Most of the research linking culturally responsive practices to increased student achievement is not definitive or rigorous—there are only a handful of studies that use scientific methods to determine causal links between practice and outcome. However, there are many correlational and case studies that demonstrate how culturally responsive practices affect achievement and other indicators of school success for ethnically, culturally, linguistically, and socio-economically diverse students. The lack of experimental research points to the difficulty of conducting random assignment trials in public schools rather than the validity of culturally responsive practices.

Some skeptics question the need to address cultural discontinuity as a factor in closing the achievement gaps, and argue that a focus on standards, accountability, and the effects of poverty is more relevant (e.g., Ludlow, 1992; Stotsky, 1999). The research we reviewed indicates that culturally responsive practices, which include having high expectations and standards for learning, are indeed related to student success, even if few studies have been undertaken to make this connection explicit.

For example, Demmert and Towner (2003) have examined the research base on Native education and found six critical elements of "culturally based education" (CBE) that suggest an impact on academic achievement of Native American students: Recognition and use of Native languages; pedagogy using traditional cultural characteristics; teaching strategies and curriculum congruent with traditional culture and traditional ways of knowing; strong Native community participation in education; and knowledge and use of political mores of the community.

Demmert states that poverty is certainly a major factor affecting student achievement, but that culturally based education is also a factor in schools that are currently successful with Native students. "One or two studies question our theories regarding the importance of language and culturally based education, but all others supported our assumptions" (Demmert, personal communication). Demmert and other researchers are currently looking at ways to conduct rigorous studies to prove such a link.

The Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence (CREDE) developed Five Standards of Effective Pedagogy based on decades of research across cultural and socioeconomic contexts, including the KEEP model, a program for at-risk Native Hawaiian students (Doherty, Hilberg, Pinal, & Tharp, 2003). The standards are:

1. Teachers and students working together
2. Developing language and literacy skills across the curriculum
3. Connecting lessons to students' lives
4. Engaging students in challenging lessons
5. Emphasizing dialogue over lectures

Studies have shown there is a positive and significant relationship between teachers' use of the standards and student performance.

These themes are repeated in almost all literature we reviewed for this booklet. The following is a very brief outline of the common characteristics of culturally responsive practices that educators are using for their students to be successful. (An annotated bibliography [pdf] is available as a separate document through the NWREL Web site at www.nwrel.org/request/2005june/annotatedbib.pdf [pdf].

A climate of caring, respect, and the valuing of students' cultures is fostered in the school and classroom (Cooper, 2002; Gay, 2000; Ginsberg & Wlodkowski, 2000; Ladson-Billings, 1994; Sheets, 1995; Tharp, 1982; Waxman & Tellez, 2002)

The research on resiliency shows that a nurturing environment provides a secure base for children to develop confidence, competence, feelings of autonomy, and safety. In schools where there is trust, caring, and support, students have higher attendance, higher performance, and lower rate of suspensions (Benard, 2004; Strand & Peacock, 2002).

In a recent study of high school dropouts in Oregon, respect was the main concern of students attending alternative schools (Brush & Jones, 2002). Banks and Banks (1995) point out that teachers need to be very aware of how students see their interactions with them, and the extent to which students see them as caring. Teachers can reflect on whether students find their classes meaningful, and whether there are gaps between what they are teaching and what students are learning.

Bridges are built between academic learning and students' prior understanding, knowledge, native language, and values (Conrad, Gong, Sipp, & Wright, 2004; Doherty, et al., 2003; Ginsberg & Wlodkowski, 2000; Ladson-Billings, 1994; Powers, Potthoff, Bearinger, & Resnick, 2003; Waxman & Tellez, 2002).

Culture and native language (and cultural dialects, such as Ebonics) are valued and used as assets in learning, and as a vehicle for learning, rather than deficits. Texts can be chosen so that children make connections with their life experiences. Activities can include families, so that family knowledge can relate to classroom activities.

Educators learn from and about their students' culture, language, and learning styles to make instruction more meaningful and relevant to their students' lives (Apthorp, D'Amato, & Richardson, 2003; Lee, 2003; Lipka, 2002).

Recent efforts to provide culturally congruent science instruction have shown that when cultural and linguistic background knowledge is used, students increase their science achievement test scores (Lee, 2003). Schools can work with community organizations to provide professional development opportunities for teachers and leaders to learn about their students' culture. Many states in our region are looking at ways to ensure that their teachers are culturally competent, and are working to develop curriculum and professional development opportunities, as well as providing education to preservice teachers.

Local knowledge, language, and culture are fully integrated into the curriculum, not added on to it (Demmert, 2001; Hollins, 1996).

Curricula should reinforce and value cultural knowledge of students rather than ignore or negate it. A culturally responsive curriculum should fully integrate cultural knowledge, not "adding it on" in unconnected units or "culture days." According to Demmert, "A series of studies conducted in the past 30 years collectively provides strong evidence that Native language and cultural programs—and student identification with such programs—are associated with improved academic performance, decreased dropout rates, improved school attendance rates, decreased clinical symptoms, and improved personal behavior" (p. 9).

Staff members hold students to high standards and have high expectations for all students (Cooper, 2002; Hill, Kawagley, & Barnhardt, 2003; Sheets, 1995; Waxman & Tellez, 2002).

High standards and high expectations are an integral part of being culturally responsive. It is well documented that Latino, Native American, and African American students are disproportionately represented in special education and remedial classes and underrepresented in advanced placement classes. Several studies we reviewed showed that when traditionally low-performing students were given the opportunity to be in higher level classes with small-group collaborative work and using higher order thinking skills, they excelled in those classes.

Effective classroom practices are challenging, cooperative, and hands-on, with less emphasis on rote memorization and lecture formats (Hill, Kawagley, & Barnhardt, 2003; Ladson-Billings, 1994; St. Charles & Costantino, 2000).

One of CREDE's Five Standards of Effective Pedagogy is to "Instruct through teacher-student dialogue, especially academic, goal-directed, small-group conversations (known as instructional conversations), rather than lecture." CREDE recommends that teachers engage students in small-group activities with cognitively complex tasks that foster language development and reading comprehension. Teachers can encourage a community of learners by having students share new knowledge with other classmates, and work on interdisciplinary projects that build on their strengths and allow them to explore their interests.

School staff build trust and partnerships with families, especially with families marginalized by schools in the past (Bryk & Schneider, 2002; Cooper, 2002; Demmert, 2001; Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Sosa, 1997; Trumbull, Rothstein-Fisch, Greenfield, & Quiroz, 2001; Young, 1998).

The most successful efforts are when schools reach out to families and to the community as a whole and fully involve them in making decisions that will affect their children's future in school. Actively inviting families to the school, visiting families in their communities, soliciting their input and taking their concerns seriously, and treating families with respect, will all go a long way toward developing trust.