, Paris and Alim (2014) then sug- gested Culturally Sustaining fda (CSP), which aims to simultaneously pre- serve the cultures of diverse students while teaching English Language Arts in schools. CSP, which they expanded to other content areas and grade levels focuses on sustaining pluralism through education to challenges of social jus- tice and change in ways that previous iterations of asset pedagogies did not (Paris & Alim, 2017).

Although there are many overlapping and synonymous terms connected to asset pedagogies, the term Culturally Relevant Education (CRE) has been suggested as an inclusive framework that synthesizes “complementary research strands centered on effectively teaching diverse students” (Aronson & Laughter, 2016, p. 164). Aronson and Laughter (2016), in their synthesis of empirical studies conducted over 20 years across different content areas, found that CRE repeatedly had positive impacts on student outcomes. In examining scholarship on culturally grounded pedagogies, Dover’s (2013) research suggested that the ultimate goal of CRE is working against oppres- sion by promoting equity. In addition, her synthesis of prior work in the field suggested four important markers of CRE that include academic skills and concepts; critical reflection; cultural competence; and a critique of discourses of power.

In addition to classroom instruction, efforts to engage CRE in the empirical literature provided some examples that focused on the entire school environ- ment and included school leaders. Durden et al. (2015) found that a whole- school approach to CRE should include a foundational framework and philosophy that explicitly identifies a child’s culture and language as integral to all learning experiences. Equally important is the intentional use of environ- mental resources such as books and family photos to engage children in con- versations and learning experiences about multiple elements of diversity (Durden et al., 2015). Along with this framework and philosophy, schools must also employ leaders who place emphasis on inclusivity and leverage resources toward cultivating a culturally affirming school environment (Ainscow, 2005; Riehl, 2000). Finally, schools must adopt an approach to family engagement that centers CRE. According to Grant and Ray (2018), this approach acknowledges and respects the cultural uniqueness, experiences,

Wassell et al. 5

and views of families, building on them in curriculum and instruction, and emphasizing partnerships.

Scholars who have examined CRE in early childhood education have noted the importance of developing a culturally responsive classroom com- munity, family engagement, critical literacy within a social justice frame- work, multicultural literature, and culturally responsive print-rich environments (Bennett et al., 2018). The inclusion of culturally relevant stories can help support the classroom community by incorporating various life experiences and encouraging children to share meaningful moments (Purnell et al., 2007). Additionally, educational settings that engage in CRE by reflecting the home cultures of the students while inviting children to explore cultures other than their own have the potential to support chil- dren’s emotional security (Purnell et al., 2007). In practice, the integration of high-quality multicultural literacy materials as part of regular classroom activities is one way teachers can model and practice acceptance of differ- ence (Purnell et al., 2007). However, the current literature on early child- hood education focuses extensively on teachers, curriculum, or classrooms, and does not address whole-school efforts or outcomes related to CRE. This paper responds to the dearth of literature at the school level and in early childhood contexts and sheds light on how we might examine and learn from entire school communities to further the conversation about CRE.

Methods

This descriptive case study (Merriam, 1998) centered on the case of a social unit, a particular schooling context, with a focus on the structures in the unit that supported families, educators, and students’ agency. Merriam (1998) outlines key attributes of qualitative case studies, each of which aligns with our research focus: they are particularistic, focusing on a situation, event, or phenomenon); they are descriptive, yielding a rich, thick description; and they are heuristic in that they emphasize the researcher’s understanding of the phenomenon. With our goal of identifying structures that supported CRE, we found case study to be the most appropriate research approach. Drawing on Thomas and Myers’s (2015) typology of layers, the subject is the case of Appletree School itself, while the object, or the analytical frame, is the dialectic between structure and agency in conjunction with culturally relevant education. The purpose of the study was to explore this subject (Appletree), with the intention to further theorize how a culturally relevant educational context might develop or strengthen structures to support the agency of its constituents.

6 Education and Urban Society 00(0)

Research Setting and Participants

Appletree School serves children from 18 months through approximately 12 years old, with classrooms for toddlers, pre-schoolers, and K-6 students for afterschool and summer camp programs. It is located in the center area of a large city in the Northeast, USA, adjacent to the city’s Chinatown neighborhood. The center began in 1976 when it primarily served families working in the adjacent garment district. It has been lauded locally and nationally for its consistent high quality. It has maintained accreditation through the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) for over 20 years and consistently earns high scores in the pro- cess. In the late 1990s it became one of the first Head Start programs in its state. Appletree was also recognized nationally through NAEYC through an Engaging Diverse Families award. The school is a non-profit organiza- tion that is supported by a Board of 18 volunteers from the community. For the 2018 to 2019, it served 516 children who identified as 79% Asian, 10% African American; 6% White; 3% African-American/White, Indian-White, Asian-White and Latinx-White; 2% Latinx; and >1% Indian.

During the year of data collection, the educators at Appletree included 44 teaching staff, 21 administrators and office staff, including a full family ser- vices office, 5 kitchen staff, and 25 substitute teachers. Of these Appletree employees, the individuals who consented to participate in the interview component of the study included 12 individuals. Eleven of these participants identified as female and one identified as male. Of these 12, seven identified as White, two as African-American, and three as Chinese-American. The par- ticipants had worked an average of 18 years at the center with a range of 4 years to 42 years. Four of the 18 Board of Directors also consented to par- ticipate in the study. All four identified as White, two identified as female and two identified as male.

Data Collection

Data collection occurred over a 6-month period and included qualitative data sources informed by an ethnographic approach. Data sources were varied and included: field notes (by all four investigators), photographs taken at the field site and artifacts, such as flyers, committee lists, job announcements, and policy statements; the school’s website, which included information on the school’s mission and values, program offer- ings, and teachers/staff; and interviews with 12 individuals who worked at the center at the time of the study and one focus group with four Board members. Additionally, we examined the anonymized results for the

Wassell et al. 7

center from the annual National Association for Educating Young Children (NAEYC) survey. This survey is distributed to families annually in accor- dance with the center’s accreditation process and was administered by Appletree staff a few months prior to the start of our study. The survey anonymized survey results provided some insights into families’ perspec- tives on the Appletree experience.

Observations and artifacts. Over the course of 3 months, we visited Appletree, observing classrooms during the school day and after school. Our field notes describe the learning activities, classroom signage, and decorations, as well as the dialogue between teachers and students. Additionally, we attended ori- entation sessions at the beginning of the school year, taking note of the infor- mation provided to families and the questions asked during these informational meetings. During visits and observations, we collected or took photos of handouts, posters, pamphlets, flyers, visuals inside of the classrooms, and student work. We created a file of dozens of photos and images that were examined as artifacts. Additionally, we examined the organization’s website, which described its mission statement, vision statement, current events, a description of programming, and an overview of the teachers, administrators, board members, and staff.

Interviews and focus group. Interviewees included five administrators (the Executive Director, three Program/Curriculum Coordinators, the Families Coordinator, the School Psychologist, and the Development Director), a Parent-Teacher Coordinator, the Office Manager, and two teachers. All interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. After transcrip- tion, they were sent to the participants for member-checking revisions prior to analysis. Informal interviews were also conducted during observations and included in field notes; these included a number of teachers at every age level. Due to the limited availability of the Board of Director members, we conducted a 45-minute focus group with the four members of the Board who consented to participate.

Analysis and Trustworthiness

Once the data were collected and transcribed, the four researchers each individually and separately coded the data, coding specifically for struc- tures that supported or constrained CRE and other factors connected to CRE. A cloud-based qualitative analysis application (dedoose.com) sup- ported our efforts to conduct analysis collaboratively. After comparing our initial codes and sharing our individual interpretive memoranda,

8 Education and Urban Society 00(0)

we established larger themes (Lichtman, 2012). In this second phase of analysis, we connected the codes more firmly to our theoretical framework. We then created interpretive memoranda and graphic webs. Throughout the process, we sought to identify both patterns of coherence as well as contra- dictions to those patterns (Tobin, 2006). Trustworthiness (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) was established through triangulation, member-checking, informal debriefing with participants, using thick descriptions, and a stance toward reflexivity as central to the research design.

Findings

The findings revealed several structures, some virtual and some actual, that supported the agency of the students and families at Appletree School. The virtual, or tacit structures included a schema of valuing family engagement, which permeated the culture of the institution, and continu- ous, responsive reflection. The actual, or tangible structures included the people at the school, both employees and those who were served by the school, and the financial resources that the school creatively leveraged. In the sections that follow, we emphasize what these structures “looked like” at Appletree.

Family Engagement and Community Development: A Virtual Structure

A schema of valuing family engagement and responsiveness permeated the culture at Appletree School. This was mentioned repeatedly by fami- lies in their survey responses; for example, one individual noted: “We love how [Appletree] is very community-oriented, making families feel welcomed by visiting/participating.” This was also affirmed by adminis- trators and educators in interviews. As Eleanor, an administrator, said, “I feel it’s the culture here to respect families [and] consider their input.” This value was operationalized through specific practices, such as invit- ing families to serve on school-wide committees and to participate in other formal and informal school events; offering events and workshops on a variety of topics; and by explicitly asking families to become advo- cates for the school and for education more broadly during orientation sessions and during other events. The school’s commitment to engaging families was even indicated on its website, with sections on “Respecting a family’s language and culture” and “Families and teachers: Educating children together.” Other artifacts throughout the school demonstrated this commitment, such as sign-up sheets for afterhours events, “Parents’

Wassell et al. 9

Night Out” opportunities, and handmade, multilingual posters created by teachers and staff that invited families to attend field trips.

Families were invited to participate in fun and educational activities at least twice per month. Workshops often involved partnerships with educa- tional or arts institutions in the city, such as a free family evening trip to the city’s science museum and an art workshop from one of the city’s art museums. Some unique offerings for families were “share your home- town, comfort food, and childhood memories,” and “kitchen math” with the school’s chef. Other workshops included immigration rights informa- tion, the city’s elementary school selection process, talking about sex with children, nutrition for children, and other topics geared more toward learn- ing and development of caregivers. The school also offered free ESL classes for adults on site. At all events that were geared toward adults only, childcare and a free, hot meal was provided for all.

A key way that family engagement was operationalized was through multilingual, multimodal communication. The Family Services depart- ment included four individuals who spoke various dialects of Chinese. All events also featured a translator who spoke multiple Chinese dialects. The school also deliberately placed students with specific home languages in classrooms with teachers and other students who spoke the same language in an attempt to both make students feel comfortable and to support their bilingualism. Newsletters, flyers, and progress reports were also translated or communicated in the family’s home language. Bridget, an administra- tor, also described the school’s emphasis on using photos; this was a prac- tice that all teachers regularly used to communicate with families:

Even people that speak the same language will respond much more sort of viscerally and completely to a photograph than they will to words. We try to use photos to capture what children are learning, to describe what’s going on at school, to communicate the skills and concepts that children are developing. (Interview)

This value also featured a responsiveness toward diverse families beyond language and culture. For example, Melanie, another administrator, pointed out an example of the school’s progressive approach to including LGBTQ families:

I remember coming to [Appletree] for an observation in 2006. In the waiting area, I remember seeing pamphlets available for taking. One of them read, “How to best meet the needs of same sex parents in childcare” and I remember thinking how refreshing it was to see this in an early learning environment. (Interview)

10 Education and Urban Society 00(0)

Margaret, the school’s executive director also described a simple practice that illustrated a level of schedule flexibility for working families of varied socio- economic levels:

We don’t require that children have to be here at 8:00 every morning. Or 8:30. If a parent’s working at night, or until 3:00 in the morning, maybe the only time they get to spend with their child is early morning. So, saying that it’s more important that the child’s here by 8:00 a.m. versus spending time with the parent having a calm morning, you have to be respectful of that. (Interview)

Margaret emphasized that the school had to “look at the individual needs” with regard to families and sought to instill this value into the fabric of the school. This responsiveness trickled down to the classroom level, where fam- ilies were encouraged to informally visit and interact with teachers and the children. Families were invited daily to sit and have a free breakfast with their child at drop-off, and many were observed doing so (Field Notes). Tanesha, a preschool teacher explained: “it’s also inviting the parents and when there’s an open-door policy to come in and perhaps just stay, look around the room, contribute to a lesson” (Interview).

Appletree regularly encouraged families and staff to become advocates for themselves, for their families, and for education more broadly. The website included a section entitled, “Advocacy Is Everyone’s Role at [Appletree].” Other examples included direct messaging orally, in school materials, and through “advocacy blasts” sent to the entire school community (which included current families, past families, Board members, and funders). For example, in each of the fall orientation sessions, families started the evening in a general session with the Director before moving on to meet with teachers in their individual classrooms. In each session, the Director emphasized the importance of voting in the upcoming election. She explained that there are three populations who typically do not register: single parents, people with housing issues who have to move a lot, and folks newly eligible to vote because their immigration status has changed. She then said that anyone who might fit into one of those categories should visit the front desk to fill out a voter registration form. She also explained that the school exists because of public funding from the state and that representatives “need to hear from us who care about children” (Field notes). Margaret later explained that fami- lies’ rights were central at Appletree:

We find out as much as possible [about our families], and we communicate to the family at the very beginning that this is a partnership. Families are told lots of things when they’re enrolled in any school. You have to do this, that, and they get a list of rules. What we try to highlight is what their rights are, not just

Wassell et al. 11

what their responsibilities [are]. You have a right to confidentiality. You have a right to participate in your child’s educational process. You have a right to ask questions. You have a right to visit. (Interview)

This perspective served to reposition the role of family engagement at Appletree. Rather than expecting more traditional forms of family engage- ment, Appletree supported families to become advocates. Almost all of the interviewees expressed the political nature of their work as advocates and the importance of encouraging advocacy among the Appletree families. Eleanor, an administrator, explained: “We empower families to serve as advocates for themselves and their children. That’s a form of respect. We want to ensure that they have the resources to do that” (Interview).

Continuous Reflection and Responsiveness: A Virtual Structure

Second, a schema of continuous reflection and connected responsive action was embedded in the school culture. This was operationalized through spe- cific professional learning (PL) opportunities for staff, educators, and administrators on issues that had emerged organically at Appletree. Melanie, an administrator whose role involved professional learning, described this as a “collaborative concept and approach” (Interview). Some of the issues that served as a springboard for PL during the data collection period included gender, the needs of Black boys, and bilingual learners. PL on race was initiated by the school’s Diversity and Governance Committees, which included educators, Board members, and family representatives after they attended a NAEYC-sponsored “Race Matters” session. After the PL, the committee invited staff members to then present the content of the training to the rest of the staff. Almost all of the participants noted the powerful nature of the training since it was personalized and led by colleagues. Bridget, who helped to organize the sessions, explained how the session melded the staff’s experiences with the theoretical material: “They were able to share their own experiences with the group. So, it hit home . . . It meant quite a bit to us. It felt like it was the first time we were actually able to really share as a group. I only had really good feedback” (Interview).

Reflection and responsiveness around critical issues trickled down to the curricular and classroom levels, as the teacher participants talked about their students’ identities and experiences with institutionalized racism. For exam- ple, Faith, an African American preschool teacher who had been at the center for over 20 years, explained a situation that emerged in her classroom:

I had one student that didn’t like that she was Black. I explained to her how proud we, her teachers, are to be strong Black women and just telling her she

12 Education and Urban Society 00(0)

comes from a great history of Black people. [But] one important lesson I learned myself was to make sure that I had chocolate people [represented in the classroom]. We had like Barack Obama, we had Mandela up, but they were more lighter-skinned. And I was like, “Oh, we made a big mistake. We need to put some more brown-skinned people up.” And we did that. (Interview)

Faith continued to describe the ways that she used the situation to think care- fully about representation and how Appletree was being responsive to the needs of Black students. Moreover, she realized that the work needed to be deliberate: “[W]e were like, “Duh. We have to be intentional and put it on a lesson plan. We don’t need to wait until they say something” (Interview). This intentionality around critical topics in the classroom and curriculum also extended to gender, as a result of collaborative professional learning. As Melanie explained:

We have also collaboratively learned more about the topic of gender . . . . We had started out by simply going over the newest terminology, that in fact, is still evolving. We also started out with very preliminary ideas of “girl” and “boy” and using scenarios to reach an understanding about affirming versus non- affirming language. It was also an opportunity to take a close look at reviewing our curriculum and assess whether what and how we are teaching makes our classrooms more inclusive. (Interview)

The educators at Appletree saw this professional learning and reflection as continual, and as something that would be facilitated by the school regularly in response to issues or needs that would arise. Bridget also noted the role of communication in this endeavor:

We try to expose [issues of discrimination and racism] and explore it and be open to talking about ways that it can stop communication or a become barrier. . .both in the society at large, and maybe in the neighborhood, but as well as within the center. And we always try to keep coming back to that. We try to take all sorts of steps to be more open and to communicate and to be responsive. (Interview)

Nancy, an administrator who oversaw the school-aged afterschool and sum- mer programs, further explained the continual nature of critical work: “It’s something that you sort of have to continually work on. It’s not something that’s sort of, ‘Okay, we’re done. We’ve worked on this.’ So we have to con- stantly sort of keep ourselves in check” (Interview).

Wassell et al. 13

People: An Actual Structure

A focus on people, as a central structure, was a significant resource at Appletree. This included the intentional selection of diverse, high quality educators, the Board of Directors, and the families and students who attended the center. In each of these areas, diversity was elevated as valuable and as a priority. First, and most visible, was the population of diverse students. The center’s geographic location, in the heart of an urban center, lent itself to a diverse student population. Since its early years, Appletree was known for being a place that attracted students from a myriad of cultural backgrounds. Faith, a current teacher, explained:

I started at [Appletree] in October of 1988, I was searching for a place that represented what I felt [our city] should look like, a rainbow. I had worked at all White programs, I worked at all Black programs, and a friend of mine told me about a childcare center in [the center of the city], he said, “I know you’re going to love it. It’s all kind of races of children that go there.” And I came down, I brought my resume and when I walked in I looked around, and I was like, “whoa,” this is really what diversity looks like. I mean, the classroom was filled with children of all cultures. It was Hispanic, African-American, it was Asian, it was Caucasian, it was beautiful. And I knew, I said, this is where I want to be. (Interview)

Families shared that they appreciated this diversity: “Having children of different races in my child’s classroom is definitely a plus and opens the door to discussions regarding race and differences with my child” (Respondent, NAEYC Survey). Appletree worked intentionally to not only meet the needs of the students within the school community, but to create opportunities for students and families to engage with the diverse cultures.

Appletree also made intentional efforts to recruit a highly diverse staff, in terms of ethnicity, language, gender identity, sexual orientation, and age. “We have teachers [who] speak English, Chinese, Spanish, Indonesian, Malay, Romanian, Albanian” (Eleanor, Interview). The leadership opera- tionalized staff diversity by recruiting teachers through families and com- munity networks. Over several days, Melanie, an administrator, went door-to-door at several businesses and coffee shops in the city’s “Gayborhood” area in an effort to intentionally recruit more LGBTQ edu- cators (Field notes, 2/19). She explained:

There are ways in which we can try to increase our efforts to hire a diverse ‘work family’ who embody our mission statement and ideals. Right before this interview, for example, I was advertising employment opportunities at the

14 Education and Urban Society 00(0)

center the old-fashioned way, by posting paper fliers. At this time, we are looking to hire substitute teachers. I posted fliers in cafes, libraries, grocery stores and markets in [lists a number of neighborhoods in the city] to hopefully attract a diverse pool of applicants. (Interview)

Appletree had a low teacher turnover (Field notes), a characteristic that was recognized by families as a key merit. “I love the low turnover of the teachers at [Appletree]. I think that reflects the commitment and caring gen- erally of [Appletree]” (Respondent, NAEYC Survey). Among the teachers and staff interviews, almost all indicated a strong pride in the center because of its reputation in the city. One administrator even explained that when she was in the interview stages for her position, another colleague in the field said that she was “going to the Mecca” of early childhood education (Interview).

Administrators also indicated that teachers at Appletree were supported in their attainment of teacher certification as well as advanced degrees. Appletree was able to recruit people with genuine interest in the center and the com- munity, including individuals without certification, because of a program funded by the state. Margaret explained:

The Teacher Education and Compensation Helps (TEACH) program is funded by the Department of Human Services . . . It allows people working in the early childhood community to go back to school and earn higher degrees while working full time . . . T.E.A.C.H. allows the scholarship to be used for non- credit bearing classes such as ELL classes at community college. So, we could hire someone whose English language was weak, but the person wanted to work, and so we were able to hire them as substitute teachers, classroom aides, ‘til they were able to get their English skills up and then get going. So, T.E.A.C.H. has been a major recruitment for us. The scholarship covers 90% and the employee pays five percent and the employer pays 5%. But the employee also gets paid release time for being in school, and gets help to pay for their books and transportation. They get a $600 bonus at the end of each contract year. So, someone realistically could get their associate’s degree in four years and leave debt free and also have received bonuses between $2,400 and $3,000. (Interview)

Even with these unique methods for recruitment as a priority, Appletree leadership shared that they were continually working to strengthen their focus on people. Several participants noted that Appletree families spoke some languages and language varieties that were not represented by staff members. In addition, Margaret indicated that there are some educators at Appletree who may not be as “open-minded” or fully responsive to the needs of all families and children:

Wassell et al. 15

We may have a family in which one of the adults say they are “a parent” as opposed to a mother or a father because they’re [gender] non-binary or on the spectrum, so it matters which classroom they’ll go into. . . . It’s not like I’m going to say, “Oh, I’m only gonna put children who . . . Come from different family lifestyles with open minded staff.” No, I’ll probably put them with the least open-minded staff, because it’s through knowledge that we change. (Interview)

In this, Bridget also saw opportunities for families to help support educators’ learning around gender identity and diversity. In addition, Bryan, an admin- istrator, talked about racial and ethnic representation and noted that despite the racial diversity of the staff, Appletree did not have enough Black, male teachers. He explained:

I wish that we had more male African-American teachers. That’s something that I think a lot about. Especially right now, it’s kind of at the forefront of my mind, I sort of worry that we’re, I think that we struggle with young African- American boys at our center. . . How do we go about doing that? Or, what kind of outreach should we do? (Interview)

Bryan’s comments indicated his recognition of even more work that Appletree could do to support the needs of Black and Brown children at the center. Moreover, Bridget and Bryan’s comments indicated that the diversity of the employees, along with the PL of the staff around issues of diversity and CRE, were considered a continual work in progress.

State and Private Funding: An Actual Structure

Stakeholders described how they were able to leverage resources within state and federal systems and to attract private funding to enact their work and provide additional resources for students and families. The staff and board indicated that this was partly due to the leadership of the director, who a Board member described as “aggressive, cutting edge, creative, and an inno- vator” with “real significant expertise” in seeking the resources “children deserve” (Focus Group Interview). The director, Margaret, explained that they use “braided funding” which is combining resources from various fund- ing programs. She described some of the creative strategies they use to com- bine local, state, and federal resources, despite decreases in reimbursement from the state:

Subsidy reimbursements have fallen far behind. Even as a high-quality center, we’re still getting only 42 dollars a day for a preschooler. They’re here ten

16 Education and Urban Society 00(0)

hours a day, $ 4.20 an hour - that won’t let you park a car. Braiding subsidy with a [city initiative funding program], allows the center to be higher quality. For the same children, the center now is getting $16,000 with braided funding as opposed to just getting $8,000 in subsidy. So, the center’s quality can increase, and the teachers can get better compensated. (Interview)

Appletree also employed two part-time development staff members to seek external funding. Eleanor, one of the development directors, noted that the operating margin was “precipitous” and that they “operate so close to the financial edge even with, because basically for every preschool child enrolled we have to raise another $3,000, based on our reimbursement” (Interview). The development staff spent their time soliciting grant fund- ing from federal, local, and private funders, with additional support from Board members who also solicited funding from their employers and net- works. They also organized fundraisers and an annual giving campaign that targeted past donors, families, and friends of the school. Eleanor also explained that the school enrolled a small percentage of “private pay” fam- ilies who paid fully for their children’s education. The Board Chairperson summed up the strength of the strategic revenue generation that the Director and development staff engaged in:

Being able to generate more revenue than other organizations by knowing how the system works, really knowing how the system works in a substantive way, has given the center the resources to be able to pay teachers good wages. Not what they deserve but in comparison, it’s an attractive place to work because they’re able to provide relatively good compensation, relatively good benefits, and I think that that draws quality teachers and encourages quality teachers to stay (Focus Group Interview).

Board members also played an important role as cheerleaders for the school’s quality and were often eager to be a part of the organization because of its reputation: “[When potential board members come] here and they see the group that’s here, the caliber of the comments and the participation and engagement, it’s something that you want to be part of. And also, the mission of the organization. It’s the whole package” (Board member, Focus Group Interview). The Board Chair and development team looked specifically for members who would support the expertise they needed for other elements of the center, one member noting that they had targeted and recruited board members with expertise in HR, green building, architecture, and legal. As a result, the Director and staff had access to resources in terms of individuals with varied and extensive expertise. They also had representatives from a major bank in the region who facilitated corporate support of the school,

Wassell et al. 17

which had provided funding for a library, and other key educational initia- tives. Together, the strategies used by the Director, development staff, and Board, enabled Appletree to create and draw on both virtual and actual struc- tures that brought needed resources to the school. In essence, the leadership and board leveraged resources that directly impacted the quality of the sys- tem, for example, the high quality of the teaching staff.

Interestingly, the leadership, board, and staff saw the power of this knowl- edge and expertise to support the needs of children and families beyond those at the center and chose to provide PL on leveraging resources to other local schools and centers, primarily smaller, privately owned ones. One of the Board members had attended a professional learning session facilitated by Appletree’s Executive Director and described what she observed:

It just turned out to all be women but women having access to these classes [is important], sharing ideas between themselves because they really helped each other a lot . . . There [are] a lot of different organizations that could attempt to provide this type of advice but, [Margaret and her staff] are it in terms of the best people for it to come from with the knowledge and credibility. (Focus Group Interview)

As a result, Appletree was able to leverage not only their knowledge and experiences, but also their credibility as a high-quality educational center to support the needs of other schools in the city.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this case illuminates the interconnected nature of structures, including people, families, community, and financial resources, that support the agency of educators and staff in one institution to authentically enact CRE. The findings from this study revealed that both virtual and actual struc- tures supported the agency of all school stakeholders at Appletree School and suggest an expanded model of CRE that emphasizes the interplay of struc- tures and agency among the educators, staff, students, families, and the com- munity. In previous work, the literature on CRE has focused on specific elements of CRE or has focused more narrowly on the classroom level. For example, Aronson and Laughter (2016) found that the elements of engage- ment of critical reflection and cultural competence were the markers of CRE most often represented in the literature. However, our analysis suggests that a more expansive number of CRE characteristics were embedded in the core structures at Appletree School. Some of the structures were concrete and observable, like the people that served and were served by the center, and the funding that provided resources and opportunities. Given the financial

18 Education and Urban Society 00(0)

barriers to high quality early childhood education (Alvarez et al., 2015), funding is an important element in CRE and is a significant, yet underex- plored issue related to justice and equity.

Equally as important, however, were the structures that were not visible, but served as buttresses to support resources that were actual structures, such as people and funding. These included values that were entrenched in the culture of the center, such as authentic family engagement and a responsive- ness to the community, families, and students. Families were a vital element of CRE at Appletree, which provides additional support for a culturally responsive family engagement approach (Grant & Ray, 2018) that acknowl- edges and respects the cultural uniqueness, experiences and views of fami- lies, building on their assets in curriculum and instruction, and leading to deep partnerships. In the case of Appletree, these values served as virtual structures and were operationalized through the practices of collaboration, advocacy, and continuous reflection, which had been carefully honed over many years.

These new understandings suggest that enacting CRE is not as simple as identifying CRE characteristics and then training educators on how to enact them. Rather, it is the positioning of CRE as a core value within a school or organization while agentically mobilizing people and financial resources. These structures then have the potential to shape human agency—in this case, the agency of children and families—in order to collaboratively meet the holistic needs of families, children, and the community. This agency is essential in responding to unpredictable educational, financial and emotional challenges, such as those presented by the COVID-19 pandemic. According to Durden et al. (2015), “[i]t is our collective responsibility as educators, teachers, parents, researchers, early childhood advocates, program directors, and community leaders to support the successful implementation of pedago- gies in early childhood education that are responsive to the social and cultural needs of young children and their families” (p. 231). A close look at Appletree’s case provides an example of this collective responsibility. This position also suggests that quality early childhood programs support socio- cultural development and awareness, which is critical to our global society and to the future success of young learners.

Implications and Recommendations

The understandings that we gained from Appletree’s case have implica- tions for administrators, educators, and other stakeholders who want to expand CRE in their school settings. First, although an intentionality of practice is important, in our analysis of CRE at Appletree, we found that

Wassell et al. 19

the implementation of best practices is not enough. Enacting authentic, meaningful CRE is complex and takes time, so schools that choose to seek implementation through a short-term staff professional development ses- sion on cultural responsiveness or by hiring an external consultant may not be able to get to the deeper, virtual structures that we found to be important to enacting school-wide CRE. Appletree’s case provides a model to dem- onstrate how sustained efforts to be culturally responsive in all areas of the school must be embedded within the core of the institution, as well as within daily practice.

We recommend that lead administrators consider more long-term, ongoing professional learning that emphasizes first learning about the foundations of CRE. A first step would be to examine equity issues or the facets of the school that constrain CRE; the equity audit model (Capper & Young, 2015) is one way for schools to collectively engage in this work. A second step would be to facilitate ongoing sessions to identify and build consensus on the school’s core values related to equity, diversity, advo- cacy, and other elements related to CRE. These core values should inte- grate CRE along with other important local, community, and contextual considerations and must be situated in current calls for racial justice and institutional reform. All employees in the building should be part of this work, including front office staff, foodservice, substitute teachers, and others who are rarely part of school-based decision-making and profes- sional learning. Families, students, and members of the community are also valuable assets and must be integral in the process. However, we also cannot overlook the importance of actual, material resources in enacting CRE. School leaders must leverage resources in creative ways to attract quality educators and attain the financial resources needed to support high-quality programming.

These conclusions, implications, and recommendations are even more timely given the current state of the US, in which educators, families, and communities must respond to the social justice issues that have emerged from the global pandemic. Educators must also act in response to current calls to dismantle systemic racism and White supremacy in schools and institutions more broadly. Administrators, teachers, and other educators that are committed to CRE must actively and courageously commit to tak- ing on the complex and multifaceted social, emotional, economic, and justice-related issues that are constantly emerging and evolving within their communities. Schools must also center this work in honest, produc- tive conversations coupled with bold action to disrupt systemic racism, police violence, and injustice in the US, all of which have direct and endur- ing impacts on the children and youth in their care.

20 Education and Urban Society 00(0)

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publi- cation of this article.

ORCID iD

Beth A. Wassell https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9329-7189

References

Ainscow, M. (2005). Developing inclusive education systems: What are the levers for change? Journal of Educational Change, 6(2), 109–124.

Alvarez, K., Epps, A., & Montoya, S. (2015). Overcoming financial barriers to expanding high-quality early care & education in Southeastern Pennsylvania: The nonprofit finance fund. https://www.nff.org/sites/default/files/paragraphs/ file/download/ece_report.pdf

Aronson, B., & Laughter, J. (2016). The theory and practice of culturally relevant education: A synthesis of research across content areas. Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 163–206.

Bennett, S. V., Gunn, A. A., Gayle-Evans, G., Barrera, E. S., & Leung, C. B. (2018). Culturally responsive literacy practices in an early childhood community. Early Childhood Education Journal, 46(2), 241–248.

Bonner, P. J., Warren, S. R., & Jiang, Y. H. (2018). Voices from urban classrooms: Teachers’ perceptions on instructing diverse students and using culturally respon- sive teaching. Education and Urban Society, 50(8), 697–726.

Capper, C. A., & Young, M. D. (2015). The equity audit as the core of leading increas- ingly diverse schools and districts. In Leadership for increasingly diverse schools (pp. 186–197). Routledge.

Dover, A. G. (2013). Teaching for social justice: From conceptual frameworks to classroom practices. Multicultural Perspectives, 15(1), 3–11.

Durden, T. R., Escalante, E., & Blitch, K. (2015). Start with us! Culturally relevant pedagogy in the preschool classroom. Early Childhood Education Journal, 43(3), 223–232.

Garcia, E. (1993). Language, culture, and education. Review of Research in Education, 19(1), 51–98.

Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching. Teachers College Press. Grant, K. B., & Ray, J. A. (Eds.). (2018). Home, school, and community collabora-

tion: Culturally responsive family engagement. Sage Publications. Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African

American children. Josey-Bass.

Wassell et al. 21

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995a). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995b). But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy. Theory into Practice, 34(3), 159–165.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding achievement in US schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3–12.

Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate, W. F. (2016). Toward a critical race theory of education. In Critical race theory in education (pp. 10–31). Routledge.

Lee, C. (1995). A culturally based cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching African American high school students’ skills in literacy interpretation. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(4), 608–630.

Lichtman, M. (2012). Qualitative research in education: A user’s guide. Sage. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education.

Jossey-Bass Publishers. Nieto, S. (1992). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural edu-

cation. Longman. Paris, D., & Alim, H. S. (2014). What are we seeking to sustain through culturally

sustaining pedagogy? A loving critique forward. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 85–100.

Paris, D., & Alim, H. S. (Eds.). (2017). Culturally sustaining pedagogies: Teaching and learning for justice in a changing world. Teachers College Press.

Purnell, P., Ali, P., Begum, N., & Carter, M. (2007). Windows, bridges and mirrors: Building culturally responsive early childhood classrooms through the integra- tion of literacy and the arts. Early Childhood Education Journal, 34(6), 419–424. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-007-0159-6

Riehl, C. J. (2000). The principal’s role in creating inclusive schools for diverse stu- dents: A review of normative, empirical, and critical literature on the practice of educational administration. Review of Educational Research, 70(1), 55–81.

Sewell, W. H. (1992). A theory of structure: Duality, agency, and transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 98(1), 1–29.

Sleeter, C. E. (2012). Confronting the marginalization of culturally responsive peda- gogy. Urban Education, 47(3), 562–584.

Thomas, G., & Myers, K. (2015). The anatomy of the case study. Sage. Tobin, K. (2006). Doing educational research (Vol. 1). Sense Publishers. Valdes, G. (1996). Con respeto: Bridging the distances between culturally diverse

families and schools. Teachers College Press.

Author Biographies

Beth A. Wassell, EdD is a Professor in the Department of Language, Literacy and Sociocultural Education at Rowan University in NJ, USA. Her research focuses on language teacher education, immigrant-origin students and families, and equity and justice in teaching, learning, and curriculum.

22 Education and Urban Society 00(0)

Natoya Coleman is a Ph.D. Candidate at Rowan University, with a research focus on the leadership practices of Black female educational leaders within urban and diverse settings. Currently, she completing her dissertation and is an Assistant Principal in Flint, Michigan, where she focuses on school culture and climate and student voice.

Susan Browne, Ed.D. is an Associate professor in the Department of Language, Literacy and Sociocultural Education at Rowan University. Dr. Browne’s research interests and publications are in the areas of critical pedagogies, urban education, multicultural literature and reader response.

Xiufang Chen, PhD is an Associate Professor of Language and Literacy Education in the College of Education at Rowan University, Glassboro, NJ, USA. Her research interests include literacy teacher education, social-cultural dimensions of literacy learning, online literacy instruction, and multicultural literature.

View publication statsView publication stats