Metropolitan Center for Research on Equity and the Transformation of Schools

Cultivating New Ground in Culturally Responsive Curriculum

Dr. Leah Q. Peoples & Dr. Andolyn Brown

 

Cultivating New Ground in Culturally Responsive Curriculum…Finally some good news!

Friends! Our new report, "Cultivating New Ground: Shifts Towards Culturally Responsive Curriculum", will be published in June 2026 and will highlight five key findings from our most recent curriculum evaluation. When most of us first started imagining what a culturally responsive curriculum looked like, we gravitated to this idea of representation, specifically the representation of more people of color. For those of you who have been galvanizing, organizing and planning around adopting a culturally responsive curriculum that meets this goal, we have some great news to share with you!  In this blog you will move from the history of representation in curriculum to a celebration of the new ground being cultivated.

Racial and Cultural Representation in Curriculum: A Quick Historical Overview

Over the past century, nearly all reviews examining racial and cultural representation in textbooks and curricula have found that marginalized groups, including Black people, Indigenous people, women, and immigrants, have been regularly underrepresented, mischaracterized, or depicted through violent and stereotypical portrayals. These depictions often undervalue and dehumanize marginalized groups while upholding and humanizing white people (Brosnan, 2016; Padgett, 2015; Wolf, 1992; Carmichael et al., 2025; Trecker, 1973; Zaidi, 2010; Allen, 1971; Deckman et al., 2018; Deroo & Diaz, 2021; Eigenberg & Park, 2016; Woyshner & Schocker, 2015; Marshall & Roddick, 2023; Jimenez, 2020; Perlmutter, 2009; Brown & Brown, 2016). These reviews have underscored the ways bias, racism, and sanitization coincide with essentialized, simplified, and shallow depictions of marginalized groups. Many studies discussed the implications of such limited regard for marginalized people in textbooks. For instance, Van S. Allen (1971), reviewed images from textbooks published between 1961 and 1971, and wrote,

“In too many instances the black child doesn't see any-one of his own color in positions other than those that are unskilled. This situation, like others mentioned previously, does not stimulate him to become his best self. He needs to see more of his own people, people with whom he can identify, in all types of employment. It is difficult to conceive of oneself as an industrialist if there is no one with whom to identify in that role.”

Allen’s observations echo those of countless other scholars who, over the past century, have repeatedly studied curricula, offered similar critiques, drawn comparable conclusions, and suggested ways to make curricula more equitable, with seemingly limited progress.

Textbooks and curricula are often described as the roadmap for what U.S. students learn. They filter which knowledge is most important, shape students’ views and perspectives on society and possibility, and establish the foundation for what is considered “normal” (McLaren, 2015; Sleeter & Grant, 1991; Banks, 1969; Calderon, 2014). As such it is important that researchers and practitioners remain vigilant regarding this important feature of classroom learning.

Representation and the CRSE Scorecard

The Culturally Responsive English Language Arts Curriculum and Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Math Curriculum Scorecards continue this legacy of curriculum analysis, albeit in a few different ways. Unlike other curriculum reviews, the Scorecards shift the cultural authority for evaluation from academia and publishing houses to educators, administrators, students, families, and community members, who form evaluation teams to collectively review and score curricula. These teams read Scorecard statements like the ones below, assign scores to the curriculum, and deliberate as a group. Throughout this process, team members provide rationales for their scores and consider the perspectives and reasoning of others. Additionally, the scorecard provides detailed statements with regard to what representation means in the curriculum.  

Image captures an outlined scorecard. The scorecard has a navy blue top, with light blue cells. The cells on the far right sde features checkmarks and or "x"'s. The workd screcard is listed at the bottom of the figure.

An evaluation of the top three ELA curricula using the Scorecards revealed findings consistent with the 100-year legacy of problematic inclusion of marginalized groups in curricula (Khan, Peoples, & Foster, 2022). The report found that the evaluated curricula featured superficial representations of marginalized groups, centered "one-sided storytelling that provided a single, ahistorical narrative," and "used language, tone, and syntax that demeaned and dehumanized" marginalized groups. Scorecards users have also informally reported that most curricula were rated as culturally destructive or insufficient. As a result, there are many examples of what harmful curricula look like, but far fewer models of culturally responsive curricula. School communities frequently request culturally responsive exemplars they can purchase or reference as they modify other curricula to make them more culturally responsive.

Image captures an simply animated totem of sveral different images , including an open hand holding yooung people in it's palm. To the right the image of a graudate wearing a cap and gown, as they walk up a flight of stairs (possibly to the stage). To the left of that is the image of a human head with a lightning bolt in it. To the left of that, there is an image of a hand just above a caution symbol.. Bleow thiese visual elements is written text that reads, "Cluturally Responsive Teaching

Good News: Cultivating New Ground in Representation

Finally, we get to the part where we get to share the good news! One way we sought to close the gap in understanding and imagination around CRE was by identifying curricula with the greatest potential to advance culturally responsive education (CRE) and avoiding the more prevalent culturally destructive and insufficient curricula. To accomplish this, we sent a field survey to over 200 educators, practitioners, and community members to gather recommendations for culturally responsive curricula. 

This process led us to review five promising curricula with input from more than 45 diverse educators, family members, students, and administrators. The results of these curricula evaluations mark a notable departure from the familiar critiques that have persisted throughout a century of curriculum reviews, and instead illustrated curricula that more fully embodies the core concepts of culturally responsive education. 

These findings, taken together, represent a shift away from “Old Ground” curricula, which we define as curricula that superficially include marginalized groups, uphold the status quo, and sanitize historical moments and events towards “New Ground” curricula which we define as culturally responsive. 

Image captures bulleted text which from top to bottom reads, "Superficially incorporates some of the three characteristics of culturally responsive curriculum: academic achievement, cultural competency, and sociopolitical consciousness, Upholds the status quo, unchallenged,, Historical moments and current events are detached from humanity and presented as neutral facts,, Minimal representation outside of dominant cultural groups,, Usually encourages some critical thinking, but excludes critically thin ,

While the New Ground curricula featured in our report still have shortcomings, the nature of critiques has evolved. Rather than focusing solely on egregiously racist or biased representations of marginalized groups, discussions now center on appreciating more comprehensive representation and seeking greater inclusion of intersecting identities. This shift in deliberative focus signals a substantial change from Old Ground curricula and marks clear progress toward a new frontier for culturally responsive education.

What’s Next?

So what are we hoping you take away here? First and foremost we want to acknowledge the developers of the curriculum featured in our report for meaningfully advancing culturally responsive curricula. For years practitioners consistently ask for examples of culturally responsive curriculum and now there are exemplars to point to! 

Image captures written text from top to bottom which reads as follows, "Meaningfully incorporates some or all of the three characteristics of culturally responsive curriculum: academic achievement, cultural competency, and sociopolitical consciousness (Ladson-Billings, 2014), Elevates and affirms the experiences of marginalized groups and presents students with opportunities to see events through the eyes of marginalized people, Wider representation across salient cultural groups, Encourages critical thinki

The next thing that we hope you take away with you is the power of your voice. Many of you reading this blog are not new to this work and have been part of the highs and lows of advancing cultural responsiveness in schools. Currently there is an orchestrated attack against cultural responsiveness and equity in schools that weighs heavily on the hearts, minds and spirits of many of us. However, thanks to your perseverance, your rigorous expectations, and your insistence that kids be engaged in the kinds of curriculum that they deserve, we now have curriculum developers doing the work to create quality culturally responsive content.  

Although it is exhausting to keep up the fight (and we must!), NOW is a moment to celebrate that victory. We want to end by recognizing the immensity of the “win” in  finally crossing the threshold into New Ground curriculum and acknowledge there is still work left to be done by community supporters, educators, students and curriculum developers. We share some ideas and suggestions in our upcoming report,“Cultivating New Ground: Shifts Towards Culturally Responsive Curriculum”, scheduled to be released in June 2026. Be sure to check it out! 

In the meantime let’s #Celebrate #KeepReimagining #KeepInnovating #KeepAgitating #KeepInsisting and #KeepUsingThatScorecard as we continue to march into new ground.

Let us know your hashtag commitments as you comment below!

Read more blog posts

References

  1. Allen, V. S. (1971). An Analysis of Textbooks Relative to the Treatment of Black Americans. The Journal of Negro Education, 40(2), 140–145. https://doi.org/10.2307/2966724

  2. Banks, J. A. (1969). A content analysis of the Black American in text- books. Social Education, 33(8), 954–957, 963.

  3. Brosnan, A. (2016). Representations of race and racism in the textbooks used in southern black schools during the American Civil War and Reconstruction era, 1861–1876. Paedagogica Historica, 52(6), 718–733. https://doi.org/10.1080/00309230.2016.1223703

  4. Brown, A. L., & Brown, K. D. (2015). The more things change, the more they stay the same: excavating race and the enduring racisms in U.S. curriculum. Teachers College Record the Voice of Scholarship in Education, 117(14), 103–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811511701405

  5. Calderon, D. (2014). Uncovering Settler Grammars in Curriculum. Educational Studies, 50(4), 313–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131946.2014.926904

  6. Carmichael, J., Parnell, J., & Fathalizadeh, R. (2025). “Unjust and unworthy portrayal”: a multimodal content analysis of Black experiences in U.S. history textbooks. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2025.2486118

  7. Deckman, S. L., Fulmer, E. F., Kirby, K., Hoover, K., & Mackall, A. S. (2018). Numbers are Just Not Enough: A Critical Analysis of Race, Gender, and Sexuality in Elementary and Middle School Health Textbooks. Educational Studies, 54(3), 285–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131946.2017.1411261

  8. Deroo, M. R., & Díaz, E. (2021). “They enjoyed little political power:” Representations of immigrant experience in an 11th-grade U.S. history textbook. Linguistics and Education, 64, 100952. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2021.100952

  9. Eigenberg, H. M., & Park, S. M. (2015). Marginalization and invisibility of women of color. Race and Justice, 6(3), 257–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/2153368715600223

  10. Jiménez, J. (2020). Race, Discrimination, and the Passive Voice: Hardship Narratives in U.S. Social Studies Textbooks: 1860 to the present. Journal of Social Studies Education Research, 11(2), 1–26. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1260488.pdf

  11. Khan, F., Peoples, L. Q., & Foster, L. (2022). Lessons in (in)equity: An evaluation of cultural responsiveness in elementary English language arts curriculum. NYU’s Education Justice Research and Organizing Collaborative. https://steinhardt.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/2022-10/Lessons%20in%20%28In%29Equity%20FINAL%20ACCESSIBLE.10.31.22.pdf

  12.  Ladson-Billings, G. (2014). Culturally Relevant Pedagogy 2.0 A.K.A. the Remix. Harvard Educational Review, 84, 74-84.

  13. Padgett, G. (2015). A Critical Case Study of Selected U.S. History Textbooks from a Tribal Critical Race Theory Perspective. The Qualitative Report. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2015.2106

  14. Marshall, T. R., & Rodick, W. H. (2023). more complex racial and ethnic representation in books. In The Education Trust. https://edtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Curriculum-Report-FINAL.pdf

  15. Perlmutter, D. D. (1997). Re‐visions of the holocaust: Textbook images and historical myth‐making. Howard Journal of Communications, 8(2), 151–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/10646179709361750

  16. Sleeter, C. E., & Grant, C. A. (1991). Race, Class, Gender, and Disability in Current Textbooks. In M. Apple & L. K. Christian-Smith (Eds.), The Politics of the Textbook (pp. 78–110). New York, NY: Routledge.

  17. Trecker, J. L. (1973). Women in US history high school textbooks. International Review of Education, 19(1), 133–139. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00597788

  18. Wolf, A. (1992). Minorities in U.S. History Textbooks, 1945-1985. The Clearing House, 65(5), 291–297. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30188715

  19. Woyshner, C., & Schocker, J. B. (2015). Cultural Parallax and Content Analysis: Images of Black Women in High School History Textbooks. Theory & Research in Social Education, 43(4), 441–468. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2015.1099487

  20. Zaidi, A. S. (2010). Essentialist stereotypes in textbooks on Hispanic studies. Humanity & Society, 34(2), 157–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/016059761003400204

Leah Q. Peoples, PhD, is a researcher, evaluator, educational equity advocate with Transformative Research.  

Andolyn Brown

IESC Senior Equity Associate

ab11130@nyu.edu