This buzzword has good intentions, but what does it mean?

In an attempt to alleviate racial and ethnic disparities in education, the Madison School District has added "cultural responsiveness" to its hiring criteria.

According to Gayle Worland of the Wisconsin State Journal, "cultural responsiveness" refers to an applicant's ability to relate to students and co-workers of different racial, ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds. The school district hopes ensuring cultural responsiveness among its teachers will help close the achievement gap between white and minority students.

So what does "cultural responsiveness" actually mean? According to District Employment Manager June Glennon, a set of precise qualifications will be used to assess job candidates' cultural aptitudes. Professor Stephen Quintana of the UW-Madison counseling psychology department has agreed to draw up these criteria.

Even with Quintana's help, I'm skeptical. I hope this initiative can work as planned, but I think it will be difficult to create and implement uniform responsiveness criteria for several reasons:

1. One definition of responsiveness may not be shared by all. Some may consider mere knowledge of cultural practices to be responsive enough, while others may say you are only "responsive" to the degree that you are well-versed in a practice. If I know Ramadan is a month-long fast during daylight hours, for example, is that enough? Or should I have to know the history and nuances of the Muslim fast as well? (i.e. that women who are menstruating do not have to fast)

2. Madison is a (relatively) diverse city, complete with ethnic enclaves, and some areas may need more precise or detailed criteria than others. The large Hispanic population of Madison's south side may necessitate that teachers learn--or at least attempt to learn--Spanish in order to be culturally responsive. Other areas may not need this level of cultural proficiency (although it would not be to teachers' detriment to learn another language), and blanket responsiveness criteria may focus on certain areas or cultures at the expense of others.

3. Will this criteria apply only to teachers, or will administrative employees, social workers, guidance counselors, cafeteria workers and bus drivers be held to the same standards? I argue an all-employee-encompassing project is best, as all of these groups interact with students on a daily basis. However, this breadth greatly complicates things, as each group communicates the students in different contexts, necessitating skills perhaps not relevant to other positions in the school. For example, a cafeteria worker may need to know that Hindu students will not eat meat, but this information will not be very useful to a gym teacher. Quintana and the Madison School District would be wise to draft macro-level criteria for the entire district, as well as micro-level criteria considering various interaction contexts.

4. Who will be in charge of this project? Will individual schools oversee its implementation, or will the strapped-for-cash school district hire new staff to ensure cultural responsiveness among its teachers, social workers, administrators, cafeteria workers, bus drivers, etc? Considering all school employees makes overseeing the project much more difficult. Perhaps (I hope) the school district has plans in place for implementation and leadership.

5. I must caution against using "cultural responsiveness" to "solve" the achievement gap. The root causes--racism, poverty, discrimination--stretch beyond the school district. The Madison School District has taken an important step in bridging the white-nonwhite achievement gap, but we must not see this new initiative as the end to racial disparity in Madison's education system.

Photo Credit: Roger Williams University