A struggle exists to engage in culturally relevant pedagogy (CRP) that authentically represents the voices and interests of all across the K–20 spectrum, from higher education institutions, to teacher preparation programs, and into U.S. classrooms. This article responds to Hayes and Juárez's piece “There Is No Culturally Responsive Teaching Spoken Here” by extending the conversation with the suggestion that one of the major problems in speaking CRP has to do with a disconnect between articulated commitments and actual practices. This response article takes a critical look at the landscape in which educators work to reveal the nature of overrepresentation of privileged identity markers in teacher composition that do not match with student demographics. The response also examines how misunderstandings about CRP's theoretical and empirical frameworks, along with resistance, permeate individual teachers’ discourses and evidence how higher education institutions, teacher preparation programs, and teacher professional-development programs operate. The response ends with suggestions as to the identity work that is necessary if we are to hope for educators across settings to see and speak a CRP.

Response to Article

Cleveland Hayes and Brenda Juarez, There Is No Culturally Responsive Teaching Spoken Here: A Critical Race Perspective