785012

research-article2018
EUSXXX10.1177/0013124518785012Education and Urban SocietyKieran and Anderson

Article
Education and Urban Society
2019, Vol. 51(9) 1202–1216
Connecting Universal © The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
Design for Learning sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0013124518785012
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124518785012
With Culturally journals.sagepub.com/home/eus

Responsive Teaching

Laura Kieran1 and Christine Anderson2

Abstract
Urban students are increasingly diverse in race, culture, language, and
background knowledge. Educators must consider how students’ differences
affect learning and align pedagogies that address this diversity. Universal
design for learning (UDL) has provided educators with a framework for
differentiation to address learner differences. Using UDL principles without
explicitly considering how cultural differences and perspectives affect learning
may increase the disparity in student achievement for students of color.
Likewise, the same applies to the effect of socioeconomic status or language
development on students’ preparation for learning in a “typical” school
environment. Culturally responsive pedagogies prompt educators to design
instruction from the perspective of students’ diversity as strengths rather than
deficits. Frequently overlooked aspects of culturally responsive pedagogy are
compared with the facets of the UDL framework to provide teachers with
additional considerations when planning for effective instruction.

Keywords
culturally responsive teaching, differentiated instruction, diverse learners,
opportunity gap, universal design for learning, urban education

1Drake University, Des Moines, IA, USA

2Western Illinois University, Moline, USA

Corresponding Author:
Laura Kieran, Drake University, 105 Collier-Scripps Hall, 2507 University Avenue, Des
Moines, IA 50311, USA.
Email: laura.kieran@drake.edu
Kieran and Anderson 1203

Increasingly in urban environments educators teach students who are diverse

in culture, language, socioeconomic status, and ability. According to the
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES; 2016) from 2003 to 2013
enrollment in U. S. public schools shifted from 59% students who identified
as White to 50%; the number of Hispanic or Latino students increased from
19% to 25% in the same period. The remaining 25% of students are African
American, Native American, and Asian or Pacific Islander. In addition, the
NCES (2016) reported a national increase in the number of children below 18
years living in poverty, from 15% in the year 2000 to 20% in 2014. Historically
learners who are diverse in language, race, or culture, or ability, and students
who are growing up in poverty represent the groups of students at-risk of
underperforming compared with their peers (Edyburn, 2010). Furthermore,
factors such as race, social class, and language deeply influence students’
thinking, values, beliefs, and behaviors (Banks, 1996).
Teaching diverse learners is a complex task with high demands for students’
proficiency (Ladson-Billings, 2011). Tomlinson (2001) indicated that teachers
must differentiate instruction to meet the needs of diverse learners. When plan-
ning for instruction, educators must be aware of their students’ readiness to
learn, their interests, and their learning profile, which includes learner prefer-
ences, strengths, and challenges. Every individual’s background and experi-
ences (in and out of the classroom) shape the learner. Educators even need to be
aware of the extent that previous learning experiences have been meaningful
and connected to their lives. This knowledge becomes especially important for
students who have been historically oppressed and marginalized. Villegas and
Lucas (2002) found when school experience emphasized rote memorization
and teacher-centered learning, then students’ belief in educations’ potential
value was limited, which further reduced motivation to learn.
For instructional planning to truly make a difference for all learners, edu-
cators must consider how students’ differences affect learning, and align
pedagogies that effectively address those differences. Without an awareness
of how experience and culture can affect learning, there is a danger of dispro-
portionate representation in special education, and the possibility of “confus-
ing disability with diversity” (Gay, 2002, p. 614). The same is true for the
affect of socioeconomic status or language development on students’ readi-
ness for learning in a “typical” school environment. Because teachers’ atti-
tudes toward, actions with, and expectations of diverse learners in no small
way determine the outcomes for students, educators must be aware of their
biases and how such stereotypes can be a threat to students’ learning (DeCuir-
Gunby, DeVance, Taliaferro, & Greenfield, 2010). Educators should select
pedagogies meant to differentiate, provide varied levels of challenge, and
give students opportunities for self-determination in the classroom.
1204 Education and Urban Society 51(9)

Dosch and Zidon (2014) described the practice of differentiation as an

ongoing cycle of teaching and assessment in which assessment informs the
next steps of instruction. Through an analysis of the literature their study noted
that students across all racial groups, socioeconomic status, and levels of
English language acquisition benefited from intentionally designed differenti-
ated instruction. In reviewing the research on neuroscience, Margolis, Meese,
and Doring (2016) examined the role of flexible, differentiated instruction as
a means to develop inquiry and problem-solving skills with diverse, urban
learners. Margolis, et al. indicated that it was imperative that an instructional
shift occurred in urban settings where traditionally teachers have provided an
excessive amount of structure to drill lower level thinking skills.

Frameworks to Support Diverse Learners

Two pedagogical frameworks designed to address student differences are
universal design for learning (UDL) and culturally responsive teaching
(CRT). Both UDL and CRT consider ways in which traditional instructional
approaches result in barriers to learning for “non-traditional” students. These
obstacles are embedded within the class climate, the modes of instruction and
assessment; instructional materials, or the types of learning tasks and expected
outcomes for the learners. For example, when teachers have lower expecta-
tions for students, the instructional emphasis may be teacher-centered and
teacher-directed with few requirements for students to engage in higher level
thinking or problem solving. Results of lower expectations of students
included disengaged students, poor school performance, and increased drop-
out rates (DeCuir-Gunby et al., 2010; Steele, 2010). Doran (2015) found
UDL-reinforced students who were developing language skills through pro-
viding balanced levels of support and challenge as well as promoting high
expectations.
Both UDL and CRT encourage teachers to proactively consider educa-
tional approaches that should result in increased student engagement and
learning. In both models, teachers view students’ differences as strengths
rather than shortcomings (Edyburn, 2010; Moore & Neal, 2007). The authors
will discuss UDL and CRT and strategies for combining these frameworks to
further guide educators in making decisions based on the specific attributes
of diverse learners in their classrooms.

UDL
UDL embodies a flexible, research-based planning framework that guides
teachers’ instructional decision making. The National Center on UDL (2013)
Kieran and Anderson 1205

described UDL as “a blueprint for creating instructional goals, methods,

materials, and assessments that work for everyone—not a single, one-size-
fits-all solution but rather flexible approaches that can be customized and
adjusted for individual needs” (para. 1).
UDL has three principles that guide teachers’ implementation (Rose &
Meyer, 2002):

1. Provide multiple means of representation

2. Provide multiple means of action and expression
3. Provide multiple means of engagement

Barriers to learning should be viewed from within the curriculum, instruc-

tion, and assessment methods rather than as deficits within the students. As
teachers plan, they need to be aware of their students’ present levels in com-
parison with the lesson outcomes, skills, and standards. Instruction, materi-
als, and assessments should be designed to increase students’ proficiency on
the standards and related learning goals. “In the process of identifying clear
goals, teachers can consider potential barriers students may have when reach-
ing the goal” (Rao & Meo, 2016, p. 5). To clearly identify barriers and obsta-
cles to students’ learning, educators must be aware of students’ skills and
background knowledge as related to the standards.
The very structure of the UDL blueprint encourages teachers to think flex-
ibly about the learner characteristics and the barriers students may have in
accessing the instruction and materials; assessment, and engagement. Each of
the facets of UDL is further broken down into guidelines with multiple check-
points to direct teachers’ considerations for implementation (National Center
on UDL, 2013). Within each of these areas, teachers develop an awareness of
potential barriers to their class content and the learning environment to
thoughtfully integrate UDL principles (National Center on UDL, 2013; Rose
& Meyer, 2002).

Multiple means of representation. Multiple means of representation includes the

variety of ways that teachers present information to students. Guidelines within
this facet of UDL include differentiating ways in which students can perceive
information, providing options for written and spoken language, including
mathematical symbols/notations; and options for comprehension. Within mul-
tiple means of representation, teachers will need to consider how students best
perceive information, how to present information in multiple ways, and if mul-
timedia could make abstract concepts more concrete. Vocabulary, critical fea-
tures, and big ideas should be emphasized or highlighted for students, with
clear connections made to students’ background knowledge and perspectives.
1206 Education and Urban Society 51(9)

Multiple means of action and expression. Multiple means of action and expres-
sion includes the multiple ways that teachers can formatively or summatively
evaluate students, as well as engage students in self-evaluation. The guide-
lines that further delineate the area of action and expression include provid-
ing options for physical action, expression, and communication; and executive
functions. Within this UDL area, there are many considerations for students’
use of technology, assistive technology, and communication devices on class-
room tasks. In addition to students’ technology use, however, teachers also
need to consider multiple ways to assess students, beyond paper and pencil
tasks. Teachers must also provide students with opportunities to build fluency
with new skills. Within this, students will be most successful if assessment
for learning occurs; when students receive frequent, specific, corrective feed-
back as they learn, and have opportunities to self-evaluate their learning then
learning increases (Hall, Vue, Strangman, & Meyer, 2004; Stiggins, 2004).
With the emphasis on building executive functioning skills, teachers must
develop a student-centered learning environment; learning activities should
be designed to increase students’ engagement with and self-management of
the learning processes (National Center on UDL, 2013; Villegas & Lucas,
2002). When implemented well, students are actively involved in making
meaning of new information, using learning strategies, evaluating their
understanding of class content; and monitoring their progress.

Multiple means of engagement. Multiple means of engagement encourages

educators to consider ways to increase students’ interest, motivation, and per-
severance with learning as well as promote high expectations for every
learner. Reasons for students’ disengagement from and dropping out of
school are related to a lack of academic success. Achievement gaps lead to
students’ dissonance and discouragement with school. Without appropriate
levels of challenge and support, the achievement gap widens through elemen-
tary and middle school; behavioral issues that stem from school frustration
will perpetuate the problem of school as a negative space and experience
(Gooden, 2013). The guidelines for multiple means of engagement prompt
teachers to consider ways to create student-centered learning, including the
use of student choice on authentic and relevant learning tasks (Rao & Meo,
2016). Persistence is developed through goal-setting, varied levels of demand,
collaboration with peers, and the development of coping skills/strategies. By
varying instructional groupings and encouraging students to engage in oral
discourse with their peers, students increased engagement, new language,
vocabulary, and the zone of proximal development (Doran, 2015; Vygotsky,
1978). A safe space with limited threats and distractions maximized peer-to-
peer learning (National Center on UDL, 2013). To support students with
Kieran and Anderson 1207

self-management and self-regulation, teachers should provide feedback to

students in a manner that encourages mastery, so that learning is ongoing.

Teaching Every Learner

Flexible instructional materials, delivery, and assessment were beneficial in
classrooms with academically diverse learners (Browder, Mims, Spooner,
Ahlgrim-Delzell, & Lee, 2009; Dymond et al., 2006; Lieber, Horn, Palmer, &
Fleming, 2008; Marino, 2009; Pearson, 2015). UDL as a framework to
increase students’ engagement and learning outcomes has focused on stu-
dents with special education needs, but UDL was designed as a means to
facilitate instruction for every learner. Rao and Meo (2016) noted that UDL’s
flexibility allowed educators to select elements of UDL to meet students’
needs within their content and context for learning. Edyburn (2010) cau-
tioned that educators must be knowledgeable in the varied ways that their
students are diverse to design and plan instruction that truly addresses the
requirements of every learner. Steele (2010) further warned that even with
differentiation, a mismatch between instruction, materials, and assessment
could occur when teachers were aware of how linguistic and/or cultural
diversity affected students in the classroom.

CRT
There are varied definitions of CRT practices. Aronson (2016) noted that
culturally relevant education included high expectations for every learner,
cultural competence, sociopolitical awareness, and the classroom as a com-
munity. Piazza, Rao, and Protacio (2015) found that dialogue and opportuni-
ties for collaboration between learners, visual representations, and
inquiry-based learning provided the foundation for culturally responsive
literacy practices. Villegas and Lucas (2002) indicated that multiple levels
of awareness were necessary for teachers to be culturally responsive. This
includes knowledge of personal biases, students’ backgrounds/strengths,
how the learning environment should build from students’ strengths; and
how to bring about change in school systems. Hammond (2015) developed
a view of culturally relevant education that synthesized all of these concepts
with themes from brain-based research in learning. According to Hammond,
CRT) has four overarching themes that guide teachers to take a strength-
based approach to diversity in the classroom. Each of these topics is com-
prised of multiple facets for teachers’ consideration when planning to teach
diverse learners:
1208 Education and Urban Society 51(9)

1. Awareness
2. Learning partnerships
3. Information processing
4. Community of learners and learning environment

Awareness. Hammond (2015) indicated awareness includes an understanding

of culture in society including the levels of culture, cultural archetypes, and
the sociopolitical contexts of race and culture. Educators must be aware of
principles in developmental milestones in learning. Awareness also includes
the teacher’s knowledge of their personal cultural experiences, perspectives,
and biases (Richards, Brown, & Forde, 2004; Villegas & Lucas, 2002). Lad-
son-Billings (1995) described these components of awareness as cultural
competence and critical consciousness. The goal of this awareness is to rec-
ognize systemic oppression and understand one’s role in changing these pat-
terns to promote social justice and systems change. If teachers do not possess
this level of mindfulness, it would be difficult to facilitate the development of
students’ critical literacy skills (Freire, 2000). Mindfulness, therefore, also
refers to developing students’ awareness of systemic bias, and how to move
away from the status quo.
When institutions at any level become disengaged from the populations
they serve, the possibility increases to become self-serving. Educators should
be involved in their students’ communities to achieve awareness of their stu-
dents’ realities and better understand how the school’s structures, policies,
and practices will positively or negatively affect their students and the com-
munity (Ginsberg, 2005; Yosso, 2005).

Learning partnerships. Learning partnerships in culturally relevant education

reshape teacher and student relationships; changes in this dynamic are
designed to increase students’ ownership of learning and sense of efficacy in
the learning process. In establishing a culturally responsive learning environ-
ment, teachers reduce the threats related to cultural stereotypes and lower
expectations of diverse learners (Gay, 2002; Steele, 2010). A balance exists
between students’ responsibility for learning and the levels of teacher’s sup-
port and challenge in the classroom. Thus, learning environments become
student-centered; teachers provide feedback to students that encourage
growth and mastery of new skills (Hammond, 2015). Learning partnerships
should be multifaceted to include other students, parents, and the community
to increase ownership of success in and out of school.

Community of learners and the class environment. Building from the learning
partnerships facet is the fourth area of culturally relevant education: building
Kieran and Anderson 1209

a community of learners. This area connects to the safety of the classroom

environment, and the procedures that manage and restore justice when con-
flicts occur. The classroom should be a safe space for learning, respectful
collaboration, questions, mistakes, and conflicts (Ginsberg, 2005). Steele
(2010) described the phenomenon and impacts of stereotype threat in Whis-
tling Vivaldi, which outlined the results of a series of studies on groups of
students who have traditionally been marginalized and stereotyped based on
one or more of their identities. Participants included women in math, African
Americans or Latinos in K12 and higher education settings, and even White
men in sports typically dominated by African Americans. Typically high-
achieving and motivated test subjects were used to explore the impact of the
pressure to perform for these groups with and without stereotyping or identity
threats “looming” in the background. Steele (2010) found when a threat of a
biased activity or evaluation was present the results of the assessment were
universal: The group receiving the stereotype threat underperformed and
consistently an achievement gap was present.

Information processing. The area of information processing strongly correlates

to UDL principles; teachers are prompted to select materials and modes of
instruction that are accessible to their audience. This includes considerations
related to the material’s level of challenge, and cultural relevance; modes of
instruction, student engagement, authentic connections between school and
community environments; and mastery-oriented feedback. Teachers should
also provide students with direct instruction in cognitive strategies so that
they can self-monitor their progress and understanding. In addition, self-
monitoring links to learning partnerships through adding another layer of stu-
dent responsibility and competence in learning. Ginsberg (2005) noted that
when learning was relevant to students’ lives and perspectives and provided
for challenging applications of learning, students were more likely to be
motivated and engaged in learning.
Furthermore, how students process information relates to how they learn
from and manage mistakes. Hammond (2015) emphasized mistakes as oppor-
tunities for the greatest amount of learning. Once a student has developed a
negative self-image as a learner, a replacement narrative must be taught to dis-
rupt the negative self-talk. Rather than viewing a failure as a result of race or
culture, instead develop the understanding that new concepts and skills often
require multiple and varied opportunities for practice. When teachers value the
process of learning and not just final grades, students’ motivation for learning
and risk-taking in learning increased (Hammond, 2015; Ricci, 2013). Teachers
who praise effort, metacognition, task completion, and students’ questions will
deepen students’ learning and foster the belief in the brain’s plasticity.
1210 Education and Urban Society 51(9)

Van Garderen and Whittaker (2006) also reviewed the use of UDL princi-
ples in combination with equity pedagogy when planning for their culturally
and linguistically diverse high school social studies class. Multicultural instruc-
tion was found to reduce the achievement gap. Van Garderen and Whittaker
emphasized the importance of knowledge construction, methods used to reduce
prejudices, and the systemic practices that perpetuate inequality. Although
Margolis et al. (2016) stated found that students’ cultures and experiences
needed to occur in all aspects of the school environment, the emphasis of this
article is on UDL and CRT practices in the classroom. “Optimal motivation in
the brain occurs under appropriate levels of stress, where the learner experi-
ences ‘anticipation,’ but avoids dis-stress (too much anxiety)” (Margolis et al.,
2016). When teachers consider their students’ cultures and contexts, they can
implement appropriate levels of challenge and support.

Overlap Between UDL and CRT

UDL and CRT overlap in many key areas. For example, following guidelines
in the multiple means of engagement, teachers reduce threats and distractions
from the learning environment. Regardless of race, culture, or language, indi-
viduals’ brains are “hardwired” to “avoid threats to safety at all costs”
(Hammond, 2015, p. 37). Hammond noted that this was important because
the limbic region of the brain house both the amygdala and the hippocampus.
The amygdala is responsible for the flight, fight, or freeze response to threats
and perceived threats. When the amygdala is activated, it expands, providing
less room in the brain for the hippocampus, which results in diminished space
for working memory (Hammond, 2015).
Threats and stressors in the classroom can include lower expectations by
the teacher, devaluing of cultural capital for groups outside the dominant cul-
ture and systemic inequality (Parsons, 2005). Students of color often do not
consider schools safe places; 82% of teachers are White, only 2% of teachers
are African American males (U.S. Department of Education, 2016). DeCuir-
Gunby et al. (2010) stated, “Developing this sense of belonging becomes
difficult for African Americans since the school context has a history of racial
discrimination that has contributed to the achievement gap” (p. 184).
However, when schools and teachers foster an environment in which students
feel safe, valued, and celebrated are more likely to be successful (Fiedler
et al., 2008; Gay, 2002; Hammond, 2015; Steele, 2010). Table 1 highlights
research-based instruction grounded in culturally responsive pedagogies and
explicitly connects these supports to the UDL framework. These guiding
principles focus teachers on potential barriers within instruction, assessment,
and materials rather than the view of student-centered deficits.
Kieran and Anderson 1211

Table 1. Connecting UDL and CRT.

UDL principles Explicit connections to CRT

Multiple means of •• Visual, auditory, and multimedia representations to reduce
representation barriers to print
provide options •• Collective and collaborative learning to discuss new content,
for opportunities to hear and use vocabulary, learn from peers
•• Perception •• Explicit instruction and concrete/visual representations of
•• Language and new vocabulary (Doran, 2015; Piazza, Rao, & Protacio, 2015)
symbols •• Supporting digital and visual literacies as foundational to
•• Comprehension students’ learning and motivation to learn (Richardson,
Morgan, & Fleener, 2012)
•• Reshaping the curriculum to include resources with multiple
perspectives throughout the year (not during a special
week or month), including race/race history as part of the
curriculum (Fiedler et al., 2008; Howard & Navarro, 2016)
•• Draw on primary resources from multiple perspectives
•• Cross-cultural conversations that challenge the dominant
perspective (Howard & Navarro, 2016)
•• Diversity (in the classroom and the community) is viewed
as a strength, a resource to extend understandings of
historical and social perspectives
•• Teachers’ attitudes and instructional approaches
demonstrate that intelligence is expandable, rather than set
(Hammond, 2015; Ricci, 2013)
Multiple means •• Honoring different methods of students’ sharing knowledge,
of action and such as storytelling, family histories and biographies, chronicles,
expression and other narratives; valuing experiential knowledge and
provide options traditions (Howard & Navarro, 2016; Yosso, 2005)
for •• Acknowledging both standard English and local discourse
•• Physical action styles, supporting students with code switching for different
•• Expressive skills kinds of communication demands. Selecting the language for
and fluency the task is like selecting an outfit for an event based on the
•• Executive event’s formality (Crystal, 2004).
functions •• Provide opportunities for collaboration and reciprocal
teaching, to increase students’ oral language usage, fluency,
and comprehension (Doran, 2015; Piazza et al., 2015)
•• A community of learners (especially for students to build
their narrative)
•• Corrective feedback from the teacher is clearly and explicitly
framed by and connected to high standards (Hammond, 2015)
•• Use metacognitive strategies to change students’ negative
thought processes when they encounter learning challenges
•• Students use metacognitive strategies to monitor and
increase their understandings

(continued)
1212 Education and Urban Society 51(9)

Table 1. (continued)

UDL principles Explicit connections to CRT

Multiple means •• Designs assignments that allow students to construct
of engagement knowledge and make meaning of their world
provide options •• Use examples and analogies from students’ lives (Villegas &
for Lucas, 2002)
•• Recruiting •• Allow for student choice on assignments/topics to increase
interest personal relevance (Ginsberg, 2005)
•• Sustaining effort •• Promote the use of cultural capital from within the
and persistence community for mentoring and learning (Yosso, 2005)
•• Self-regulation •• Promote active citizenship (locally and/or globally) for
authentic problem-solving and promote social justice
(DeCuir-Gunby, DeVance, Taliaferro, & Greenfield, 2010)
•• Engaged in sustained thought with critical material
•• Students create affirmations/express their values associated
with learning to reduce the self-image threat (Steele, 2010)
•• Reducing threats and distractions: supportive relationships,
communicate high expectations in the students’ ability in
connection to high/rigorous standards (Steele, 2010; Tatum,
1997)
•• Promote an environment of mutual respect (among
students and between students and teachers; Ginsberg,
2005; Richards, Brown, & Forde, 2004)
•• Promote growth mind-set with students: change negative
self-talk regarding “mistakes” as opportunities for and a
part of learning, place an emphasis on effort (not ability),
and the malleability of intelligence (Tatum, 1997)
•• Positive and proactive behavior supports are in place,
behavioral expectations are clear (Fiedler et al., 2008)

Note. UDL = universal design for learning; CRT = culturally responsive teaching.

Expanding the UDL Framework to Specifically

Consider Culturally Relevant Pedagogy
The suggested culturally responsive elements demonstrate how instructional
planning is further enhanced when acknowledging how race, cultural, and
linguistic differences that could affect students’ learning. This understanding
is an essential prerequisite for teachers in urban settings. Table 1 does not
contain an exhaustive list of culturally responsive considerations, but con-
nects the features of CRT that might be overlooked when planning.
Educators have erroneously described both UDL and CRT as simply good
teaching (Edyburn, 2010; Ladson-Billings, 1995). However, both UDL and
CRT require teachers to be aware of their students as individuals and plan
Kieran and Anderson 1213

supports that address their learners’ unique learning needs. This mindfulness
includes the knowledge of students’ strengths and abilities; backgrounds,
skills, cultures, and preferences. Both frameworks guide teachers to look at
the benefits of their students’ diversity, rather than viewing students through
a deficit lens (Villegas & Lucas, 2002; Yosso, 2005).
In addition, teachers must be aware of their personal biases to ensure high
expectations of every learner and encourage their diverse students’ cultural
capital from a strength-based perspective. Without the knowledge of how their
experiences and culture affect their views and attitudes, teachers may try to be
“colorblind” in the classroom, or even think that cultural responsiveness is
merely an additional or unnecessary demand placed on educators (Gay, 2002;
Pollock, Bocala, Deckman, & Dickstein-Staub, 2016). Pollock et al. (2016)
noted that preservice teachers who felt most overwhelmed with CRT viewed
the principles as something extra they needed to remember to do in addition to
everything else they were supposed to teach, rather than seamlessly integrat-
ing CRT into the lessons for successful teaching. When planned proactively,
UDL with CRT, combine as part of the blueprint for increasing students’ suc-
cess in meeting teachers’ high expectations for the intended learning out-
comes. Such enhancements to the traditional UDL framework assist teachers
in the urban settings with more explicit proactive planning for every student.

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.

References
Aronson, B. A. (2016). From teacher education to practicing teacher: What does cultur-
ally relevant praxis look like? Urban Education. doi:10.1177/0042085916672288
Banks, J. (1996). The historical reconstruction of knowledge about race: Implications
for transformative teaching. In J. A. Banks (Ed.), Multicultural education, trans-
formative knowledge, and action: Historical and contemporary perspectives (pp.
64-87). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Browder, D. M., Mims, P. J., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., & Lee, A. (2009).
Teaching elementary students with multiple disabilities to participate in shared
stories. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 33, 3-12.
Crystal, D. (2004). The stories of English. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
1214 Education and Urban Society 51(9)

DeCuir-Gunby, J. T., DeVance Taliaferro, J., & Greenfield, D. (2010). Educators’

perspectives on culturally relevant programs for academic success: The American
excellence association. Education and Urban Society, 42, 184-204.
Doran, P. R. (2015). Language accessibility in the classroom: How UDL can pro-
mote success for linguistically diverse learners. Exceptionality Education
International, 25(3), 1-12.
Dosch, M., & Zidon, M. (2014). “The course fit us”: Differentiated instruction in the
college classroom. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher,
26, 343-357.
Dymond, S. K., Renzaglia, A., Rosenstein, A., Chun, E. J., Banks, R. A., Niswander,
V., & Gibson, C. L. (2006). Using a participatory action research approach to
create a universally designed inclusive high school science course: A case study.
Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 31, 293-308.
Edyburn, D. (2010). Would you recognize universal design for learning if you saw
it? Ten propositions for new directions for the second decade of UDL. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 33, 33-41.
Fiedler, C. R., Chiang, B., Van Haren, B., Jorgensen, J., Halberg, S., & Boreson,
L. (2008). Culturally responsive practices in schools: A checklist to address
disproportionality in special education. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(5),
52-59.
Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum International.
Gay, G. (2002). Culturally responsive teaching in special education for ethnically
diverse students: Setting the stage. International Journal of Qualitative Studies
in Education, 15, 613-629. doi:10.1080/0951839022000014349
Ginsberg, M. B. (2005). Cultural diversity, motivation, and differentiation. Theory
into Practice, 44, 218-225.
Gooden, B. (2013). Dropout causes are many, solutions few. School Administrator,
70(6), 43.
Hall, T., Vue, G., Strangman, N., & Meyer, A. (2004). Differentiated instruction
and implications for UDL implementation. Wakefield, MA: National Center on
Accessing the General Curriculum. Retrieved from http://aem.cast.org/about/
publications/2003/ncac-differentiated-instruction-udl.html
Hammond, Z. (2015). Culturally responsive teaching and the brain: Promoting
authentic engagement and rigor among culturally and linguistically diverse stu-
dents. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Howard, T. C., & Navarro, O. (2016). Critical race theory 20 years later: Where do we
go from here? Urban Education, 51, 253-273.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally
relevant pedagogy. Theory into Practice, 34, 159-165.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2011). Is meeting the diverse needs of all students possible?
Kappa Delta Pi Record, 47, 13-15. doi:10.1080/00228958.2011.10516716
Lieber, J., Horn, E., Palmer, S., & Fleming, K. (2008). Access to the general edu-
cation curriculum for preschoolers with disabilities: Children’s school success.
Exceptionality, 16, 18-32.
Kieran and Anderson 1215

Margolis, J., Meese, A. A., & Doring, A. (2016). Do teachers need structure or free-
dom to effectively teach urban students? A review of the educational debate.
Education and Urban Society, 48, 783-806.
Marino, M. T. (2009). Understanding how adolescents with reading difficulties utilize
technology-based tools. Exceptionality, 17, 88-102.
Moore, A. L., & Neal, L. I. (2007). Differentiating instruction through culturally
responsive teaching: Alphabet soup and the voices of special educators. Black
History Bulletin, 70(1), 2-3.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). The condition of education. Retrieved
from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/
National Center on Universal Design for Learning. (2013). What is UDL? Retrieved
from http://www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/whatisudl
Parsons, E. C. (2005). From caring as a relation to culturally relevant caring: A White
teacher’s bridge to Black students. Equity & Excellence in Education, 38, 25-34.
Pearson, M. (2015). Modeling universal design for learning techniques to support
multicultural education for pre-service secondary educators. Multicultural
Education, 22(3-4), 27-34.
Piazza, S. V., Rao, S., & Protacio, M. S. (2015). Converging recommendations for cul-
turally responsive literacy practices: Students with learning disabilities, English
language learners, and socioculturally diverse learners. International Journal of
Multicultural Education, 17(3), 1-20.
Pollock, M., Bocala, C., Deckman, S. L., & Dickstein-Staub, S. (2016). Caricature
and hyperbole in preservice teacher professional development for diversity.
Urban Education, 51, 629-658.
Rao, K., & Meo, G. (2016). Using universal design for learning to design standards-
based lessons. SAGE Open, 6(4). doi:10.1177/2158244016680688
Ricci, M. C. (2013). Mindsets in the classroom: Building a culture of success and
student achievement in schools. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Richards, H. V., Brown, A. F., & Forde, T. B. (2004). Addressing diversity in
schools: Culturally responsive pedagogy. Retrieved from http://www.niusilead-
scape.org/docs/FINAL_PRODUCTS/NCCRESt/practitioner_briefs/%95%20
TEMPLATE/DRAFTS/AUTHOR%20revisions/annablis%20pracbrief%20tem-
plates/Diversity_Brief_highres.pdf
Richardson, J. S., Morgan, R. F., & Fleener, C. E. (2012). Reading to learn in the
content areas (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal
design for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Steele, C. (2010). Whistling Vivaldi: How stereotypes affect us and what we can do.
New York, NY: W.W. Norton.
Stiggins, R. (2004). An introduction to student-involved assessment for learning.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Education/Prentice Hall.
Tatum, B. (1997). Can we talk about race? And other conversations in an era of
school resegregation. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
1216 Education and Urban Society 51(9)

Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed ability class-

rooms (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
U.S. Department of Education. (2016, May). The state of racial diversity in the edu-
cator workforce. Retrieved from https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/report-
state-racial-diversity-educator-workforce
Van Garderen, D., & Whittaker, C. (2006). Planning differentiated multicultural
instruction for secondary inclusive classrooms. TEACHING Exceptional
Children, 38(3), 12-20.
Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Preparing culturally responsive teachers:
Reshaping the curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 20-32.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. In M. Gauvain
& M. Cole (Eds.), Readings on the development of children (pp. 34-40). New
York, NY: Scientific American Books.
Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of
community cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8, 69-91.

Author Biographies
Laura Kieran is an assistant professor of special education at Drake University in
Des Moines, Iowa. Her research interests focus on increasing social justice for diverse
learners with emphasis on critical pedagogies for students with opportunity gaps in
the classroom.
Christine Anderson is an associate professor of special education at Western Illinois
University. Her research interests include educator and professional development,
juvenile justice, and trauma-informed pedagogies to support learners and educators.
She provides training to educators in the Midwest to implement positive behavioral
supports in schools systems.