Part 2 – Cultural Responsiveness in Schools
Written by Benjamin Clemons
This article is part 2 of a 2-part series. As WELS schools experience growing diversity in their enrollments through either active outreach or demographic shifts, they will need to examine the ways in which culture influences teaching and policy. In part 2 we will consider the impact of culture in schools.
Recognizing the Influence of Culture
A school’s operation consists of more than the policy written in the handbook, and classroom instruction involves much more than the lessons printed in the textbooks. We design school policy and instructional practice based on multiple factors. In WELS schools, we begin with the purpose of Christian education, often explicating foundational principles and explaining how the school serves the mission of the congregation and the work of the kingdom. We also consider pedagogically sound practices, the faculty’s composition and gifts, and the resources available.
We produce school handbooks and curriculum guides to spell out much of our rationale, but there are often unwritten rules based on common assumptions or beliefs. For example, traditionally, schools held parent/teacher conferences in the afternoon and evening based on the often reasonable and accurate assumption that most of their parents work one job during the day. In a school serving primarily middle-class two-parent families, this model probably causes little conflict. However, as more parents work multiple jobs or work in the afternoon and evening hours, and as our schools encounter more single-parent families, this assumption no longer holds.
Schools sometimes write policy from a one-sided or naïve point of view. I can recall writing the section of a handbook on hair when I was a principal. I had based the brief paragraph on the policy of other schools with the thought that it was pretty universal. However, since the model policies I was using had been crafted for schools where most or all of the students were of European American descent, it did not take into account differences in hair type, hairstyles, and the cultural significance of hair for other cultures. I had failed to explore the cultural assumptions of the hair policy, which was not especially helpful at a school where most of my students were African American. Could boys wear their hair in cornrows? Barrettes and headbands were acceptable, but what about beads or headwraps?
In the traditional American classroom, most student work has been completed individually with the clearly stated goal that the rewards of success and the consequences of failure belong solely to the individual student. This approach matches the cultural beliefs of highly individualized societies like the USA or the UK (Hofstede, 2011). But what happens when schools begin to serve families from cultures that balance the needs and wellbeing of the group with those of its members, or even those who prioritize the group over the individual? In that case, instruction built on the understanding of a highly individualistic culture is likely to conflict with the students’ collaborative or cooperative understanding and experiences.
When do we hold conferences? What are the rules about hair? Individual or collaborative work? Who is right? The default answer has often been the school because they set the policy and determine how classes are taught and how students will complete their assignments. However, if we look at the underlying assumptions and cultural understandings, it is less clear. Maybe parents are amazing stewards of their vocational gifts and working multiple jobs in their pursuit of the American dream. Should those parents miss out on the opportunity to discuss their child’s education because they are at a different point in climbing the economic ladder than the faculty in a school? As long as hair is clean and well kept, should the acceptable styles and accessories be limited to what is available and common to the majority? What about school work that focuses strictly on individual efforts to the exclusion of collaboration or service to the class?
Working with Biblical Principles
We would certainly look for Biblical principles for guidance, but in many cases involving school policy and classroom instruction, we have general principles rather than commandments of how to operate and administer a Lutheran elementary school. Therefore, if it is neither commanded nor forbidden, we have freedom to lovingly and thoughtfully change what we do to serve our students and their families. As we encounter growing diversity in our schools, there are some things we may decide we want to keep the same. This too is acceptable, but we would be wise to clearly state our rationale and examine for ourselves what cultural assumptions a policy or practice might contain.
In any area where the Bible does not specifically spell out what we are to do and not do, we should take great care to teach our expectations. We expect respect between teachers and students (Heb. 13:17; 1 Pet. 2:17), but do you and your students have the same definitions of what constitutes respectful behavior? For example, when an adult addresses a child, where should the child look? I was taught, in many instances, admonished, that I should look at someone when they were talking to me, and I, therefore, expected that of my students. However, in other cultures, including for some Native American tribes and some Asian American groups, looking an elder or person in authority in the eyes is considered a challenge and therefore disrespectful (Schaefer, 1995; Sorum, 1997). How should students address teachers? I still vividly recall an incident shortly after I transferred from one Lutheran school to another, where I was called out in class for addressing a teacher with the formal term Instructor. At my previous school, formal titles were expected, and students were rebuked for using Mr. or Mrs. instead of the “correct” Instructor or Professor. At the school I transferred to, the custom was just the opposite. Neither approach was wrong in a biblical sense, but as a newcomer, I was unaware of the expectations and struggled in my new setting.
How can we know which of our rules, policies, and procedures are based on the assumptions of our cultural understanding? First, it takes the willingness to look at ourselves, to ask why we do what we do. It also requires honesty about which are clearly matters of God-pleasing or sinful behavior and which are preferences based on what is normal or typical to our group. It is also helpful to learn about other cultures so that we have meaningful points of comparison.
Finally, as we work with cultural diversity among our students and their parents, we will seek to balance our knowledge of the individual and the group. This concept may be challenging for teachers who have worked almost entirely with students from a shared culture. In such a case, it is easier to focus on the individual because the teacher and student share cultural understandings. If you already know the culture because it is the same as your own, you can focus on the individual, and you see their interactions and choices within a framework of a common understanding. We certainly want to learn about our students and their families from other cultural backgrounds as individuals as well, and our understanding of them will be enriched by understanding their culture.
While no person is a perfect representation of a culture, cultural beliefs and understandings shape individuals. We understand the importance of getting to know people on a personal basis, but to really understand them, we also need to grasp the cultural context in which they make decisions. For example, the relationship between parent and child is framed by cultural understandings of the responsibilities of family members to each other. In European American culture, this typically involves the immediate family, and the responsibility of children to parents falls off sharply as they reach adulthood. This stands in contrast to other cultures, including groups whose numbers are growing in American schools (Latinx, African American, Asian American), who tend to hold a broader notion of family. They view extended relatives such as aunts, uncles, and grandparents as close family and view filial piety as an ongoing responsibility even for adults who have left the home (Doob, 2005; Schaefer, 1995).
As WELS schools encounter and even encourage growing diversity in the classroom, we should consider the cultures of students and families in determining our teaching practices and school policy. We realize that culture, a human invention, influences behaviors and interactions. We see that we have a culture that influences our behaviors and interactions, and that people from other cultures may have different but not wrong approaches to their interactions based on their cultures. In schools, we are wise to identify our cultural assumptions and clearly explain our expectations for students. We do so with the understanding that the Bible is the unchanging Word of God and that we will neither add to it nor subtract from it. Furthermore, any rule, procedure, or policy that is not biblically required or forbidden is changeable; therefore, we might want to adjust what we do to better serve our students and their families. As we carefully consider what we do in our schools and how we do it, we do so for the sake of teaching the gospel and to the glory of God.
Benjamin Clemons (’03) serves as academic dean and professor of urban ministry at Martin Luther College.
RESOURCES
Doob, C. B. (2005). Race, ethnicity, and the American urban mainstream. Allyn & Bacon.
Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online readings in psychology and culture, 2(1), 2307-0919.
Schaefer, R. T. (1995). Race and ethnicity in the United States. HarperCollins College Publishers.
Sorum, E. A. (1997). Change: Mission & Ministry Across Cultures. WELS Outreach Resources.