Frameworks for social justice education in Montessori classrooms: educator perceptions and implementation

As American schools continue to diversify, issues of equity in schools remain unresolved and disparities between different racial and cultural groups have become more pronounced (Paris, 2012). Key components of the Montessori Method seem to align with aspects of a Social Justice Education (SJE) framework. These features include an emphasis on autonomy, high expectations, individualized learning, and a focus on interconnectedness, and show numerous benefits for students from all backgrounds (Montessori, 1912; Lillard et al., 2021; Culclasure et al., Lillard et al., 2017). However, Montessori classrooms still exhibit patterns of bias towards students from diverse backgrounds, indicating room for improvement (Brown & Steele, 2015). This research targets the extent to which Montessori educators agree with key features of SJE, and to what extent they feel they implement SJE in their classrooms. This research also aims to identify factors which affect the implementation of SJE in Montessori classrooms. Data were collected using a mixed-methods survey with participants at two local Montessori schools. Likert-scale items, open-ended responses, and yes-no questions were used to collect responses to these questions. Findings indicate that Montessori educators agree with key features of SJE and implement them in their classrooms. In addition, though some factors affect the ability of educators to integrate key features of SJE in their classroom, they report they can and should implement SJE within the classroom. Finally, educators report that the Montessori framework aligns well with the practices and goals of frameworks for SJE, both theoretically and in practice.

Abstract As American schools continue to diversify, issues of equity in schools remain unresolved and disparities between different racial and cultural groups have become more pronounced (Paris, 2012). Key components of the Montessori Method seem to align with aspects of a Social Justice Education (SJE) framework. These features include an emphasis on autonomy, high expectations, individualized learning, and a focus on interconnectedness, and show numerous benefits for students from all backgrounds (Montessori, 1912; Lillard et al., 2021; Culclasure et al., Lillard et al., 2017). However, Montessori classrooms still exhibit patterns of bias towards students from diverse backgrounds, indicating room for improvement (Brown & Steele, 2015). This research targets the extent to which Montessori educators agree with key features of SJE, and to what extent they feel they implement SJE in their classrooms. This research also aims to identify factors which affect the implementation of SJE in Montessori classrooms. Data were collected using a mixed-methods survey with participants at two local Montessori schools. Likert-scale items, open-ended responses, and yes-no questions were used to collect responses to these questions. Findings indicate that Montessori educators agree with key features of SJE and implement them in their classrooms. In addition, though some factors affect the ability of educators to integrate key features of SJE in their classroom, they report they can and should implement SJE within the classroom. Finally, educators report that the Montessori framework aligns well with the practices and goals of frameworks for SJE, both theoretically and in practice. ii Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................... ii Context of the American School System ........................................................................ 2 Diverse Students in American Schools ........................................................................... 3 Responding to Diverse Classrooms: Frameworks for Social Justice Education ............ 5 Existing Frameworks for Social Justice Education ........................................................ 6 Multicultural Education .............................................................................................. 6 Culturally-Relevant Pedagogy .................................................................................... 7 Culturally-Sustaining Pedagogy ................................................................................. 8 Research Supporting Frameworks for Social Justice Education .................................... 8 What’s at Stake – Why Social Justice Education in Elementary Classrooms? .............. 9 Applicability of Social Justice Education within Montessori Classrooms ................... 11 Montessori in the United States - Strengths and Challenges ........................................ 12 Methods............................................................................................................................. 14 Setting and Participants................................................................................................. 14 Survey Content.............................................................................................................. 16 Findings............................................................................................................................. 17 General Impressions of a Social Justice Framework within Schools ........................... 17 iii Factors Influencing Implementation of a Social Justice Framework within Schools ... 19 Themes in Open-Ended Responses ............................................................................... 19 Explicit Links to the Montessori Method ................................................................. 20 Social-Emotional Learning ....................................................................................... 20 Development of Cultural Competency ..................................................................... 21 Critical Thinking and Sociopolitical Consciousness ................................................ 22 Teacher Responsibility.............................................................................................. 23 Discussion ......................................................................................................................... 23 Variation Across Respondents ...................................................................................... 24 Examples of SJE from Local Classrooms ..................................................................... 25 Unexpected Findings .................................................................................................... 26 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 26 Limitations .................................................................................................................... 28 Implications and Recommendations for Future Work ...................................................... 29 References ......................................................................................................................... 31 Appendix ........................................................................................................................... 38 iv 1 Frameworks for Social Justice Education in Montessori Classrooms: Educator Perceptions and Implementation The American schooling system serves populations of culturally, linguistically, and economically diverse students and families. However, disparities in achievement and opportunity for low-income students of color persist (Morgan & Amerikaner, 2018; NCES, 2019). As such, new frameworks have been suggested to target equity and social justice within the classroom, including Multicultural Education (Banks, 1993), Culturally-Relevant Pedagogy (LadsonBillings, 1995), and Culturally-Sustaining Pedagogy (Paris & Alim, 2012). For the purpose of this research, a combination of elements from these frameworks that focus on improved outcomes for diverse groups of students will be used as a broad way to characterize SJE, These elements include a focus on each student experiencing academic success, developing cultural competence, developing a sociopolitical consciousness, an emphasis on prejudice reduction, and the decentering of White norms in classrooms and schools (Banks, 1993; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Paris & Alim 2012). Patall and Zambrano, (2019) also suggest that prioritizing student autonomy and relevance of activities are key aspects of SJE, as these components target the development of critical thinking and a sociopolitical consciousness. Autonomy and authenticity of assignments demonstrate that teachers not only value, but want to sustain student culture within and beyond the classroom, increasing motivation, engagement, and academic success. These features will be used directly in eliciting responses about the feasibility of implementing SJE in different elementary classrooms. 2 This research aims to uncover perceptions from local Montessori educators and administrators regarding key features of frame1works for social justice education (SJE). Mixedmethods survey questions target educators’ general perceptions of SJE, personal implementation of SJE, and factors affecting the implementation of SJE. Context of the American School System As an institution, American schools were envisioned as a construct designed to raise educated citizens, create a more homogenous culture, reduce crime and class conflict, and promote morality and literacy (Kober, 2007). However, diverse populations of students in the American school system have been, and continue to be, subjected to practices intended to eradicate or disadvantage their cultures. The American school system continues to affirm White, middle-class culture as the standard, instead of shifting towards SJE, which aims to address and correct historic inequities (Bang et al., 2017; Paris, 2012). There is a long history of inequity and exclusion in American schools, including the segregation of Asian American students in California until Tape v. Hurley (1858) and Black students until Brown v. Board of Education (1954). While the intention of these court decisions was to promote integration and diversity within schools, desegregation also had consequences for teachers and communities of color. When forced to integrate, school systems did not want Black teachers or administrators in positions of power, so within 10 years after the Brown v. Board decision, over 38,000 Black teachers and administrators had lost their jobs (Hudson & Holmes, 1994). Over the next decade, the number of Black pre-service teachers declined by 66 3 percent, resulting in a teaching force that still today remains overwhelmingly white (Hudson & Holmes, 1994). Diverse Students in American Schools Though the American school system has seen a rise in different approaches and philosophies of teaching within public, private, and charter schools, students of color and those from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds are subjected to generally underfunded schools (Morgan & Amerikaner, 2018). While there is variation across states, nationally, the highest poverty districts receive about $1000 less per student than the lowest poverty districts (Morgan & Amerikaner, 2018). There is an even larger average gap in funding for districts serving students of color. Districts serving the most students of color receive an average of $1800 less per student than districts serving the fewest students of color (Morgan & Amerikaner, 2018). Depending on the district, these financial differences can add up to millions of dollars to which students of color and students living in poverty are denied access. Students of color also face disproportionate referrals to special education, a heightened police presence, higher dropout rates, and pervasive negative attitudes and beliefs about their performance (Pollock, 2017; Anyon, 1980; Lee-St. John, 2018; Minor, 2014). These realities affect not only academic skills, but also social skills and the development of positive selfidentity, which is correlated with both long-term health and survival (Graham & Hudley, 2005). Student-Teacher Mismatch The disproportionate negative outcomes for students of color are further exacerbated by school staff, faculty, and administration that remain disproportionately White (Irwin et al., 2021). 4 While White students now make up less than half of American public-school enrollment, the majority of teachers (76%) and administrators (over 80%) are White (Irwin et al., 2021; La Salle et al., 2019). Specifically, the percentage of students of color and English Language Learners (ELLs) in American schools is expected to continue to increase over the next decade (Irwin et al., 2021). However, in the 2017-18 academic year, only 65 percent of public-school teachers and 48 percent of private school teachers reported taking coursework on serving students from diverse economic backgrounds (Taie & Goldring, 2020). In addition, in that same year, only 41 percent of public-school teachers and 28 percent of private school teachers reported taking at least one class on teaching students who are ELLs (Taie & Goldring, 2020). These data show a clear mismatch between educator demographics and preparation and the realities of the American school system. Black students are more likely to be targets of implicit bias, lower expectations, and self-fulfilling prophecies when taught exclusively by teachers who do not look like them or share similar experiences (La Salle et al., 2019). In contrast, one study found that Black students who have two Black teachers before third grade were 32% more likely to attend college (Gershenson et al., 2018). While White educators can still be effective teachers of diverse students, it is clear from the data that the mismatch between student and teacher demographics poses a serious threat to student motivation, opportunity, and achievement. Testing Disparities There are high disparities in testing for students from diverse economic, cultural, and linguistic backgrounds. While students across demographics continue to perform below standards of proficiency on national reading, science, and math tests, students from diverse 5 backgrounds perform at significantly lower levels on standardized exams, suggesting a disconnect between teaching practices and student needs (Kim & Zabelina, 2015; NCES, 2019). Testing scores do not reflect differences in the intelligence of different cultural groups, but rather signal inequities in resources and support given to students from different economic, cultural, and linguistic backgrounds (La Salle et al., 2019). In addition, these discrepancies reflect a known history of racial ideology embedded in curriculum and testing, and historic testing and teaching practices that do not factor in culture or socioeconomic status (Logan & Burdick-Will, 2017; Padilla, 2004; Katz et al., 1990). Teacher Autonomy Despite the many parties operating within schools and influencing educational policy, teachers report feeling that they have control over several key aspects of schooling. Taie & Goldring (2017) found that public school teachers report a general perception of autonomy when making decisions regarding curriculum, materials, assessment, and school practices including discipline. These data imply room for teachers to change and adapt their instruction to meet the needs of their students, if given adequate resources and support. Providing educators with strong philosophies and frameworks is one way in which they may be empowered to align their classrooms and teaching with key aspects of SJE and improve opportunities and outcomes for all students. Responding to Diverse Classrooms: Frameworks for Social Justice Education The idea of educating for social justice and freedom, and moving away from oppressive styles of education is not new. Paulo Freire, a well-known Brazilian educator and philosopher 6 observed how schooling systems often serve to perpetuate domination and oppression. Reflecting his stance, he lays out a different framework for education as the “practice of freedom”. Freire advocated for a move away from the banking style of education, wherein teachers are assumed to know everything, and have the task of “filling” students, who are nothing but passive recipients and strongly opposed the idea that “man is abstract, isolated, independent, and unattached to the world” (1970). Instead, Freire viewed education as centered around the connection between learners and the world around them (1970). In this style of education, students gain knowledge in order to pursue freedom and social justice in their local and broader communities. Learning within the classroom must be centered around the connection between students and the world, which means that individual identities and cultures are essential to learning and teaching. Existing Frameworks for Social Justice Education Multicultural Education Instead of viewing student culture as something to be left at the classroom door, SJE frameworks call upon educators to draw on students’ diverse sets of background knowledge. Frameworks for SJE aim to make culture an integral part of the classroom in order to combat the still-pervasive oppression and inequity in schools. One such framework, designed by James Banks, is Multicultural Education. This framework includes integrating diverse cultural examples into content and an emphasis on evaluating implicit assumptions (or bias) in the knowledge creation process (Padilla, 2010). In addition, key features of Multicultural Education include prejudice awareness and reduction, a pedagogy focused on equity, and creating an 7 empowering school culture that aim to change not only the classroom, but the entire school community (Padilla, 2010). Culturally-Relevant Pedagogy Ladson-Billings’ framework of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy (CRP) (1995) was developed to target historic inequities and to promote social justice within a school setting. Culturally Relevant Pedagogy includes three key aspects: students must experience academic success, develop cultural competence (knowledge of their own culture and also fluency in at least one other culture), and develop a sociopolitical consciousness (creating and using knowledge within classrooms to analyze, critique, and interact with real-world issues) (LadsonBillings, 1995a). Teachers who engage in CRP recognize curriculum as a vehicle for ideology and often as a tool that perpetuates inequality through the types of activities and knowledge that are made available to different students (Ladson-Billings, 2005). They also recognize that there are often antagonistic relationships between poor students of color and society. Thus, these teachers see their role as preparing students to use education to combat inequity by designing curricula that attends to context, and empowering students to critically and actively engage in different social contexts (Ladson-Billings, 2005). Successful teachers of diverse students must make an effort to include and respect many varied cultural practices within the classroom. However, these teachers must also understand the systemic nature of oppression and lead students to explore and critique the relationship between dominant (white, European) culture and their own culture (Hyland, 2009). 8 Culturally-Sustaining Pedagogy Paris (2012) extends the CRP framework to a framework of Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy (CSP). This framework, as implied in the name, marks a shift to creating classrooms and curriculum which sustain student and family cultures, rather than simply using culture as a tool to make mainstream curriculum ‘relevant,’ as implied in CRP. Paris (2012) describes CSP’s goals as promoting and supporting multilingualism and multiculturalism in the classroom, actively responding to cultures which have been historically erased or distorted by current curriculum and teaching practices. Culturally sustaining pedagogy asserts that the school system as a whole must shift towards a framework of valuing pluralism and seeing the value in sustaining different ways of communicating and creating knowledge. Research Supporting Frameworks for Social Justice Education Students at all ages who are exposed to culturally-responsive teaching report higher GPAs and academic confidence, whereas students who experience racial discrimination or distrust, especially in school settings, experience a decrease in motivation, academic engagement, and physical and mental health (Graham & Hudley, 2005; Talpade & Talpade, 2020)). Ethnic studies classes, focused on key tenets of CRP such as developing skills to critique systems and developing positive identity, have shown potential to improve GPA and school attendance of students of color (Dee & Penner, 2016). Teachers who are identified as engaging with CRP have students who report alleviated discontinuity between the classroom and community environments, improved student-teacher relationships, and the perception of school as a safe and productive learning environment 9 (Howard, 2001). Cherng and Davis (2019) concluded that multicultural awareness and cultural sensitivity in interactions between students and teachers had positive impacts on students of color. Banks (1993) affirmed that multicultural education was necessary for students of all backgrounds as framework that served to empower students to become “knowledgeable, caring, and active citizens in a deeply troubled and ethnically polarized nation and world.” Given the breadth of research that suggests numerous benefits from various frameworks for SJE, it is important that schools begin to consider a shift to a new framework that encourages these positive outcomes for all students. What’s at Stake – Why Social Justice Education in Elementary Classrooms? While SJE frameworks are less-often implemented in elementary or early childhood classrooms, research suggests that implementing culturally-responsive practices is extremely important in classrooms at all levels. Students of color are more reliant on the school system to provide them with opportunities and are less likely to receive additional support outside of the classroom, due to historic oppression and inequalities (Hawley & Nieto, 2010). While some teachers have reported a belief that social justice topics and CRP were inappropriate for young students, research confirms that racial awareness and the development of stereotypes and prejudice start to appear in children as young as three years of age (Freire & Valdez, 2017; Katz et al., 1973; Stevenson & Stewart, 1958). Sociocultural theories of learning place an emphasis on “culture, context, and system at the center of inquiry,” elaborating on the idea that culture and social context is integral for learning and development in young children (Mahn & John-Steiner, 2012). 10 Failing to address stereotypes, systemic oppression, and biases in classrooms have several significant repercussions in terms of self-esteem and academic performance of students. As such, it is important that educators draw from student experiences and culture, engage families, adapt instruction for different cultural and linguistic groups, and address stereotype threat (Hawley & Nieto, 2010). Schools that continue to ignore the systemic nature of racism and oppression, and fail to include and sustain cultures within the classroom are contributing directly to negative outcomes for their students. Without key aspects of SJE that include and honor culture within the classroom, student current and future academic performance, relationship to school, and perception of self are all negatively impacted. Teachers and schools that recognize the cultural nature of learning and foster different ways of learning, communicating, and assessing have the ability to better meet diverse student needs. In addition, by actively confronting their biases and working to reduce them, educators can create an educational experience that enables students to sustain their own cultural practices (Nasir et al., 2005). As the American school system becomes increasingly diverse, ignoring cultural, contextual, and systemic realities limits students’ ability to gain, create, and use knowledge to interact with local and global communities. As such, teachers, policy makers, and schools as a whole must begin changing the frameworks that shape how students are allowed to interact with knowledge. The framework of American classrooms must pivot towards a focus on materials, curriculum, and assessment that reflect and celebrate the pluralistic nature of American society and actively pursue social justice. While there are many different frameworks for promoting 11 social justice within classrooms and schools, the philosophy of a Montessori classroom in particular offers great potential for the integration of key features of SJE. Applicability of Social Justice Education within Montessori Classrooms The Montessori method of education was designed by Dr. Maria Montessori in the 1900s as a method for more effective teaching of students from marginalized communities in Rome. Montessori outlined key principles of liberty, autonomy, and practical life (real-world activities and applications) as the basis for authentic learning (Montessori, 1912). She observed that traditional education placed heavy restrictions upon students, along with a “discipline of immobility and silence” and she fought to change the way in which learning and teaching was carried out (Montessori, 1912). Both Montessori and SJE mark a shift towards a view of the classroom as a way for students to self-motivate and explore with greater autonomy in order to educate and affect themselves and those around them. Both frameworks also represent a move away from toxic hierarchy in schools, rigid discipline practices, and assessments that do not reflect the diversity of student language, ability, or interest (Banks & Maixner, 2016). Lillard et al. (2021) identifies several ways in which Montessori philosophy aligns with principles of CRP: the focus on empowering the whole child by emphasizing responsibility and autonomy; a belief that knowledge is created based on collaboration; and the importance of strong, respectful, and enduring relationships between students and teachers. In addition, a focus on individualized learning, sharing of culture, and an emphasis on community and global interconnectedness shows great potential for alignment with key ideas of SJE and CRP (Lillard et al., 2021). These key elements of Montessori philosophy naturally lend themselves to 12 discussions of culture, and the development of a sociopolitical consciousness by focusing on that key theme of interconnectedness and real-world exploration. Alumni of Montessori schools report feeling like a partner in their own education, being prepared academically, and feeling empowered and fulfilled (Lillard et al., 2021). Social justice education also aims to create empowered students and citizens who feel prepared to interact with their local and broader communities to enact change. Montessori in the United States - Strengths and Challenges While Montessori programs initially served populations of low-income and special needs children, contemporary Montessori has come to be seen as an elite private system of education for White, upper-class children. Indeed, there are an estimated 4,500 private Montessori schools in the United States, where yearly tuition rates range from $12,000-15,000 (American Montessori Society, 2022). However, there is a growing sector of public schools offering Montessori education. As of 2022 there are over 500 public schools in the US offering Montessori programs, including in charter, magnet, and traditional public-school settings (American Montessori Society, 2022). Whole-school public Montessori schools in the 2012-2013 school year reflected similar racial demographics compared to regular US public schools, but did display a higher enrollment of students who were more “economically advantaged” (Debs, 2016). However, looking at student achievement in focus schools, students in South Carolina public Montessori schools during the 2015-2016 academic year were more likely to meet or exceed state standards in all four exam areas, and low-income Montessori students scored significantly higher in three of 13 those areas compared to non-Montessori low-income students (Culclasure et al., 2018). In addition to performing at higher levels on exams, Black students and students of low-income displayed more creativity and social skills than their peers in traditional public schools (Culclasure et al., 2018). Culclasure et al., (2018) and Lillard et al. (2017) also found higher levels of executive function, positive attitudes towards school, and higher school attendance, along with overall lower disciplinary rates when surveying Montessori students. For students who attended a public Montessori preschool in a high-poverty city, income was shown to be far less correlated with academic achievement when compared to low-income students in traditional classrooms (Lillard et al., 2017). These data indicate a clear pattern of student success and benefits across racial and economic lines tied to enrollment in Montessori programs. However, these data and the ideals espoused in Montessori philosophy do not exclude Montessori schools from patterns of disproportionate discipline of students of color. Though “substantially more pronounced” in traditional public schools, Brown and Steele (2015) found that Black students were still two to three times more likely than White students to be suspended in Montessori schools. Thus, it is apparent that there are still areas in need of improvement within Montessori schools serving diverse groups of students and pursuing goals of social justice. While the framework and ideology of the Montessori method are aligned with key tenets of SJE frameworks, it is clear that high-quality implementation of social justice frameworks in Montessori schools could continue the pattern of beneficial social, emotional, and academic outcomes, while also reducing biases and inequities still present. 14 Methods This research aimed to uncover several aspects relating to frameworks for SJE and Montessori classrooms, including general perceptions of SJE, personal implementation of SJE, and factors affecting the implementation of SJE within classrooms and schools. This research was conducted as part of a larger study at a Western State University linked to the implementation of Montessori within two public school classrooms. Setting and Participants Research data were collected using a mixed-methods survey sent to selected teachers and principals at two local schools with Montessori programs. The data collection period lasted from late January 2022 to March 2022. Both schools were connected through a partnership with a local University as part of a project to implement Montessori in preschool classrooms at the public elementary school. School #1 is a private, inclusive Montessori school in a Western urban city that serves early childhood ages to Secondary grades. They describe their vision of “legitimate inclusion,” which the school reports means that roughly 15% of students enrolled in their school have documented special needs, and all students receive a full Montessori education. Every classroom in this school has a Montessori or inclusion lead teacher with a Bachelor’s or Master’s Degree, along with Montessori Accreditation Council for Teacher Education (MACTE) accredited credentials. Along with Montessori instruction, this school provides music, dance, visual arts, physical education, and other arts and physical electives. In addition, they offer speech therapy, physical therapy, reading therapy, and occupational therapy services. 15 School #2 is a public elementary school in the same Western urban city. Through a partnership with a local University, a free Montessori program was developed and implemented in mixed Pre-K and Kindergarten classes at this school. More than half of the students at this school are Hispanic/Latino, and enrollment from minoritized groups makes up nearly 70% of the student population. Nearly 90% of students qualify for free or reduced lunch. Exploration of their website indicates a close connection between the school and the community, and a recognition of the diversity of the school. The school includes a parent center, 79 percent of employed teachers have their ESL (English as a Second Language) endorsement, and nearly all posts and information from the school is provided in both English and Spanish. A group of six (four teachers and two administrators) were selected to receive the survey in order to gain insight into perceptions of both the public Montessori educators, and their counterparts at the private Montessori school. Out of six selected teachers and principals, four teachers and zero principals responded, resulting in a 67% response rate, which is considered high for an online survey format. Each respondent was a Kindergarten teacher, and all had been in their current positions for at least 3 years, with 50% having been in their position for at least five years, and 25% having been in their position for at least 10 years. In addition, every respondent had a Montessori certificate or endorsement, one was trained in Special Education, and one held an English as a second language (ESL) endorsement. Two respondents taught at a private school, and two taught at a public school. For disaggregation purposes, public school respondents will be referred to as Respondent A and Respondent B, and private school respondents will be identified as Respondent C and Respondent D. 16 While this survey targeted a very small response pool, respondents represented two local Montessori programs, which allows this research to examine specific themes and attitudes surrounding Montessori philosophy and SJE in a local context. Survey Content Based on the literature review and several existing frameworks for SJE, including Multicultural Education and Culturally-Sustaining Pedagogy, key themes across frameworks were identified. These features were combined to create a social justice framework used for the purposes of this research, and Likert-scale responses were aimed at eliciting general perceptions of SJE, and personal implementation of SJE. The research targeted themes of autonomy, academic success, development of cultural competence and sociopolitical consciousness, and applicability of classroom activities to a broader context (see Appendix). Descriptive statistics were used for analysis of the Likert-based items, which identified areas in which there was general agreement across all teachers, and areas in which there was more variation in perceptions and implementation of SJE within Montessori classrooms. Yes/no questions aimed to identify factors influencing personal implementation of a social justice framework within the classrooms of respondents. Responses to these questions were also analyzed using descriptive statistics, with potential responses of “yes,” “no,” and “unsure”. Descriptive statistics gave an indication of areas of agreement across respondents in terms of percentages. Open-ended response sections asked respondents to share examples from their own teaching to supplement their answers to previous sections within the survey. Analysis of these items involved identification of themes across responses. Coding was used in order to identify 17 which themes emerged across responses by identifying repeated words both within and across responses (Ryan & Bernard, 2003). While difficult when examining only three open-ended responses, repeated words did lead to the identification of several similar themes across responses. As the research was conducted by a sole researcher, themes were proposed and then reviewed with a colleague. Findings General Impressions of a Social Justice Framework within Schools There was high overall agreement among respondents on Likert-scale responses, indicating strong agreement with key principles of SJE. Teacher respondents all strongly agreed that students must experience academic success and that they played an important role in ensuring this outcome. In addition, all respondents strongly agreed that decentering White norms, reducing prejudice, developing cultural competence, and developing a sociopolitical consciousness should be important aspects of schooling. There was 100% agreement across seven out of nine items in this first section of the survey, indicating a high rate of agreement among respondents that key features of SJE are important in school. The highest disparity among respondents, when discussing general impressions of SJE, was in response to the statement that schooling cannot remain detached from politics. Respondents B and D strongly agreed with this statement, while Respondent A somewhat agreed, and Respondent C strongly disagreed). While there was high general agreement with other key principles of SJE, as outlined above, there was some disagreement with the idea that curriculum is an ideological document. 18 Personal Implementation of a Social Justice Framework within Schools For the majority of the questions, responses for personal implementation of SJE align with respondents’ general impressions and opinions about social justice frameworks. There was 100% agreement among respondents for six out of nine items in this section of the survey. Specifically, all respondents still strongly agreed that key aspects of SJE - decentering White norms, reducing prejudice, encouraging pluralism, developing cultural competence, and developing a sociopolitical consciousness in students - were important parts of their own teaching. The highest level of disagreement appeared for questions about curriculum as an ideological document. Respondent A did not reply to this question, and the other three responses were split across Likert-scale categories (Respondent D strongly agreed, Respondent B somewhat agreed, and Respondent C neither agreed nor disagreed). Discrepancies between general impressions and personal implementation of SJE were found in responses to questions about each student experiencing academic success. All respondents strongly agreed that it was important for each student to experience academic success and that as teachers, they viewed they played an important role in ensuring this outcome. However, when thinking of their own implementation of this statement, 75% still strongly agreed with this statement while 25% (Respondent C) indicated that they only somewhat agreed. Another discrepancy between general impressions and personal implementation was revealed in response to the questions that identified perceptions of curriculum as connected to political beliefs. In general impressions, 75% of respondents strongly agreed with this idea, but 19 in personal implementation, only 25% strongly agreed, 25% somewhat agreed, 25% neither agreed or disagreed, and 25% did not respond to this statement Factors Influencing Implementation of a Social Justice Framework within Schools The survey asked respondents to identify whether different factors affected their implementation of SJE in the classroom, indicated by a “yes,” “no,” or “unsure”. All respondents indicated that time affected their ability to implement their goals related to a social justice framework within their classroom. Training and experience were two other factors that reflected strong agreement among respondents. Seventy-five percent of respondents indicated that these factors affected their implementation of a social justice framework. Only one respondent indicated that they were unsure. School philosophy/structure was also identified by 75% of respondents as affecting their implementation of SJE, while Respondent A reported that this did not influence their implementation. Responses evaluating the impact of support from administration, district staff, and other teachers were split, with 50% (Respondents B and D) indicating that these variables did affect their implementation of SJE, and 50% (Respondents A and C) indicating that it did not. Only one respondent (Respondent C) indicated that funding and pressure to teach to standardized tests affected their implementation of SJE. Respondent B was the only one to indicate that personal beliefs affected their implementation of SJE. Themes in Open-Ended Responses Open-ended questions asked participants to provide examples from their own classrooms that provided insight into how they implemented key ideas of SJE. This section received responses from both public-school teachers (Respondents A and B) and one teacher from the 20 private school (Respondent C). There were several main themes identified, including explicit links to the Montessori method, social-emotional learning outcomes, development of cultural competence, development of critical thinking and a sociopolitical consciousness, and teacher responsibility. Explicit Links to the Montessori Method When asked to identify ways in which they implemented SJE in their own classroom, Respondent C was the only one who made several explicit references to Montessori philosophy, but it still emerged as a theme due to the total number of references made throughout the response. “Montessori” was mentioned three times, and references to “peace education” and “transformation of the adult” also made explicit links between this teacher’s implementation of SJE and the Montessori method, though not explicitly asked in the survey question. The ideas of “independence, critical thinking…self-understanding and compassion for others” were identified as key parts of a Montessori classroom that they found aligned with the principles of SJE explored in the survey. Two respondents did not make explicit mention of the Montessori framework, but this respondent clearly identified the Montessori method as integral to how they chose to align their teaching with key ideas of SJE. Social-Emotional Learning Of the four participants of the survey, three open-ended responses made reference to social-emotional learning outcomes connected to their personal implementation of SJE. Respondent A mentioned how important they felt it was to “teach the youngest learners how to identify emotions” as part of SJE. Respondent C made several references to social-emotional 21 outcomes in learners, connected with key ideas of SJE: students are “expected to stand up for what is right and support those who need it,” and “Montessori classrooms teach respect…selfunderstanding and compassion for others”. Respondent B also referenced the importance of teaching respect: students learn how to “receive and show respect” as a part of SJE within their classroom. All three respondents identified social-emotional learning outcomes connected with their personal implementation of SJE. Teaching and maintaining an aspect of respect in particular was identified by all respondents as one way in which they implement key ideas of SJE within their classroom. Development of Cultural Competency Terms related to the development of cultural competency were identified in the coding and analysis stage across two open-ended responses. Respondent C mentioned the importance of cultivat[ing] curiosity and knowledge of other cultures” within their classroom. Respondent A also indicated the importance of “being open to learning about other”. Both respondents suggested that a focus on curiosity and introducing new things is an important aspect of SJE within their classrooms. While not explicitly making mention of ‘cultural competency,’ these examples of classroom practices and methods perfectly align with the definition of cultural competency. Respondent C recognized that these practices make “learning about cultures more personal and relevant” and also helps to reinforce students’ cultural identity while also learning about and developing competence in at least one other culture. 22 Critical Thinking and Sociopolitical Consciousness Respondents also described the development of critical thinking and a sociopolitical consciousness - thinking about how students relate to and can interact with the community around them - as key parts of their teaching related to SJE. Respondent B described how students in their classroom are taught to identify “biases, stereotypes, and racism” as a part of developing critical thinking and sociopolitical consciousness. Respondent A made a similar remark, indicating that students and teachers must both “show respect to people that do not look like us”. Both teachers made it clear that explicit conversations of diversity and social issues such as racism and stereotypes are an important part of their classroom. The development of critical thinking skills in young children needed to have these discussions, and a focus on prejudice recognition and reduction are both aligned with key aspects of SJE. These classrooms do not ignore the realities outside of the classroom, but actively explore them as a way to start developing sociopolitical consciousness at a young age. Respondent C mentioned how their teaching from a Montessori framework helps students develop “critical thinking and the identification of a child’s purpose”. Purpose is another important idea aligned with developing a sociopolitical consciousness, along with an emphasis on “connect[ing] each child to the whole of humankind”. These ideas of interconnectedness and diversity across responses suggest that beginning to develop sociopolitical consciousness and critical thinking begins early in these preschool classrooms and are felt to be aligned with key ideas of SJE. 23 Teacher Responsibility A focus on teacher responsibility also emerged. While not a direct answer to the question attempting to uncover how teachers implement SJE within the classroom, coding of the responses across respondents identified their role as teachers as linked to the implementation of SJE within classrooms. Respondent B noted this relationship between teacher responsibility and SJE clear: “since my classroom is the first experience my students have with school I find it to be so important”. Respondent C also linked their role as a teacher to a responsibility to implement these ideas, and was grateful to the Montessori focus on “reflective practice and the ‘transformation of the adult’”. The same respondent also mentioned that “this conversation and training needs to be ongoing”. When asked to consider their personal implementation of SJE, even with the many examples given of their teaching practices, this educator mentioned the importance of teachers’ ongoing responsibility to train and reflect in order to make sure practices are effective. Finally, Respondent A also made a clear link between their role as a teacher and their responsibility to implement these ideas in the classroom: “As teachers, we need to set the foundation.” Throughout all responses, there is a clear indication that these teachers feel it is directly their responsibility to enact SJE within their classrooms. One educator made an explicit reference to how the Montessori philosophy guides this process. Discussion Montessori educators in two schools (one public, one private) were surveyed in order to ascertain the feasibility of implementing SJE within Montessori classrooms. Respondents were 24 asked to share their general impressions of SJE, their personal implementation of SJE, and factors that influenced their implementation of SJE. Educators across different schools and levels of experience displayed high levels of agreement with key features of SJE. They also described many ways in which they have implemented SJE in their own classrooms. These results indicate both strong agreement with the theoretical foundations of SJE and high levels of personal implementation within Montessori settings. Analysis of Likert-scale test items revealed high agreement among educators from different schools that key ideas of SJE were important and found in their own classroom. Data collected and analyzed from open-ended response items gave several examples of how educators chose to align SJE with Montessori philosophy and teaching practices. No significant differences or trends were found between public and private Montessori programs in terms of agreement with key features of SJE, personal implementation of SJE, or identification of factors affecting the implementation of SJE. All open-ended responses gave examples of how educators implement SJE in similar ways, including through establishing an emphasis on respect, a focus on development of critical thinking skills, and the explicit inclusion and sharing of culture within the classroom. Overall, the opinions and examples collected from this research indicate potential for both private and public Montessori programs to be implementing SJE in their classrooms. Variation Across Respondents The most significant level of variation in responses was in relation to curriculum as an ideological document. There was some disagreement on this idea when respondents were asked if they agreed with the general idea, and more significant disagreement among respondents when 25 asked to consider their own classroom and curriculum. Of note, teachers responded differently when thinking of their personal curriculum rather than curriculum as a whole. The response pattern indicates that some respondents may feel that their own curriculum is less tied to ideology and politics, compared to general curriculum in American schools. There was also variation between respondents in terms of which factors were identified as affecting the implementation of SJE in these educators’ classrooms. All respondents referenced that time affected how educators implemented SJE in their own classrooms and three out of four agreed that training and experience were also factors affecting implementation of SJE. While promising, more research is needed to identify specifically how time, training, and experience affect the implementation of SJE. There was no level of detail in the data that provide insight into how time, training, or experience exactly affect SJE in their classrooms. No significant trends emerged that clearly distinguished differences in perceptions or implementation at the public Montessori school compared to the private Montessori school. Both Likert-scale responses and yes/no responses showed strong agreement across schools. However, given that there were only four participants, a larger study size may lead to the identification of differences between types of schools. Examples of SJE from Local Classrooms Respondents highlighted several key features of SJE that appeared in their own classrooms, including prejudice reduction, social-emotional learning outcomes, cultural competency, and development of critical thinking skills. However, other unexpected themes did arise, including the explicit link made by one respondent between Montessori philosophy and 26 frameworks for SJE. This was not included as a prompt in the survey, but this respondent clearly saw several important theoretical and practical links between their Montessori training and their implementation of SJE. This reference indicates the potential for alignment of Montessori education and SJE, not just theoretically, but in practice as well, outlined extensively by this educator. Unexpected Findings Another unexpected theme was found across all open-ended responses: a focus on teacher responsibility for implementing SJE. Specific examples from open-ended responses confirmed that teachers felt they had the autonomy and control to implement key ideas of SJE within their classroom. While supported by prior research (Taie & Goldring, 2017), the emergence of this theme expands the finding that teachers feel they have autonomy and control over their teaching. Respondents in this research felt that they had the power to implement key aspects of SJE, but additionally, they also felt that they had a responsibility to exert that autonomy and control in order to align their classroom and teaching practices with key tenets of SJE. This further indicates the importance of gaining teacher perceptions and giving resources to educators to assist them in continuing to implement SJE within their classrooms. Conclusion This research attempted to uncover patterns among Montessori teachers and administrators relating to three research questions: • To what extent do teachers and administrators agree with key ideas of SJE? 27 • To what extent do teachers and administrators feel they personally implement key ideas of SJE in their schools and classrooms? • Which factors affect the implementation of key ideas of SJE in their schools and classrooms? Previous research on both these topics has provided a foundation that suggests key features of both Montessori philosophy and SJE are aligned, and indicates a potential for Montessori schools to become more equitable by merging the two philosophies (Lillard et al., 2021). Both frameworks have significant data demonstrating the effectiveness of the philosophies, and beneficial outcomes for students (Cherng & Davis, 2019; Culclasure et al., 2018; Graham & Hudley, 2005; Howard 2001, Lillard et al., 2017; Talpade & Talpade, 2020). However, minimal research exists on the actual perceptions and actions of real teachers and administrators attempting to integrate both SJE and Montessori frameworks in their classrooms and schools. Since teachers across the United States also report feeling that they have great autonomy and choice in how they teach, this research attempts to uncover real perceptions of integrating Montessori and frameworks for SJE. In addition, it attempts to uncover which factors most influence the implementation of SJE in Montessori classrooms, creating the potential to better support teachers and administrators in those areas. Findings within this study indicated that Montessori teachers in both public and private settings reported strong overall agreement that key ideas of SJE are important in the classroom. Responses also indicate a high frequency of personal implementation of SJE within four local Montessori classrooms. In particular, respondents highlighted socioemotional outcomes, the development of critical thinking skills, 28 and the explicit exploration of culture as concrete examples of the implementation of SJE within their classrooms. There were consistently high levels of agreement amongst respondents when asked if they agreed with key ideas of SJE (unanimous agreement on seven out of nine survey items) and if they personally implemented those features within their classroom (unanimous agreement on six out of nine survey items). This finding indicates both strong theoretical and practical alignment between SJE and Montessori. Time, training, and experience in teaching were identified as the main factors influencing educators’ ability to implement SJE within the classroom. Overall, responses indicate strong alignment between Montessori practices and frameworks for SJE, both theoretically and practically. Educators not only agree with key features of SJE, but feel they can and should be implementing these frameworks within their Montessori classrooms. Limitations These data were collected from a small population of educators, and all findings are based on the responses of four educators. Though representative of two local schools and different settings and levels of experience, it is hard to uncover any differences of opinion or implementation of SJE that may exist between public and private Montessori school settings. In addition, this research only focused on one urban setting; perceptions and implementation of SJE may differ in more rural or suburban communities. Findings from this research provide baseline data on Montessori teacher perceptions and the subsequent implementation of SJE. Due to a small sample size the data do not provide detail 29 on how factors such as time, training, personal beliefs, and administrator support affect the implementation of SJE within these classrooms. Additional research is suggested to more closely examine how and to what degree these factors affect the implementation of SJE within these schools. Finally, though two administrators were selected to participate in this study, neither administrator provided a response. While teacher responses provided very valuable insight into how classrooms exhibited SJE, responses from administrators could have provided more context as to how the school community as a whole was similar or different to the four classrooms. Implications and Recommendations for Future Work Data collected in this research confirm alignment between Montessori philosophy and frameworks for SJE. In addition, findings provided several concrete examples from four urban classrooms as to how SJE is implemented within both public and private Montessori classrooms. Strong agreement from all respondents in this study implies that Montessori classrooms create environments where SJE can be effectively implemented, through practical examples in support of social justice outcomes in Montessori classrooms. Frameworks for SJE are part of our focal classrooms. Future research could target how administrators support this reality, or how families perceive the curriculum and teaching practices to actually be aligned with key aspects of SJE. Additionally, close observation by researchers within these four Montessori classrooms may provide insights into implementation in more detail. This research lends support for the alignment of SJE and Montessori frameworks, 30 both theoretically and in practice. While there are several avenues for future research, this research establishes a strong link between SJE and Montessori education. 31 References American Montessori Society. Montessori Resources for Schools, Teachers, Families and Parents. Retrieved 2022, from https://amshq.org/ Anyon, J. (1980). Social class and the hidden curriculum of work. The Journal of Education, 162(1), 67-92. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.com/stable/42741976 Bang, M., Brown, B., Calabrese Barton, A., Rosebery, A. S., & Warren, B. (2017). Toward more equitable learning in science. Helping students make sense of the world using next generation science and engineering practices, 33-58. Banks, J. A. (1993). Multicultural education: Development, dimensions, and challenges. Phi Delta Kappa International, 75(1), 22-28. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20405019 Banks, K. H., & Maixner, R. A. (2016). Social justice education in an urban charter Montessori school. Journal of Montessori Research, 2(2), 1-14. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.17161/jomr.v2i2.5066 Brown, K. E., & Steele, A. S. (2015). Racial discipline disproportionality in Montessori and traditional public Schools: A comparative study using the relative rate index. Journal of Montessori Research, 1(1). Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.17161/jomr.v1i1.4941 Cherng, H., & Davis, L. A. (2019). Multicultural matters: An investigation of key assumptions of multicultural education reform in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 70(3), 219-236. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487117742884 32 Culclasure, B., Fleming, D.J., Riga, G., & Sprogis, A. (2018). An evaluation of Montessori education in South Carolina’s public schools. The Riley Institute at Furman University. Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved from https://www.furman.edu/wpcontent/uploads/sites/195/rileypdfFiles/MontessoriOverallResultsFINAL.pdf. Debs, M. C. (2016). Racial and economic diversity in U.S. public Montessori schools. Journal of Montessori Research, 2(2), 15-34. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1161353.pdf. Dee, T., & Penner, E. (2016). The Causal Effects of Cultural Relevance: Evidence from an Ethnic Studies Curriculum (CEPA Working Paper No.16-01). Retrieved from Stanford Center for Education Policy Analysis: http://cepa.stanford.edu/wp16-01 Freire, J. A., & Valdez, V. E. (2017). Dual language teachers' stated barriers to implementation of culturally relevant pedagogy. Bilingual Research Journal, 40(1), 55-69. Freire, P., & Ramos, M. B. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum. Gershenson, S., Hart, C., Hyman, J., Lindsay, C., & Papageorge, N. W. (2018). The long-run impacts of same-race teachers (No. w25254). National Bureau of Economic Research. Graham, S., & Hudley, C. (2005). Race and ethnicity in the study of motivation and competence. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of Competence and Motivation (pp. 392– 413). Guilford Publications. Hawley, W. D., & Nieto, S. (2010). Another inconvenient truth: Race and ethnicity matter. Educational Leadership, 66(3), 66-71. Retrieved from https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/another-inconvenient-truth-race-and-ethnicity-matter 33 Howard, T. C. (2001). Telling their side of the story: African-American students' perceptions of culturally relevant teaching. The Urban Review, 33(2), 131–149. http://curriculumstudies.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/51210877/Howard2001TellingTheirSid e.pdf. Hudson, M. J., & Holmes, B. J. (1994). Missing teachers, impaired communities: The unanticipated consequences of Brown v. Board of Education in the African American teaching force at the precollegiate level. The Journal of Negro Education, 63(3), 388-393. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/2967189 Hyland, N. E. (2009). One white teacher's struggle for culturally relevant pedagogy: The problem of the community. The New Educator, 5(2), 95-112. Irwin, V., Zhang, J., Wang, X., Hein, S., Wang, K., Roberts, A., York, C., Barmer, A., Bullock Mann, F., Dilig, R., and Parker, S. (2021). Report on the Condition of Education 2021 (NCES 2021-144). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo. asp?pubid=2021144. Katz, P. A. (1973). Perception of racial cues in preschool children: A new look. Developmental Psychology, 8(2), 295-299. doi:10.1037/h0034146 Katz, S., Lautenschlager, G. J., Blackburn, A. B., & Harris, F. H. (1990). Answering reading comprehension items without passages on the SAT. Psychological Science, 1(2), 122-127. Retrieved from 34 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304829381_Answering_reading_comprehension _items_without_passages_on_the_sat Kim, K. H., & Zabelina, D. (2015). Cultural bias in assessment: Can creativity help? International Journal of Critical Pedagogy, 6(2), 129-148. Retrieved from https://uscaseps.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/standardized-testing.pdf Kober, N. (2007). Why we still need public schools: Public education for the common good. Center on Education Policy. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED503799.pdf. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995a). But that's just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy. Theory into Practice, 34(3), 159-165. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/1476635. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995b). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312032003465. Ladson-Billings, G. (2005). "Yes, but how do we do it?" In J. Landsman & C. W. Lewis (Eds.), White teachers, diverse classrooms: A guide to building inclusive schools, promoting high expectations, and eliminating racism (pp. 29-41). Sterling, VA: Stylus Pub. La Salle, T.P., Wang, C., Wu, C., & Neves, J.R. (2019). Racial mismatch among minoritized students and white teachers: Implications and recommendations for moving forward. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation. 30(3), 314-343. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2019.1673759 35 Lee-St. John, T. J., Walsh, M. E., Raczek, A. E., Vuilleumier, C. E., Foley, C., Heberle, A., Sibley, E., & Dearing, E. (2018). The long-term impact of systemic student support in elementary school: Reducing high school dropout. American Educational Research Association, 4(4), 1–16. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2332858418799085. Lillard, A. S., Heise, M. J., Richey, E. M., Tong, X., Hart, A., & Bray, P. M. (2017). Montessori preschool elevates and equalizes child outcomes: A longitudinal study. Frontiers in Psychology, 8. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01783 Lillard, A. S., Taggart, J., Yonas, D., & Seale, M. N. (2021). An alternative to "No Excuses": Considering Montessori as culturally responsive pedagogy. Journal of Negro Education. https://www.montessoripublic.org/wpcontent/uploads/2021/03/Lillard.21.Taggart.Yonas_.Seale_.JNE_.pdf. Logan, J. R., & Burdick-Will, J. (2017). School segregation and disparities in urban, suburban, and rural areas. American Academy of Political and Social Science, 674(1), 199-216. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5804745/pdf/nihms938640.pdf Mahn, H., & John‐Steiner, V. (2012). Vygotsky and sociocultural approaches to teaching and learning. Handbook of Psychology, Second Edition, 7. Minor, E. C. (2014). Racial differences in teacher perception of student ability [Abstract]. Teachers College Record, 116(10), 1-22. Montessori, M. (1912). (2nd ed.) (A. E. George, Trans.). New York: Frederick A. Stokes Company. 36 Morgan, I., & Amerikaner, A. (2018). (rep.). Funding Gaps 2018 (pp. 1–14). The Education Trust. Nasir, N. S., Rosebery, A. S., Warren, B., & Lee, C. D. (2005). Learning as a cultural process: Achieving equity through diversity. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 489-504). Cambridge University Press. Padilla, A. M. (2004). Quantitative methods in multicultural education research. In J. A. Banks & C. A. McGee Banks (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Multicultural Education (2nd ed., pp. 127-145). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and practice. Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93-97. doi:10.3102/001318912441244 Patall, E. A., & Zambrano, J. (2019). Facilitating student outcomes by supporting autonomy: Implications for practice and policy. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 6(2), 115–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732219862572 Pollock, M. (2017). Inequality talk. In Schooltalk (pp. 74-125). New York, NY: The New Press. Ryan, G. W., & Bernard, H. R. (2003). Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods, 15(1), 85– 109. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822x02239569 Stevenson, H. W., & Stewart, E. C. (1958). A developmental study of racial awareness in young children. Society for Research in Child Development, 29(3), 299-409. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/1126353 Taie, S., and Goldring, R. (2017). Characteristics of Public Elementary and Secondary School Teachers in the United States: Results From the 2015–16 National Teacher and Principal 37 Survey First Look (NCES 2017-072). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2017072. Taie, S., and Goldring, R. (2020). Characteristics of Public and Private Elementary and Secondary School Teachers in the United States: Results From the 2017–18 National Teacher and Principal Survey First Look (NCES 2020- 142). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2020142. Talpade, M., & Talpade, S. (2020). Sankofa scale validation: Culturally relevant pedagogy, identity, academic confidence, and success. Journal of Instructional Pedagogies, 23. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1241943.pdf U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “Local Education Agency Universe Survey,” 2018–19. See Digest of Education Statistics 2020, table 204.20. 43 What grade level(s) do you teach? [ ] Kindergarten [ ] First grade [ ] Second grade [ ] Third grade What specialized training or endorsements do you have? (Montessori, etc.) Do you teach in a: [ ] Public School [ ] Private School What is your gender? (please leave the answer blank if you prefer not to say) What is your ethnicity? (please leave the answer blank if you prefer not to say) 44 Name of Candidate: Madeleine Kelly Date of Submission: March 25, 2023