Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Jul 1.
Published in final edited form as: Contemp Educ Psychol. 2021 Jul 13;66:101994. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2021.101994

Teaching Latinx students: Do teacher ethnicity and bilingualism matter?

Ashley S Castro a, Esther J Calzada b
PMCID: PMC8357307  NIHMSID: NIHMS1725786  PMID: 34393328

Abstract

Prior research has indicated that both mainstream (e.g., positive classroom behavior management) and culturally responsive teaching practices (e.g., cultural socialization in the classroom and promoting parent involvement), as well as teacher-student ethnic match, are associated with greater academic achievement for students of color. The purpose of this study was to examine teacher-student ethnic match and culturally responsive teaching self-efficacy as predictors of self-reported teaching practices used with Latinx students. The present study used a sample of 236 teachers (38.6% Spanish-speaking Latinx) of Latinx students in New York City public schools. We found that bilingual Latinx teachers reported using more effective mainstream and culturally responsive teaching practices compared to non-Latinx teachers (who did not speak Spanish). Using structural equation modeling, we found support for a model in which greater reported use of effective teaching practices by bilingual Latinx teachers is mediated by their greater culturally responsive teaching self-efficacy. Taken together, the findings suggest that greater confidence with culturally responsive teaching among Spanish-speaking Latinx teachers contributes to improved classroom environments for Latinx students.

Keywords: Latinx, teacher ethnicity, achievement gap, culturally responsive teaching

The past 25 years have seen meaningful progress in secondary education in the U.S., with current estimates showing that 84% of students now graduate from public high schools (McFarland, Hussar, et al., 2018). Yet the racial/ethnic achievement gap remains intractable (Hemphill & Vanneman, 2011) and graduation rates continue to lag behind—at 79%—for Latinx students (McFarland, Hussar, et al., 2018). One of the largest high school completion gaps in the country is found in New York State, where the Latinx graduation rate is 68%, 21 points lower than among non-Latinx White students (89% of whom graduate; McFarland, Hussar, et al., 2018). Disparities are concentrated in New York City (NYC), where 40% of the student population is Latinx, coming primarily from the Dominican Republic and, more recently, Mexico (Bergad, 2016). Despite distinct cultures and sociopolitical histories, these Latinx subgroups face similar social and economic challenges, including poverty and low rates of English proficiency (Bergad, 2016; Chu, 2013). As a result, status dropout rates are high among Mexican American (MA; 10.2%) and Dominican American (DA; 7.9%) youth 16–24 years old (McFarland, Cui, et al., 2018)

A host of predictors, including student characteristics (e.g., poverty, English Language Learner status), have been linked to academic achievement and high school graduation. In an analysis that included over 50,000 studies on student achievement, Hattie (2003, 2009) found that after accounting for individual student ability, teacher factors explained the greatest variance (30%) in academic performance among students of all ages. As a result, national and local efforts to close the achievement gap have focused on developing a teacher workforce that is prepared to meet the educational needs of an increasingly diverse student population, with a focus on both teachers’ instructional abilities and demographic characteristics (Floden et al., 2020). Particular emphasis has been placed on bringing in ethnic minority teachers to teach ethnic minority students (Clewell & Villegas, 1998; Ingersoll & May, 2016). These efforts are based on the premise that teachers who share the same racial/ethnic background as their students are better suited to educate them, an idea that is examined in the present study.

Teacher-Student Ethnic Matching

Over the past 25 years, the representation of ethnic minority teachers has increased from 12% to 17% (Ingersoll et al., 2014), but the U.S. education system continues to face a shortage of diverse teachers (Bond et al., 2015; Kena et al., 2016). In 2015–16, approximately 9% of U.S. teachers were Latinx, compared with a student population that was 26% Latinx and 51% non-White (de Brey et al., 2019). Though relatively uncommon, when teachers and students do share an ethnic background (i.e., teacher-student ethnic match), students appear to benefit in numerous ways (Villegas & Irvine, 2010). In a secondary analysis of a study that randomly assigned non-Latinx Black and White students in K to 3rd grade to different classrooms, Dee (2004) found that students benefitted academically from having teachers of the same racial background. Other studies corroborate these findings primarily with middle and high schoolers, showing positive associations between teacher-student ethnic match and parent involvement (Markowitz et al., 2020; Marschall, 2006), fewer teacher-reported externalizing behaviors (Wright et al., 2017), better academic performance (Joshi et al., 2018), and higher high school and college enrollment rates (Gershenson et al., 2018). A recent study examining teacher-student ethnic match in elementary classrooms found that Latinx students had fewer absences and received higher scores on teacher-reported measures of engagement and motivation with Latinx teachers (Rasheed et al., 2020).

These benefits may be due to a host of factors. Teachers of color may serve as positive role models and they may have more cultural awareness of the lived experiences of students of color. They may also be more aware of the ways in which culture and context impact student learning (Gomez et al., 2008; Kohli, 2009; Su, 1997; Tellez, 1999). In a practical sense, Latinx teachers who speak Spanish may be better able to communicate with Spanish-speaking students and their families. Wright et al. (2017) examined how the association between teacher-student ethnic match and teacher-rated changes in externalizing behaviors from fall to spring among Latinx kindergarteners differed by language. They found that having a Latinx teacher was associated with teacher-reported improvements in externalizing behaviors in Latinx English language learner (ELL) students but not in non-ELL students. However, they also found no gains in teacher ratings for externalizing behaviors in ELL students among Spanish-speaking non-Latinx teachers, suggesting that it is the combination of ethnicity and Spanish language ability that contributes to the benefits of teacher-student ethnic match for Latinx students.

Additionally, teachers of color appear more likely to engage in high-quality teaching with students of color, including more effective behavior management, more culturally responsive practices, including more effective parent involvement practices (Gay, 2002; Irvine & Armento, 2001; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Scribner & Reyes, 1999; Sheets, 1995). Less is known about the teaching practices used with students in the early years of schooling and especially with Latinx students, but there is some evidence that the positive impact of teacher-student ethnic match may be strongest for younger students, as well as for students who are struggling academically (Egalite et al., 2015; Joshi et al., 2018). To better understand the apparent benefits of teacher-student ethnic match, the present study tested whether teacher ethnicity is related to teaching practices among early childhood education teachers of Latinx students, as well as the potential mechanisms linking the two.

Teacher-Student Ethnic Match and Culturally Responsive Teaching Self-Efficacy

Recent research has begun to explore whether greater comfort and confidence with teaching students of color contributes to the benefits of teacher-student ethnic match. Teachers commonly report feeling unprepared to teach students of diverse ethnic, racial, and language backgrounds (Banilower et al., 2013) due to a lack of training in cultural diversity and a lack of familiarity with the community norms (Becerra, 2012; Delpit, 1995; Siwatu et al., 2009). Additionally, teachers’ confidence in their ability to teach diverse students may also be undermined by commonly-held negative biases about the academic and socioemotional abilities of Black and Latinx students (Downer et al., 2016; Tenenbaum & Ruck, 2007). Culturally-responsive teaching self-efficacy (CRTSE) is a measure of teacher confidence in working with students of color and their ability to use culturally responsive practices in the classroom. Greater CRTSE is associated with several teacher characteristics, including non-White race and speaking more than one language (Chu & Garcia, 2014). Student- and school-level factors contribute to CRTSE as well, with White teachers reporting lower levels of CRTSE for teaching Black and Latinx urban students compared to White suburban students (Siwatu, 2011). Bilingual teachers report high levels of CRTSE, especially with regard to fostering positive relationships with their students (Oberg De La Garza et al., 2020). Siwatu has found that greater CRTSE is associated with greater use of culturally responsive practices with diverse students (Siwatu, 2009).

CRTSE, like teaching self-efficacy more generally, has been positively linked to student achievement (Sosa & Gomez, 2012; Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998; Zee & Koomen, 2016). In contrast, lower self-efficacy in teaching students of color may contribute to a greater reliance on ineffective teaching practices (Delale-O’Connor et al., 2017). This association may be understood from the perspective of Bandura’s (1977) work on self-efficacy which suggests that individuals are more likely to perform particular behaviors if they feel confident that they can perform them successfully. In the present study, we test this idea by exploring the ways in which CRTSE, which we expect to be highest in bilingual Latinx teachers, is associated with the use of evidence-based teaching practices.

The literature suggests that the most effective teachers incorporate both behavior management strategies and culturally responsive practices in the classroom. Jensen et al. (2018) refer to the integration of universal teaching practices with culturally responsive teaching as “equitable” teaching for students of color, emphasizing that cultural responsiveness makes the universal practices meaningful for these students. In fact, teachers who use more positive behavior management strategies in the classroom also tend to use more culturally responsive teaching strategies (Gaias et al., 2019), and both sets of strategies have been associated with more positive student behavior, greater engagement, and better academic achievement among ethnic and language minority students (August & Shanahan, 2006; Downer et al., 2012; Goldenberg, 2008; Larson et al., 2018; Sheets, 1995).

Classroom Behavior Management

The ways in which teachers structure a classroom and interact with students (e.g., classroom behavior management) are key components of effective teaching for all students, regardless of racial/ethnic background (Pianta et al., 2012). Effective classroom management practices are those that create a structured, positive, and nurturing learning environment. These practices have been found to promote engagement (Mashburn et al., 2008; Powell et al., 2008) and behavioral functioning (Barth et al., 2004; Pianta et al., 2002). Evidence suggests that classroom behavior management (i.e., practices to manage student behavior) has a larger impact on student learning than any other environmental or contextual factor related to education, including design and delivery of instruction, school policy and culture, and classroom climate (Wang et al., 1990). In a study comparing the teaching practices of effective and ineffective public school teachers (measured by student achievement in math and reading), classroom management emerged as the domain of practice that differed most between the two groups of teachers (Stronge et al., 2011).

Positive interactions with teachers are predictive of academic achievement beginning in the earliest years of schooling (Burchinal et al., 2002). In early childhood classrooms, shaping student behavior through praise, rather than reprimand, appears to be a particularly important strategy in creating a supportive and nurturing environment (Hester et al., 2009), and its use has been linked with behavioral, social, and academic functioning (Caldarella et al., 2020; Pianta et al., 2002) among racially and ethnically diverse students. A recent study of academic outcomes in pre-K programs serving racially and ethnically diverse children found that classroom climate and teacher-child relationships were stronger predictors of educational outcomes than other features of the programs, such as teacher-student ratio (Howes et al., 2008).

Limited attention has been paid to variations in classroom behavior management with Latinx students (Milner & Tenore, 2010). However, teachers do appear to respond to students based in part on their racial and ethnic background (Ouazad, 2014; Rong, 1996). Research indicates that teachers may provide more positive (Byalick & Bersoff, 1974; Jackson & Cosca, 1974) and less negative (Aaron & Powell, 1982) feedback to students who share their ethnic or racial background. A meta-analysis of research examining teacher expectations and behaviors toward students of different racial/ethnic backgrounds found that teachers are more likely to direct positive speech toward White students compared to Black and Latinx students (Tenenbaum & Ruck, 2007). In addition, schools with greater proportions of ethnic minority students tend to be characterized by more negative classroom climates (Stipek, 2004) and minority students are more likely to be punished and receive exclusionary discipline, such as suspension and expulsion (Skiba et al., 2011). Importantly, disproportionality in teacher response to student behavior appears to be driven by lower expectations for Black and Latinx students (Bryan et al., 2012), and ethnically-matched teachers perceive behaviors less negatively for Latinx students compared to White teachers (Redding, 2019). Thus, while effective classroom behavior management is key to supporting academic achievement, these practices appear to be less commonly used with minority students, perhaps owing to their lower likelihood of being taught by teachers who share their racial-ethnic background.

Culturally Responsive Teaching

Proponents of multicultural education (Gay, 2010; Ladson-Billings, 1995) argue that effective teaching (i.e., culturally responsive teaching) requires that teachers consider and incorporate students’ cultural backgrounds in all aspects of their teaching in order to address the unique perspectives, experiences, and needs of their students, especially for students of color. A key principle of culturally responsive teaching is the bridging of a student’s sociocultural background with the process of learning through, for example, the use of culturally appropriate resources (e.g., Spanish-language materials) and positive cultural messages, objects, lessons, and activities in the classroom (Scribner & Reyes, 1999). Such cultural socialization practices appear to promote engagement and learning (Gay, 2010). In their study of elementary school teachers serving Latinx students, Matthews and Lopez (2019) found that the integration of cultural content and the use of Spanish instruction were associated with gains in math achievement. Culturally responsive teaching by bilingual Latinx teachers has also been linked to reading achievement among Latinx students (Lopez, 2016), and this connection appears to be facilitated by specialized bilingual training and education. Qualitative studies also show that in the early years of schooling, Latinx students are more engaged when teachers read books featuring Latinx characters and experiences (Nathenson-Mejía & Escamilla, 2003).

A small literature shows that ethnic minority and immigrant teachers tend to consider and incorporate culture to strengthen their relationships with students (Michie, 2007; Monzó & Rueda, 2003; Quiocho & Rios, 2000; Ware, 2006). Latinx teachers, in particular, deliberately draw from their shared culture with Latinx students to engage them with material that they otherwise struggle to connect with (Ajayi, 2011) and are more open to the use of Spanish in the classroom (García-Nevarez et al., 2005). In their examination of CRT practices used by Dual Language teachers, Oberg De La Garza et al. (2020) found that their sample of predominantly Latinx bilingual teachers validated students’ cultural norms and experiences, used multidimensional strategies to incorporate culture into classroom climate and assessment, and empowered students to independently navigate learning in multicultural contexts. Bilingual Latinx teachers may be especially motivated to use Spanish-language resources in the classroom due to their own experiences of discrimination, isolation, and disillusionment as ELL students (Morales & Shroyer, 2016).

Outside of the classroom, culturally responsive teachers view ethnic and language minority parents as assets for student learning and work to engage them in effective and meaningful ways (González et al., 2005). In fact, schools’ engagement of parents is considered both a key strategy and outcome for the development and implementation of effective culturally responsive teaching practices in schools (Griner & Stewart, 2013). Teacher attitudes and practices that promote strong parent-teacher relationships help to increase parent involvement, which has broad and positive impacts on student academic growth (Green et al., 2007; Grolnick et al., 1997). There is some evidence that parent involvement is greater when teachers share the same cultural background as families (Becerra, 2012; Klugman et al., 2012).

The Present Study

The extant literature suggests that teacher-student ethnic matching may be beneficial for Latinx student engagement and learning. Specifically, bilingual Latinx teachers are expected to have more cultural awareness and feel more efficacious than non-Latinx teachers in working with Latinx students and therefore to engage in the use of more effective teaching practices, defined from the perspective of both mainstream and multicultural educational theories. To explore this hypothesis, we first compared Spanish-speaking Latinx teachers with non-Latinx (non-Spanish-speaking) teachers to identify mean-level differences in CRTSE, self-reported classroom behavior management practices, and self-reported culturally responsive practices, including parent involvement attitudes and practices. Drawing on data from New York City, we focused on early childhood (pre-kindergarten, Kindergarten, and 1st grade) classrooms because of the long-term implications of the first years of schooling on student academic outcomes (Alexander et al., 1997). We sampled from classrooms serving Mexican- or Dominican-origin students, two of the largest Latinx subgroups in New York City, to consider potential subgroup differences in associations between study variables. Second, we used cross-sectional data to test a model in which CRTSE mediates the association between teacher ethnicity and teaching practices. We expected that, compared to non-Latinx teachers of Latinx students, bilingual Latinx teachers would report using more effective teaching practices, in part due to greater CRTSE.

Method

Participants

Data for the present study were collected as part of a larger, longitudinal study examining the socioemotional and academic trajectories of pre-kindergarten (Pre-K) and kindergarten (K) students of Mexican and Dominican descent in NYC. The study took place in 24 public elementary schools, where eligible children were enrolled from Pre-K and K classrooms between 2010 and 2013. Children were eligible if their mothers identified as Mexican (MA) or Dominican (DA) and if they were newly enrolled in Pre-K or K in one of our partner schools. The final sample included 414 MA and 336 DA young students and their mothers (N=750 mother-child pairs). We focus on the teachers of participating children in the present study.

Children were distributed across 52 Pre-K, 157 K, and 110 1st grade classrooms taught by 319 teachers. Teachers who did not complete a demographic form (n = 21; 7%) or were not administered key measures used in the present study (n = 35; 12.9%) were excluded from the study. In addition, because of the considerable confound between ethnicity and Spanish-language proficiency, teachers were excluded if they were Latinx and did not speak Spanish (n = 15; 5.0%) or if they were non-Latinx and Spanish-speaking (n = 12; 4.0%).

The final analytic sample included 236 teachers, who were majority female (94.1%), on average 42.68 (SD=11.34) years old, and had been teaching for a mean of 12.63 (SD=8.19) years. Teachers were mostly (76.3%) U.S.-born but fairly diverse; 91 (38.9%) were Latinx, 100 (42.4%) were non-Latinx White, 20 (8.5%) were non-Latinx Black, and 12 (5.1%) were Asian. Half (50.5%) of teachers reported speaking another language, and of these 76.5% (n = 91) reported speaking Spanish. There were no differences between teachers of MA and DA students on the above demographic variables, except that teachers of DA students were slightly, but significantly, older (M = 44.50 vs. 41.00; p < .05).

Measures

Teacher Demographic Characteristics.

A demographic form that assessed ethnicity, immigrant status, bilingual (Spanish) status, age, gender, education level, and years of teaching experience was administered. Ethnicity was based on teachers’ self-identified pan-ethnicity (non-Latinx White, non-Latinx Black, Latinx, and Asian).

Cultural Competence.

The Culturally Responsive Teaching Self-Efficacy Scale (CRTSE; Siwatu, 2007) assesses how confident teachers are in their ability to engage in specific culturally responsive teaching practices. The CRTSE, which used as a measure of teacher cultural competence, was based on an in-depth literature review of culturally responsive teaching competencies and taps into teachers’ self-reported ability to use these practices. Teachers were asked to rate their level of confidence from 1 to 100 for statements such as “I am able to use my students’ cultural background to help make learning meaningful.” Exploratory factor analyses with our data confirm one 40-item factor. Reliability of the scale with our sample was high for both bilingual Latinx (α= .96) and non-Latinx teachers (α = .91).

Classroom Behavior Management.

The Teaching Strategies Questionnaire (TSQ; Webster-Stratton, 1998) assesses teacher use of Positive and Negative Classroom Behavior Management Practices through 27 items that tap into the use of proactive strategies (e.g., “use clear classroom discipline plan”) and positive behavior management practices (e.g., “praise good behavior”), as well as reactive and ineffective behavior management (e.g., “use physical restraint”) practices. This measure has been shown to be sensitive to teacher intervention effects (Brotman et al., 2008; Webster-Stratton, 1998). Teachers were asked to indicate the frequency with which they use particular strategies in the classroom from Rarely/Never (1) to Very Often (5). There was adequate reliability for the three subscales in our sample for the bilingual Latinx teachers (Ineffective Behavior Management (α= .62), Proactive Behavior Management (α=.83), and Positive Behavior Management (α=.77)) and non-Latinx teachers (Inappropriate Behavior Management (α= .74), Proactive Behavior Management (α=.80), and Positive Behavior Management (α=.79)).

Culturally Responsive Teaching Practices.

The Classroom Ethnic Socialization Measure (CESM) was adapted from the FESM (Umaña-Taylor & Fine, 2004) in our previous studies to measure the use of teaching practices consistent with a key dimension of culturally responsive teaching, namely incorporating culture into instruction. The original items were slightly modified to reflect the classroom rather than the home setting. Teachers respond to 13 items on the extent to which they incorporate culture into their teaching from Not at All (1) to Very Much (5). Items included “I teach my students about their culture background” and “I talk to my students about taking pride in their culture.” Reliability for this measure in our sample was high among Latinx (α=.94) and non-Latinx (α=.89).

Teachers also completed the Parent Involvement Scale (NICHD, 2010), a 27-item measure of teacher attitudes and practices related to promoting parent involvement. Teachers indicated their agreement with several statements about parent involvement using a Likert scale from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5). The Positive Attitudes about Parent Involvement scale (5 items) assesses the teacher’s view of the parent’s role in the child’s education, such as “parent involvement is important for a good school.” The Proactive Parent Involvement Practices scale (7 items) assesses the frequency with which teachers use different strategies (e.g., “teach parenting skills” and “ask parents to volunteer in the classroom”) that effectively promote involvement. Internal consistencies among bilingual Latinx teachers (Positive Attitudes, α=.70; Practices, α= .79) and non-Latinx teachers (Positive Attitudes, α= .75; Parent Involvement Practices, α= .75) were good.

Procedure

Enrollment of School Partners.

All data were drawn from schools that served MA and DA students in NYC. Public elementary schools were approached for partnership in the project via informational letters and phone calls if they 1) housed a universal Pre-K program with at least 2 Pre-K classes, and 2) had at least 20% Latinx students according to Department of Education (DOE) statistics. Eligible schools were offered a yearly $500 honorarium, approximately 20 hours of hands-on support in participating classrooms per school year, and 6 professional workshops on child development and mental health for the school community. Of the schools that agreed to meet with the principal investigator, all but 3 agreed to participate (N=24).

The 24 partner schools were classified as either a “Mexican” (n=13) or a “Dominican” (n=11) school depending on the predominant ethnic group of its students (as determined by neighborhood-level census data because DOE records do not specify country of origin); all MA participants were drawn exclusively from “Mexican” schools and all DA participants were drawn exclusively from “Dominican” schools. On average, MA and DA schools were similar in size of student population, percent of ethnic minority students, and percent of students eligible for free lunch.

Participant Enrollment.

We sampled from students entering their zoned public elementary school, whether as Pre-K or K students, to characterize Latinx children’s experiences during the transition to formal schooling. At partner schools, research staff, fluent in Spanish and English, attended parent meetings and were present during daily school drop-off and pick-up times to recruit mothers for the study. Across schools, our recruitment rate averaged 79% (range: 59 – 98%), with no differences between MA and DA schools. Pre-K and K teachers of participant students were enrolled once parent consent was obtained. Students were followed through 1st grade, at which point 1st grade teachers were recruited into the study.

Data Collection.

As part of a larger, longitudinal study, mothers were interviewed, teachers completed questionnaires, and children were assessed in the child’s Pre-K, K or 1st grade year. Following mother and child assessments, teachers of participating children were contacted (all mothers consented to the collection of teacher report) and their consent was obtained in person. Consenting teachers were given two packets to complete on their own: 1) a self-assessment packet that included measures on the characteristics of the teacher and the classroom and 2) a teacher report packet on the child (e.g., child behavior) and mother (e.g., parent involvement) that was completed for each participating child in that classroom. Only data from the teacher self-assessments were used in the present study.

Analytic approach

Descriptive analyses were conducted using SPSS version 24. We computed intercorrelations among key study variables for the full sample and for bilingual Latinx and non-Latinx teachers, separately. To evaluate differences between bilingual Latinx and non-Latinx teachers, several independent sample t-tests were conducted for culturally responsive teaching self-efficacy and self-reported teaching practices.

Path analysis was used to test the conceptual model using Mplus version 8 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2019). As is often the case in educational research, our data were nested within schools, which can result in data that violate assumptions of independence and increase the likelihood of Type I errors when using non-hierarchical analytic methods (Peugh, 2010). Independence in nested data is typically assessed by calculating the intraclass correlation (ICC; ρ) and design effects for the outcome variables of interest (Peugh, 2010). Due to considerable variability in the size of the clusters in our data, we did not calculate design effects. With regard to ICC, researchers have found that ρ > .05 may lead to biased estimates using standard regression methods (Huang, 2016). We calculated the following ICC using Mplus: Culturally Responsive Teaching Self-Efficacy (ρ = 0.001), Proactive Behavior Management (ρ = 0.012), Positive Behavior Management (ρ = 0.057), Ineffective Behavior Management (ρ = 0.101), Classroom Ethnic Socialization (ρ = 0.074), Positive Attitudes about Parent Involvement (ρ = 0.09), and Proactive Parent Involvement Practices (ρ = 0.004). The ICC results indicated a need to account for nesting in our analytic strategy in order to derive accurate parameter estimates and chi-square statistics. However, given that we were not interested in the effect of the Level 2 variable (school) on teaching practices, multilevel modeling would be inappropriate and unnecessary for our analyses (Huang, 2016). Instead, we used a design-based approach that used sample weights with a single-level analysis using the TYPE = COMPLEX function in Mplus (Heck & Thomas, 2015).

The rate of missing values in the dataset was 9.7% with a range of 1.1% to 19.2% missingness across variables. Little’s (1988) MCAR test indicated that data were likely missing completely at random. Missing data were addressed with maximum likelihood estimation (MLR), which, in conjunction with TYPE = COMPLEX in Mplus, produces adjusted parameter estimates and chi-square statistics for data that are non-independent and non-normal. We also included random effects of teacher ethnicity on outcome variables in the model. Group-mean centering was used for the binary predictor variable (teacher ethnicity) to provide an unbiased estimate of the relationship between the predictor and outcomes, and increase interpretability of the results (Enders & Tofighi, 2007). We also group-mean centered the mediator variable (culturally responsive teaching self-efficacy) to derive unconflated estimates for the within-level effects (Preacher et al., 2010). For the path model analysis, we were interested in path estimates as well as overall model fit. Model fit of the proposed model was assessed using standard indices: chi square (χ2 > .05), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA < .05), and comparative fit index (CFI > .95). We also examined the total and individual indirect effects within the model using bias-corrected bootstrapping with 1,000 resamples to create 95% confidence intervals, as recommended by Preacher and Hayes (2008).

Lastly, to ensure that our findings were robust across subgroups (i.e., teachers of MA and DA students), we tested for group invariance1 in Mplus. Specifically, we compared fit between the baseline unconstrained model and a fully constrained model where all paths were set to be invariant across groups. Chi-square difference tests using loglikelihood values and scaling correction factors were used to determine if the models were statistically different or not, to evaluate the robustness of our model for teachers of MA and DA students.

Results

Our first aim was to examine potential differences between bilingual Latinx and non-Latinx teachers on several teaching practices. Levene’s Test indicated that all variables of interest demonstrated equal variances between groups, with the exception of classroom ethnic socialization. Independent samples t-tests revealed no differences between bilingual Latinx and non-Latinx teachers on reported use of proactive strategies (t (230) = −0.88, p = 0.38), positive behavior management (t (219) = 1.38, p = 0.17), positive attitudes about parent involvement (t (231) = 1.38, p = 0.17), and proactive parent involvement practices (t (225) = −0.11, p = 0.91). Non-Latinx teachers reported using significantly more ineffective behavior management strategies compared to bilingual Latinx teachers, t (228) = −2.40, p < .05. Differences were also found in culturally responsive teaching self-efficacy and classroom ethnic socialization practices. Specifically, bilingual Latinx teachers were higher in both compared to non-Latinx teachers at p < .001 and p < .01, respectively. Descriptive statistics and correlations for variables of interest for bilingual Latinx and non-Latinx teachers are shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Correlations Across Key Study Variables for Both Bilingual Latinx (Above Diagonal) and Non-Latinx (Below Diagonal) Teachers (N = 236)

Measure M (SD)
Latinx Non-Latinx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Culturally Responsive Teaching Self-Efficacy 89.58 (9.02) 83.99 (10.17) -- 0.17 0.24* −0.04 0.63*** 0.22* 0.33**
2. Proactive Behavior Management 3.88 (0.64) 3.95 (0.59) 0.13 -- 0.41*** 0.07 0.17 0.39*** 0.15
3. Positive Behavior Management 3.76 (0.84) 3.59 (0.92) 0.13 0.48*** -- −0.02 0.41*** 0.18 0.20
4. Ineffective Behavior Management 1.78 (0.44) 1.95 (0.58) −0.20* 0.25** 0.27** -- −0.03 0.11 0.13
5. Cultural Socialization in the Classroom 3.47 (0.91) 3.14 (0.76) 0.42*** 0.18* 0.36*** −0.13 -- 0.25** 0.35**
6. Positive Parent Involvement Attitudes 4.68 (0.32) 4.61 (0.39) 0.10 0.20* 0.18* −0.05 0.28** -- 0.03
7. Proactive Parent Involvement 2.66 (0.93) 2.67 (0.80) 0.33*** 0.24** 0.23** 0.02 0.34*** 0.12 --
Open in a new tab

Note.

*

p < .05

**

p < .01

***

p < .001

The second aim of the study was to test a model in which teacher ethnicity predicts teaching practices, mediated by culturally responsive teaching self-efficacy. Model fit indices indicated that the model fit the data well: (χ2 (6) = 11.470, p =.075, RMSEA = .062 and CFI = .977). Figure 1 presents the standardized path coefficients for the significant paths. We found that teacher ethnicity was a significant predictor of culturally responsive teaching self-efficacy; Spanish-speaking Latinx teachers were more confident in their ability to engage in culturally-responsive teaching practices. Culturally responsive teaching self-efficacy, in turn, was a significant predictor of greater reported use of proactive strategies in the classroom, positive behavior management, cultural socialization in the classroom, and proactive parent involvement practices. Higher culturally responsive teaching self-efficacy also negatively predicted the reported use of ineffective behavior management in the classroom. Culturally responsive teaching self-efficacy did not significantly predict positive attitudes about parent involvement.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Path analysis model for the relationship between teacher ethnicity and culturally responsive teaching self-efficacy in the classroom, and the relationship between culturally responsive teaching self-efficacy and teaching practices. Non-significant paths in the model are not included in the diagram. Coefficients displayed are all significant at p <.05.

Examination of the indirect effects using bootstrapping and a 95% confidence interval indicated that indirect effects from teacher ethnicity through CRTSE were significant for all outcome variables in the model: proactive strategies (β= .053, 95% BCa CI [.01, .13], positive behavior management (β =.01, 95% BCa CI [.03, .19]), ineffective behavior management strategies (β= −0.05, 95% BCa CI [−.12, −.003]), classroom ethnic socialization (β= .24, 95% BCa CI [0.11, 0.38]), positive attitudes about parent involvement (β= .03, 95% BCa CI [.01, .08), and proactive parent involvement practices (β=.16, 95% BCa CI [.08, .30]). The total indirect effect through CRTSE for all outcome variables was also significant (β=.55, 95% BCa CI [.24, .92]).

In our multigroup path analysis, we found that the unconstrained model, which allowed all parameters to vary between teachers of MA and DA students, provided good fit for the data (χ2 (12, NMA Teachers= 121; NDA Teachers= 115) = 17.729, p = .124, RMSEA = .064 and CFI = .977). The path invariant model, or fully constrained, model also provided a good fit (χ2 (19, NMA Teachers= 121; NDA Teachers= 115) = 25.538, p = .144, RMSEA = .054 and CFI = .974). Using the loglikelihood chi-squared tests of differences to compare fit for the two models, it is revealed that the models are not significantly different (Δχ2= 7.5191, Δdf = 7; p = .38). In other words, the overall model fits equally well for teachers of MA and DA students.

Discussion

The academic achievement gap between Latinx students and their peers, which has remained intractable for decades, is understood to reflect a confluence of factors including educational policy, home environment, school factors, and student cognitive development, among many others (Barton & Coley, 2009). Of these, teacher factors are the contextual variables that account for the greatest variance in student achievement (Hattie, 2003, 2009), such that scholars and policymakers have targeted teacher characteristics and practices in efforts to reduce the achievement gap. In particular, considerable attention has been paid to teacher-student ethnic matching, based on the premise that a shared background will facilitate the use of more effective teaching practices. However, no study to date has explored how these factors are linked to each other in the education of young, Latinx students. More generally, there has been limited empirical attention to the teaching practices of bilingual Latinx teachers and whether they are different (i.e., more effective) than those of non-Latinx teachers. This study addressed these gaps in the literature.

Our first aim was to understand whether and how bilingual Latinx and non-Latinx teachers differed with respect to teaching practices that have previously been found to be associated with positive academic outcomes for all students (August & Shanahan, 2006; Downer et al., 2012; Goldenberg, 2008; Sheets, 1995). Specifically, we examined potential differences in mainstream teaching practices (i.e., classroom behavior management) and culturally-responsive teaching practices (i.e., cultural socialization in the classroom and parent involvement). We also examined self-efficacy specific to culturally responsive teaching (CRTSE) as a potential mediator, based on a literature that emphasizes teachers’ confidence in their ability to use effective teaching practices as key to their use of these practices with students of color (Delale-O’Connor et al., 2017). There were no mean-level differences in the self-reported use of proactive strategies or positive behavior management in the classroom, or in parent involvement attitudes or strategies based on teacher ethnicity. However, we found greater self-reported CRTSE and use of more ethnic socialization practices in the classroom among Latinx, compared to non-Latinx, teachers. These findings are consistent with those of previous studies indicating that ethnic minority teachers are more likely to explicitly incorporate culture into their teaching practices (Michie, 2007; Monzó & Rueda, 2003; Quiocho & Rios, 2000; Ware, 2006).

We also found lower self-reported use of ineffective behavior management strategies in the classroom among bilingual Latinx teachers compared to non-Latinx teachers. In our study, ineffective behavior management included singling out a student for bad behavior, threatening to send a student out of the classroom for misbehavior, and using physical restraint to control a student’s behavior. Such behavior management strategies have been described as ineffective, overly punitive, and disproportionately used to discipline students of color (McFadden et al., 1992; Noltemeyer & Mcloughlin, 2010; Skiba et al., 1997). It is worth noting that the use of ineffective behavior management strategies was relatively low (M = 1.77) for all teachers, according to self-report, suggesting that they were used relatively infrequently. It is also important to consider the school context within which teachers were working. The 24 schools that participated in the study were large, urban schools that serve predominantly students of color from low-income neighborhoods. Such schools tend to be overcrowded and underresourced, with limited training and support for teachers dealing with student misbehavior (Johnson et al., 2004). Nonetheless, the greater reliance on ineffective (i.e., punitive) strategies by non-Latinx teachers suggests that beyond school context, racial/ethnic factors may be at play in teacher-student interactions. Scholars of the achievement gap have begun to explore the role of racial microaggressions (Beaulieu, 2016) and implicit bias (Fiarman, 2016), both of which contribute to the disproportionate use of punitive discipline strategies, on teacher interactions with students of color (Gregory et al., 2010).It will be important to consider teacher ethnicity in those studies.

Education scholars have suggested that teachers of color may be more effective teachers of ethnic minority students due to their greater comfort and confidence in teaching students of color and in using culturally responsive teaching practices (Delale-O’Connor et al., 2017; Quiocho & Rios, 2000; Villegas et al., 2012). To address this question, we examined teacher ethnicity as a predictor of both self-reported mainstream and culturally responsive teaching practices, mediated by CRTSE. We found general support for the overall model, as well as for most proposed mediational effects. The coefficients were small for the paths from CRTSE to individual teaching practices, likely reflecting the relatively small differences in teaching practices across bilingual Latinx and non-Latinx teachers (discussed more below). Nonetheless, we found that teachers’ CRTSE acted as a mediator of the relation between teacher ethnicity and five of six classroom practices examined in the model. Importantly, our inclusion of both DA and MA classrooms allowed us to explore teacher-student ethnic match as a phenomenon with implications for the academic trajectory of the pan-Latinx student population in the United States. Our model demonstrated good fit for teachers of both MA and DA students, suggesting that differences in teaching practices between bilingual Latinx and non-Latinx teachers exist regardless of the dominant Latinx subgroup in the classroom. It is also worth noting that in our sample, all Latinx teachers spoke Spanish (and no non-Latinx teachers spoke Spanish) so our findings likely reflect the impact of teacher ethnicity in combination with language proficiency.

This study makes several important contributions to the literature documenting the benefits of teacher-student ethnic match for Latinx students. Our model builds on previous findings in this area (Dee, 2004; Goldhaber et al., 2015) by identifying a mediating variable, CRTSE, that explains the greater reported use of effective mainstream strategies and more culturally responsive teaching practices among bilingual Latinx teachers compared to non-Latinx teachers. We also believe our results can help resolve some tension in the field, as other studies have (see Bui & Fagan, 2013; Woolfolk Hoy et al., 2013), regarding a focus on either mainstream or culturally responsive teaching practices in the education of students of color. Prior discussions of the two teaching approaches have regarded them as largely incompatible (Bailey & Pransky, 2005), as proponents of mainstream strategies focus on the universality of learning processes across diverse groups, while proponents of culturally responsive teaching emphasize important differences among students from non-dominant cultures. The findings of the present study indicate that self-efficacy in culturally responsive teaching is associated with both types of teaching practices.

The policy implications of these findings are twofold. First, increasing the number of Spanish-speaking Latinx teachers to meet the growing population of Latinx students in public schools holds promise for addressing the academic achievement gap for this population. Recent data indicate that nationally, the discrepancy in representation between teachers and students of color has continued to increase in recent years, with the greatest discrepancy among Latinx teachers and students (Boser, 2014). Our results indicate that Spanish-speaking Latinx teachers may be more likely to use teaching strategies that are beneficial for all students in general and students of color specifically. Second, we note the importance of supporting all teachers (both Latinx and non-Latinx) who serve Latinx students. Our finding that greater CRTSE among bilingual Latinx teachers accounts for their greater self-reported use of effective strategies with Latinx students should encourage professional development programs to increase emphasis on both competence and confidence in culturally responsive teaching among teachers. This may be especially important in schools serving low-income and diverse student populations. Fortunately, both attending a training program designed to prepare teachers to work with students of color and participating in ongoing professional development on this topic are associated with greater CRTSE (Chu & Garcia, 2014).

In addition, we note that all teachers, inclusive of non-Latinx teachers, reported using effective behavior management and proactive parent involvement, suggesting that extant teacher training successfully prepares teachers to implement broadly effective practices. Yet these programs, generally geared towards promoting social emotional learning as a means to promote academic achievement, have been found to center Whiteness and related values despite efforts towards inclusion and cultural responsiveness (Sleeter, 2017). Without explicit attention to the role of racism in schools and classrooms, efforts to prepare teachers who work with minoritized students may be futile in closing the achievement gap.

The present study findings should be considered in light of the study’s limitations. First, findings may not be generalizable to teachers of older students. Our study was designed to examine teaching practices in the first few years of schooling (pre-K, K, 1st grade) to address previous gaps in the literature and because of a wealth of data showing that the achievement gap begins to develop before children enter school (Reardon & Galindo, 2009), and is relatively intractable by 3rd grade (Hernandez, 2011). Given the exclusive focus in the present study on early childhood classrooms, future work is now needed with teachers of older Latinx students. For students across grades, it is important for future research to also examine the ways in which mainstream and culturally-responsive teaching practices shape student learning, which was not addressed in the present study. In doing so, the field should consider a wide array of student outcomes, beyond academic achievement, given that mainstream and culturally-responsive practices may be associated with different aspects of learning, engagement, and well-being. For example, many studies have found that teaching practices are associated with social skill development and emotion regulation which, in turn, impact academic achievement outcomes (Yoder, 2014).

Another limitation of our study concerns the heterogeneity of our sample. The teachers within the non-Latinx category identified as non-Latinx White, Black and Asian, and the teachers within both categories likely differed on important background characteristics such as country of origin, immigration status, acculturative status, ethnic identity, and language preferences, leading to variations in teaching practices (Clark & Flores, 2001; Sheets & Hollins, 1999; Ullman & Hecsh, 2011). For example, having a stronger ethnic identity, being foreign-born, and being bilingual all predict more culturally sensitive attitudes toward bilingual learners among Latinx teachers (Adair, 2011; Hopkins, 2013; Weisman, 2001). Future studies should examine how these factors relate to cultural competence and teaching practices with Latinx students.

Lastly, this study examines self-reported teaching practices, which are subject to social desirability and other response biases. It is possible that teachers’ actual practices in the classroom differed from what they indicated in questionnaires. On the other hand, prior research suggests that while teacher self-reported practices may differ from observed practices, culturally responsive teaching self-efficacy may still be a significant predictor of observed practices in the classroom, especially those related to cultural responsiveness (Debnam et al., 2015). Nonetheless, future research examining the relationship between a teacher’s ethnicity and their use of mainstream and culturally responsive teaching practices should incorporate observational data to better clarify these associations.

Latinx children currently represent the largest minority group among U.S. youth, and are poised to be almost equal in number to White students in the coming decades (Colby & Ortman, 2015). Closing the achievement gap between Latinx students and their White peers is of critical importance for society. Latinx students face a number of barriers to obtaining a high-quality education related to nativity, language, and socioeconomic status. The findings of the present study highlight that another important barrier to address for Latinx students is a dearth of Spanish-speaking Latinx teachers and teachers who feel confident using culturally responsive teaching with them. We hope that this study conveys the importance of hiring more bilingual Latinx teachers and training all teachers in culturally responsive teaching to ensure that Latinx students are able to meet their full potential.

Highlights.

  • Teacher ethnicity and bilingualism predict culturally responsive teaching self-efficacy (CRTSE)

  • Bilingual Latinx teachers use more ‘mainstream’ effective classroom strategies with Latinx students

  • Bilingual Latinx teachers use more culturally responsive practices with Latinx students

  • CRTSE mediates link between teacher ethnicity/bilingualism and practices

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the teachers who committed their valuable and limited time to participating in this study. We also thank the research team at the Center for Early Childhood Health & Development at New York University Langone Medical Center for their assistance with data collection and management.

Funding: This work was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [R01HD066122] awarded to the second author.

Footnotes

1

Group invariance was examined to ensure that findings were robust across teachers of MA students and DA students. No significant differences were found.

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

References

  1. Aaron R, & Powell G (1982). Feedback practices as a function of teacher and pupil race during reading group instruction. The Journal of Negro Education, 51(1), 50–59. 10.2307/2294649 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Adair JK (2011). Confirming chanclas: What early childhood teacher educators can learn from immigrant preschool teachers. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 32(1), 55–71. 10.1080/10901027.2010.547652 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Ajayi L (2011). How ESL teachers’ sociocultural identities mediate their teacher role identities in a diverse urban school setting. The Urban Review, 43(5), 654–680. [Google Scholar]
  4. Alexander KL, Entwisle DR, & Horsey CS (1997). From first grade forward: Early foundations of high school dropout. Sociology of Education, 70(2), 87–107. 10.2307/2673158 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. August D, & Shanahan T (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates [Google Scholar]
  6. Bailey F, & Pransky K (2005). Are “other people’s children” constructivist learners too? Theory Into Practice, 44(1), 19–26. 10.1207/s15430421tip4401_4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bandura A (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Banilower ER, Smith PS, Weiss IR, Malzahn KA, Campbell KM, & Weis AM (2013). Report of the 2012 national survey of science and mathematics education. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizons Research, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  9. Barth JM, Dunlap ST, Dane H, Lochman JE, & Wells KC (2004). Classroom environment influences on aggression, peer relations, and academic focus. Journal of School Psychology, 42(2), 115–133. 10.1016/j.jsp.2003.11.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Barton PE, & Coley RJ (2009). Parsing the Achievement Gap II. Educational Testing Service [Google Scholar]
  11. Beaulieu R (2016). A critical discourse analysis of teacher-student relationships in a third-grade literacy lesson: Dynamics of microaggression. Cogent Education, 3(1), 1–20. 10.1080/2331186x.2016.1244028 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Becerra D (2012). Perceptions of educational barriers affecting the academic achievement of Latino K–12 students. Children & Schools, 34(3), 167–177. 10.1093/cs/cds001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Bergad LW (2016). The Latino population of New York City, 1990–2015. Center for Latin American, Caribbean, & Latino Studies, CUNY Graduate Center [Google Scholar]
  14. Bond B, Quintero E, Casey L, & Di Carlo M (2015). The state of teacher diversity in American education. Washington, D.C.: Albert Shanker Institute [Google Scholar]
  15. Boser U (2014). Teacher diversity revisited: A new state-by-state analysis. [Google Scholar]
  16. Brotman LM, Kingston S, Bat-Chava Y, Caldwell MB, & Calzada EJ (2008). Training school personnel to facilitate a family intervention to prevent conduct problems. Early Education and Development, 19(4), 622–642. 10.1080/15374410802231057 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Bryan J, Day-Vines NL, Griffin D, & Moore-Thomas C (2012). The disproportionality dilemma: Patterns of teacher referrals to school counselors for disruptive behavior. Journal of Counseling & Development, 90(2), 177–190. [Google Scholar]
  18. Bui YN, & Fagan YM (2013). The effects of an integrated reading comprehension strategy: A culturally responsive teaching approach for fifth-grade students’ reading comprehension. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 57(2), 59–69. 10.1080/1045988x.2012.664581 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Burchinal MR, Peisner-Feinberg E, Pianta R, & Howes C (2002). Development of academic skills from preschool through second grade: Family and classroom predictors of developmental trajectories. Journal of School Psychology, 40(5), 415–436. 10.1016/s0022-4405(02)00107-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Byalick R, & Bersoff DN (1974). Reinforcement practices of black and white teachers in integrated classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66(4), 473–480. 10.1037/h0036742 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Caldarella P, Larsen RA, Williams L, Downs KR, Wills HP, & Wehby JH (2020). Effects of teachers’ praise-to-reprimand ratios on elementary students’ on-task behaviour. Educational Psychology, 1–17. [Google Scholar]
  22. Chu H (2013). Latinos in New York City, K-12 Public Schools, 1990–2009. (50). New York, NY: Center for Latin American, Caribbean, & Latino Studies, CUNY Graduate Center [Google Scholar]
  23. Chu S-Y, & Garcia S (2014). Culturally Responsive Teaching Efficacy Beliefs of In-Service Special Education Teachers. Remedial and Special Education, 35(4), 218–232. 10.1177/0741932513520511 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Clark ER, & Flores BB (2001). Who am I? The social construction of ethnic identity and self-perceptions in Latino preservice teachers. The Urban Review, 33(2), 69–86. 10.1023/A:10103802 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Clewell BC, & Villegas AM (1998). Diversifying the teaching force to improve urban schools: Meeting the challenge. . Education and Urban Society, 31(1), 3–17. [Google Scholar]
  26. Colby SL, & Ortman JM (2015). Projections of the size and composition of the US population: 2014 to 2060. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau [Google Scholar]
  27. de Brey C, Musu L, McFarland J, Wilkinson-Flicker S, Diliberti M, Zhang A, Branstetter C, & Wang X (2019). Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups 2018. (NCES 2019–038). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics [Google Scholar]
  28. Debnam KJ, Pas ET, Bottiani J, Cash AH, & Bradshaw CP (2015). An examination of the association between observed and self-reported culturally proficient teaching practices. Psychology in the Schools, 52(6), 533–548. 10.1002/pits.21845 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Dee TS (2004). Teachers, race, and student achievement in a randomized experiment. Review of Economics and Statistics, 86(1), 195–210. 10.1162/003465304323023750 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Delale-O’Connor LA, Alvarez AJ, Murray IE, & Milner I, Richard H. (2017). Self-efficacy beliefs, classroom management, and the cradle-to-prison pipeline. Theory Into Practice, 56(3), 178–186. [Google Scholar]
  31. Delpit L (1995). Other People’s Children: Cultural Conflict in the Classroom. W.W. Norton & Co. [Google Scholar]
  32. Downer JT, Goble P, Myers SS, & Pianta RC (2016). Teacher-child racial/ethnic match within pre-kindergarten classrooms and children’s early school adjustment. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 37, 26–38. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2016.02.007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Downer JT, López ML, Grimm KJ, Hamagami A, Pianta RC, & Howes C (2012). Observations of teacher–child interactions in classrooms serving Latinos and dual language learners: Applicability of the Classroom Assessment Scoring System in diverse settings. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27(1), 21–32. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.07.005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Egalite AJ, Kisida B, & Winters MA (2015). Representation in the classroom: The effect of own-race teachers on student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 45, 44–52. [Google Scholar]
  35. Enders CK, & Tofighi D (2007). Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12(2), 121–138. 10.1037/1082-989x.12.2.121 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Fiarman SE (2016). Unconscious bias: When good intentions aren’t enough. Educational Leadership, 74(3), 10–15. [Google Scholar]
  37. Floden R, Stephens A, & Scherer L (2020). Changing Expectations for the K-12 Teacher Workforce: Policies, Preservice Education, Professional Development, and the Workplace. Consensus Study Report. National Academies Press. [Google Scholar]
  38. Gaias LM, Lindstrom Johnson S, Bottiani JH, Debnam KJ, & Bradshaw CP (2019). Examining teachers’ classroom management profiles: Incorporating a focus on culturally responsive practice. Journal of School Psychology, 76, 124–139. 10.1016/j.jsp.2019.07.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. García-Nevarez AG, Stafford ME, & Arias B (2005). Arizona elementary teachers’ attitudes toward English language learners and the use of Spanish in classroom instruction. Bilingual Research Journal, 29(2), 295–317. [Google Scholar]
  40. Gay G (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(2), 106–116. 10.1177/0022487102053002003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Gay G (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. Teachers College Press. [Google Scholar]
  42. Gershenson S, Hart C, Hyman J, Lindsay C, & Papageorge NW (2018). The long-run impacts of same-race teachers (0898–2937). [Google Scholar]
  43. Goldenberg C (2008). Teaching English language learners. American Educator, 32(2), 8–44. [Google Scholar]
  44. Goldhaber D, Theobald R, & Tien C (2015). The theoretical and empirical arguments for diversifying the teacher workforce: A review of the evidence. The Center for Education Data & Research [Google Scholar]
  45. Gomez ML, Rodriguez TL, & Agosto V (2008). Who are Latino prospective teachers and what do they bring to US schools? Race Ethnicity and Education, 11(3), 267–283. 10.1080/13613320802291165 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. González N, Moll LC, & Amanti C (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [Google Scholar]
  47. Green CL, Walker JM, Hoover-Dempsey KV, & Sandler HM (2007). Parents’ motivations for involvement in children’s education: An empirical test of a theoretical model of parental involvement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 532–544. 10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.532 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Gregory A, Skiba RJ, & Noguera PA (2010). The achievement gap and the discipline gap: Two sides of the same coin? Educational Researcher, 39(1), 59–68. 10.3102/0013189X09357621 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Griner AC, & Stewart ML (2013). Addressing the achievement gap and disproportionality through the use of culturally responsive teaching practices. Urban Education, 48(4), 585–621. [Google Scholar]
  50. Grolnick WS, Benjet C, Kurowski CO, & Apostoleris NH (1997). Predictors of parent involvement in children’s schooling. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(3), 538–548. 10.1037//0022-0663.89.3.538 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  51. Hattie J (2003). Teachers make a difference: what is the research evidence? ACER Research Conference, Melbourne, Australia. [Google Scholar]
  52. Hattie J (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  53. Heck RH, & Thomas SL (2015). An introduction to multilevel modeling techniques: MLM and SEM approaches using Mplus. Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  54. Hemphill FC, & Vanneman A (2011). Achievement gaps: How Hispanic and White students in public schools perform in mathematics and reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress: Statistical Analysis Report. (NCES 2011–459). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences [Google Scholar]
  55. Hernandez DJ (2011). Double jeopardy: How third-grade reading skills and poverty influence high school graduation. Annie E. Casey Foundation [Google Scholar]
  56. Hester PP, Hendrickson JM, & Gable RA (2009). Forty years later -- The value of praise, ignoring, and rules for preschoolers at risk for behavior disorders [Article]. Education and Treatment of Children, 32(4), 513–535. 10.1353/etc.0.0067 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  57. Hopkins M (2013). Building on our teaching assets: The unique pedagogical contributions of bilingual educators. Bilingual Research Journal, 36(3), 350–370. 10.1080/15235882.2013.845116 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  58. Howes C, Burchinal M, Pianta R, Bryant D, Early D, Clifford R, & Barbarin O (2008). Ready to learn? Children’s pre-academic achievement in pre-Kindergarten programs. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23(1), 27–50. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2007.05.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  59. Howsen RM, & Trawick MW (2007). Teachers, race and student achievement revisited. Applied Economics Letters, 14(14), 1023–1027. 10.1080/13504850600706453 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  60. Huang FL (2016). Alternatives to multilevel modeling for the analysis of clustered data. The Journal of Experimental Education, 84(1), 175–196. 10.1080/00220973.2014.952397 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  61. Ingersoll R, & May H (2016). Minority teacher recruitment, employment, and retention: 1987 to 2013. Learning Policy Institute, Stanford, CA. [Google Scholar]
  62. Ingersoll R, Merrill L, & Stuckey D (2014). Seven trends: The transformation of the teaching force, updated April 2014. (RR-80). Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania [Google Scholar]
  63. Irvine JJ, & Armento BJ (2001). Culturally responsive teaching: Lesson planning for elementary and middle grades. McGraw-Hill. [Google Scholar]
  64. Jackson G, & Cosca C (1974). The inequality of educational opportunity in the Southwest: An observational study of ethnically mixed classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 11(3), 219–229. 10.3102/00028312011003219 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  65. Jensen B, Grajeda S, & Haertel E (2018). Measuring Cultural Dimensions of Classroom Interactions. Educational Assessment, 23(4), 250–276. 10.1080/10627197.2018.1515010 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  66. Johnson SM, Kardos SM, Kauffman D, Liu E, & Donaldson ML (2004). The support gap: New teachers’ early experiences in high-income and low-income schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(61), 1–23. 10.14507/epaa.v12n61.2004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  67. Joshi E, Doan S, & Springer MG (2018). Student-teacher race congruence: New evidence and insight from Tennessee. AERA Open, 4(4), 2332858418817528. [Google Scholar]
  68. Kena G, Hussar W, McFarland J, de Brey C, Musu-Gillette L, Wang X, Zhang J, Rathbun A, Wilkinson-Flicker S, & Diliberti M (2016). The Condition of Education 2016. (NCES 2016–144). Washington, D.C. [Google Scholar]
  69. Klugman J, Lee JC, & Nelson SL (2012). School co-ethnicity and Hispanic parental involvement. Social Science Research, 41(5), 1320–1337. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Kohli R (2009). Critical race reflections: Valuing the experiences of teachers of color in teacher education. Race Ethnicity and Education, 12(2), 235–251. 10.1080/13613320902995491 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  71. Ladson-Billings G (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491. 10.3102/00028312032003465 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  72. Ladson-Billings G (1995). But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy. Theory Into Practice, 34(3), 159–165. 10.1080/00405849509543675 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  73. Larson KE, Pas ET, Bradshaw CP, Rosenberg MS, & Day-Vines NL (2018). Examining How Proactive Management and Culturally Responsive Teaching Relate to Student Behavior: Implications for Measurement and Practice. School Psychology Review, 47(2), 153–166. 10.17105/SPR-2017-0070.V47-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  74. Little RJ (1988). A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. Journal of the American statistical Association, 83(404), 1198–1202. [Google Scholar]
  75. Lopez FA (2016). Culturally Responsive Pedagogies in Arizona and Latino Students’ Achievement. Teachers College Record, 118(5), n5. [Google Scholar]
  76. Markowitz AJ, Bassok D, & Grissom JA (2020). Teacher-Child Racial/Ethnic Match and Parental Engagement With Head Start. American Educational Research Journal, 0002831219899356. 10.3102/0002831219899356 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  77. Marschall M (2006). Parent involvement and educational outcomes for Latino students. Review of Policy Research, 23(5), 1053–1076. 10.1111/j.1541-1338.2006.00249.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  78. Mashburn AJ, Pianta RC, Hamre BK, Downer JT, Barbarin OA, Bryant D, Burchinal M, Early DM, & Howes C (2008). Measures of classroom quality in prekindergarten and children’s development of academic, language, and social skills. Child Development, 79(3), 732–749. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01154.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  79. Matthews JS, & López F (2019). Speaking their language: The role of cultural content integration and heritage language for academic achievement among Latino children. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 57, 72–86. [Google Scholar]
  80. McFadden AC, Marsh GE, Price BJ, & Hwang Y (1992). A study of race and gender bias in the punishment of school children. Education and Treatment of Children, 15(2), 140–146. 10.1007/BF0110835 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  81. McFarland J, Cui J, Rathbun A, & Holmes J (2018). Trends in High School Dropout and Completion Rates in the United States: 2018. Compendium Report. NCES 2019–117. National Center for Education Statistics. [Google Scholar]
  82. McFarland J, Hussar B, Wang X, Zhang J, Wang K, Rathbun A, Barmer A, Cataldi EF, & Mann FB (2018). The Condition of Education 2018. (NCES 2018–144). Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences [Google Scholar]
  83. Michie G (2007). Seeing, hearing, and talking race: Lessons for white teachers from four teachers of color. Multicultural Perspectives, 9(1), 3–9. 10.1080/15210960701333633 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  84. Milner HR, & Tenore FB (2010). Classroom management in diverse classrooms. Urban Education, 45(5), 560–603. 10.1177/0042085910377290 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  85. Monzó LD, & Rueda R (2003). Shaping education through diverse funds of knowledge: A look at one Latina paraeducator’s lived experiences, beliefs, and teaching practice. Anthropology Education Quarterly, 34(1), 72–95. 10.1525/aeq.2003.34.1.72 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  86. Morales AR, & Shroyer MG (2016). Personal agency inspired by hardship: Bilingual Latinas as liberatory educators. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 18(3), 1–21. [Google Scholar]
  87. Muthén L, & Muthén B (1998–2019). Mplus User’s Guide. Eighth Edition. Muthén & Muthén. [Google Scholar]
  88. Nathenson-Mejia S, & Escamilla K (2003). Connecting with Latino children: Bridging cultural gaps with children’s literature. Bilingual Research Journal, 27(1), 101–116. [Google Scholar]
  89. Noltemeyer A, & Mcloughlin CS (2010). Patterns of exclusionary discipline by school typology, ethnicity, and their interaction. Penn GSE Perspectives on Urban Education, 7(1), 27–40. [Google Scholar]
  90. Oberg De La Garza T, Lavigne AL, & Si S (2020). Culturally responsive teaching through the lens of Dual Language education: Intersections and opportunities. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(4), 1557–1571. [Google Scholar]
  91. Ouazad A (2014). Assessed by a teacher like me: Race and teacher assessments. Education Finance and Policy, 9(3), 334–372. 10.1162/edfp_a_00136 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  92. Peugh JL (2010). A practical guide to multilevel modeling. Journal of School Psychology, 48(1), 85–112. 10.1016/j.jsp.2009.09.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  93. Pianta RC, Hamre BK, & Allen JP (2012). Teacher-student relationships and engagement: Conceptualizing, measuring, and improving the capacity of classroom interactions. In Christenson S, Reschly A, & Wylie C (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 365–386). Springer. [Google Scholar]
  94. Pianta RC, La Paro KM, Payne C, Cox MJ, & Bradley R (2002). The relation of kindergarten classroom environment to teacher, family, and school characteristics and child outcomes. The Elementary School Journal, 102(3), 225–238. 10.1086/499701 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  95. Powell DR, Burchinal MR, File N, & Kontos S (2008). An eco-behavioral analysis of children’s engagement in urban public school preschool classrooms. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23(1), 108–123. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2007.04.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  96. Preacher KJ, & Hayes AF (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891. 10.3758/brm.40.3.879 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  97. Preacher KJ, Zyphur MJ, & Zhang Z (2010). A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15(3), 209–233. 10.1037/a0020141 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  98. Quiocho A, & Rios F (2000). The power of their presence: Minority group teachers and schooling. Review of Educational Research, 70(4), 485–528. 10.2307/1170779 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  99. Rasheed DS, Brown JL, Doyle SL, & Jennings PA (2020). The Effect of Teacher–Child Race/Ethnicity Matching and Classroom Diversity on Children’s Socioemotional and Academic Skills. Child Development, 91(3), e597–e618. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  100. Reardon SF, & Galindo C (2009). The Hispanic-White achievement gap in math and reading in the elementary grades. American Educational Research Journal, 46(3), 853–891. 10.3102/0002831209333184 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  101. Redding C (2019). A Teacher Like Me: A Review of the Effect of Student–Teacher Racial/Ethnic Matching on Teacher Perceptions of Students and Student Academic and Behavioral Outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 89(4), 499–535. 10.3102/0034654319853545 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  102. Rong XL (1996). Effects of race and gender on teachers’ perception of the social behavior of elementary students. Urban Education, 31(3), 261–290. 10.1177/0042085996031003003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  103. Scribner JD, & Reyes P (1999). Creating learning communities for high-performing Hispanic students: A conceptual framework. In Reyes P, Scribner JD, & Scribner A (Eds.), Lessons from high-performing Hispanic schools: Creating learning communities (pp. 188–210). Teachers College Press. [Google Scholar]
  104. Sheets RH (1995). From remedial to gifted: Effects of culturally centered pedagogy. Theory Into Practice, 34(3), 186–193. 10.1080/00405849509543678 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  105. Sheets RH, & Hollins ER (1999). Relating ethnic and racial identity development to teaching. In Racial and ethnic identity in school practices: Aspects of human development. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [Google Scholar]
  106. Siwatu KO (2007). Preservice teachers’ culturally responsive teaching self-efficacy and outcome expectancy beliefs. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(7), 1086–1101. 10.1016/j.tate.2006.07.011 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  107. Siwatu KO (2009). Student Teachers’ Self-Efficacy Beliefs regarding Culturally Responsive Teaching and Their Professed Classroom Practices. Teacher Education and Practice, 22(3), 323–333. [Google Scholar]
  108. Siwatu KO (2011). Preservice teachers’ sense of preparedness and self-efficacy to teach in America’s urban and suburban schools: Does context matter? Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(2), 357–365. [Google Scholar]
  109. Siwatu KO, Polydore CL, & Starker TV (2009). Prospective elementary school teachers’ culturally responsive teaching self-efficacy beliefs. Multicultural Learning and Teaching, 4(1). 10.2202/2161-2412.1040 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  110. Skiba RJ, Horner RH, Chung C-G, Rausch MK, May SL, & Tobin T (2011). Race is not neutral: A national investigation of African American and Latino disproportionality in school discipline. School Psychology Review, 40(1), 85–107. [Google Scholar]
  111. Skiba RJ, Peterson RL, & Williams T (1997). Office referrals and suspension: Disciplinary intervention in middle schools. Education and Treatment of Children, 20(3), 295–315. [Google Scholar]
  112. Sleeter CE (2017). Critical race theory and the whiteness of teacher education. Urban Education, 52(2), 155–169. [Google Scholar]
  113. Sosa T, & Gomez K (2012). Connecting teacher efficacy beliefs in promoting resilience to support of Latino students. Urban Education, 47(5), 876–909. [Google Scholar]
  114. Stipek D (2004). Teaching practices in kindergarten and first grade: Different strokes for different folks. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19(4), 548–568. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2004.10.010 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  115. Stronge JH, Ward TJ, & Grant LW (2011). What makes good teachers good? A cross-case analysis of the connection between teacher effectiveness and student achievement. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(4), 339–355. 10.1177/0022487111404241 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  116. Su Z (1997). Teaching as a profession and as a career: Minority candidates’ perspectives. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13(3), 325–340. 10.1016/s0742-051x(96)00021-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  117. Tellez K (1999). Mexican-American preservice teachers and the intransigency of the elementary school curriculum. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15(5), 555–570. 10.1016/s0742-051x(98)00067-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  118. Tenenbaum HR, & Ruck MD (2007). Are teachers’ expectations different for racial minority than for European American students? A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 253. [Google Scholar]
  119. Tschannen-Moran M, Hoy AW, & Hoy WK (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202–248. [Google Scholar]
  120. Ullman C, & Hecsh J (2011). These American lives: Becoming a culturally responsive teacher and the ‘risks of empathy’. Race Ethnicity and Education, 14(5), 603–629. 10.1080/13613324.2011.589172 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  121. Umaña-Taylor AJ, & Fine MA (2004). Examining ethnic identity among Mexican-origin adolescents living in the United States. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 26(1), 36–59. 10.1177/0739986303262143 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  122. Villegas AM, & Irvine JJ (2010). Diversifying the teaching force: An examination of major arguments. The Urban Review, 42(3), 175–192. 10.1007/s11256-010-0150-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  123. Villegas AM, Strom K, & Lucas T (2012). Closing the racial/ethnic gap between students of color and their teachers: An elusive goal. Equity & Excellence in Education, 45(2), 283–301. [Google Scholar]
  124. Wang MC, Haertel GD, & Walberg HJ (1990). What influences learning? a content analysis of review literature. Journal of Educational Research, 84(1), 30–43. [Google Scholar]
  125. Ware F (2006). Warm demander pedagogy: Culturally responsive teaching that supports a culture of achievement for African American students. Urban Education, 41(4), 427–456. 10.1177/0042085906289710 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  126. Webster-Stratton C (1998). Preventing conduct problems in Head Start children: Strengthening parenting competencies. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 66(5), 715–730. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  127. Weisman EM (2001). Bicultural identity and language attitudes: Perspectives of four Latina teachers. Urban Education, 36(2), 203–225. 10.1177/0042085901362004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  128. Woolfolk Hoy A, Davis HA, & Anderman EM (2013). Theories of Learning and Teaching in TIP [Article]. Theory Into Practice, 52(sup1), 9–21. 10.1080/00405841.2013.795437 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  129. Wright A, Gottfried MA, & Le V-N (2017). A kindergarten teacher like me: The role of student-teacher race in social-emotional development. American Educational Research Journal, 54(1_suppl), 78S–101S. [Google Scholar]
  130. Yoder N (2014). Teaching the whole child: Instructional practices that support social-emotional learning in three teacher evaluation frameworks. Washington, D.C.: Center on Great Teachers & Leaders [Google Scholar]
  131. Zee M, & Koomen HM (2016). Teacher self-efficacy and its effects on classroom processes, student academic adjustment, and teacher well-being: A synthesis of 40 years of research. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 981–1015. [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES