‘I am assumed to be someone who doesn’t have to deal with diversity’: countering the denial of diversity in rural teacher education

Closing the Achievement Gap in the Classroom Through Culturally Relevant Pedagogy

“…Based on research findings, it is evident that the academic achievement gap in minority students exists and is maintained and perpetuated by traditional school constructs (Anthony-Stevens et al, 2017;Banerjee, 2018;Gershenson et al, 2018;McFarland et al, 2018;NEA, 2018). CRP strategies are proposed to be a solution (Lopez, 2016).…”

“…CRP strategies are proposed to be a solution (Lopez, 2016). Although a great deal of research has been conducted on the need for multicultural professional development and educators' perceptions of it, few research studies have examined how the concept of CRP strategies are taught to pre-service teachers moving to full-time teaching positions; how in-service teachers apply CRP strategies within the classroom; and how the application of strategies affect student achievement and behavior (Anthony-Stevens et al, 2017;Banerjee, 2018;Gershenson et al, 2018;Holt & Gershenson, 2015;Lindsay & Hart, 2017).…”

“What Do You Need a Course Like That for?” Conceptualizing Diverse Ruralities in Rural Teacher Education

“…Grounded in sociocultural theories of language and identity, we take up James Paul Gee’s (2005) concept of discourse models, “largely unconscious theories we hold that help us makes sense of texts and the world” (p. 71), to explore how discourses about identity and diversity are taken up in the context of rural teacher education. We use discourse models as a theoretical framework to unravel conceptions of rurality common in our specific teacher education program when discussing diversity in schools—such as “[this state] is just so homogeneous, our students are just so White,” “you’re in Idaho you won’t have to deal with that,” and other commonly used tropes to deny the need for culturally responsive pedagogies (Anthony-Stevens, Gehlken, Jones, Day, & Gussenhoven, 2017).…”

“…The primary course text introduced culturally responsive teaching (Howe & Lisi, 2013); however, in 2015, the course exemplified what Villegas (2007) critiques as a “treatment” of diversity which positioned teaching as a technical activity of “transmitting” skills and knowledge from teacher to student, void of critical analysis of personal bias and underlying assumptions about behavior, content, or the broader social and cultural context of education. This history of the course was explained to Vanessa by a colleague in a 2016 interview, “the multicultural label got stuck on [TCDL].” It was stated that previous department leadership oversaw TCDL’s approval as a core course but felt the title was “just to get the [certification requirements] checked off, [they said] we don’t deal with [diversity]” (Anthony-Stevens et al, 2017, p. 9).…”

“…Concluding her first semester teaching TCDL (spring 2015), Vanessa began self-study and ethnographic research on the process of course shifts, from both instructor and student perspectives. Initial focus-group interviews revealed many students hungry for deeper engagement in complex realities, which led to the formation for a small self-study group to examine diversity preparedness among mostly White and rural preservice teachers (Anthony-Stevens et al, 2017). Other sources of data, such as university evaluations, revealed tensions in the new course content, as seen in this comment submitted on an anonymous course evaluation:I get that we have to learn how to be multicultural teachers, but [.…”